Getting out of hand.

BensGrandad · May 1, 2013

Much as I appreciate that suspects should be charged with crimes they may have committed I think that these allegations of sexual assault etc against personalities is getting out of hand. Just using the latest Bill Roache how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s. I know people will say that it will live with the victim for ever but I find it hard to accept that any suspects will get a fair trial after such a length of time.

TWOCHOICEStom · May 1, 2013

BensGrandad said:
how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s..

Pretty sure if he raped a 15 year old girl he'd remember.

Hillian1 · May 1, 2013

BensGrandad said:
Much as I appreciate that suspects should be charged with crimes they may have committed I think that these allegations of sexual assault etc against personalities is getting out of hand. Just using the latest Bill Roache how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s. I know people will say that it will live with the victim for ever but I find it hard to accept that any suspects will get a fair trial after such a length of time.

Totally agree.

There should be a time limit on sexual crimes and anything from, say 20 years ago, should be forgotten, like an amnesty.

:facepalm:

Kumquat · May 1, 2013

I think he'd have a clear idea of whether he did or didn't do it.

El Sid · May 1, 2013

BensGrandad said:
Much as I appreciate that suspects should be charged with crimes they may have committed I think that these allegations of sexual assault etc against personalities is getting out of hand. Just using the latest Bill Roache how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s. I know people will say that it will live with the victim for ever but I find it hard to accept that any suspects will get a fair trial after such a length of time.

You cannot be serious suggesting that they have no memory and so therefore unanswerable to serious allegations.

Utter tosh.

Nathan · May 1, 2013

He might not remember her name, but he should remember if he raped a 15 year old.

Rookie · May 1, 2013

Evidence is surely going to be difficult to get. One person's word against another (presuming that don't crumble and admit anything), any physical evidence would have been discarded many years ago you would have thought.

seagullsovergrimsby · May 1, 2013

BensGrandad said:
Much as I appreciate that suspects should be charged with crimes they may have committed I think that these allegations of sexual assault etc against personalities is getting out of hand. Just using the latest Bill Roache how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s. I know people will say that it will live with the victim for ever but I find it hard to accept that any suspects will get a fair trial after such a length of time.

You have to take into account that in the 1960's and 1970's any allegations would have been taken lightly and in some instances ignored and brushed under the carpet. Unless there is corroborating evidence from witnesses or other alleged victims it will be one word against another.

Triggaaar · May 1, 2013

TWOCHOICEStom said:
Pretty sure if he raped a 15 year old girl he'd remember.

Just playing devils advocate here: am I right in thinking it would have been legal for him to have sex with a 16 year old girl who was willing, but if the girl was willing and 1 day under 16, then that would have been raping a 15 year old girl?

Shirty · May 1, 2013

I guess the problem is if the allegations are untrue, then its hard to remember what you were doing at a specific time 30+ years ago to be able to give yourself a reasonable alibi.

I 'm not suggesting that these allegations shouldn't be investigated to the fullest extent possible of course, but I do also think that the accused should be able to remain anonymous until their guilt is proven (celebrity or otherwise)

Uncle Spielberg · May 1, 2013

Considering Bill has had well over 1000 sexual partners I can perfectly believe he cannot remember one from 1967.

Uncle Spielberg · May 1, 2013

I tend to agree with Ben I think. To bring a rape charge forward from 1967 is frankly absurd. Any rape charge will pretty much destroy a Man's life whether he is found guilty or not.

vegster · May 1, 2013

It does seem to keep getting worse, maybe there should be some kind of complete media blackout until a trial verdict ? Innocent until proved guilty is a thing of the past.

Would be interesting to see what would/could happen in the good old USA ? Right from the late 20's the Casting Couch was in place and, almost any actress wishing to get on in the film industry would have to perform " favours " for career advancement, which, is virtually rape or forced prostitution.

BensGrandad · May 1, 2013

Not Guilty or Guilty like ' Kevin' he has been written out of the series until the investigation is concluded so even if completely innocent he will suffer even if only financially.

drop dead fred · May 1, 2013

But why has it taken the said victim 46 years to come forward ??

severnside gull · May 1, 2013

The world has indeed moved on.

As a young man (under the age of consent) in the 60's I certainly recall having sex with females both over 16 and under 16. As far as I recall it was always consensual but sometimes under the influence of alcohol and other substances so could I (or indeed they) be entirely sure at this distance?

Memory is a strange thing and often things I swear to be true are shown not to have been quite as I recall.

In many (I am sure not all) of the current cases there seems to be no suggestion of rape as most would view it but rather an abuse of position/celebrity. All of those being charged apear to be people whose fame might have attracted acolytes (dare one say "groupies"?) of an age to be possibly easily influenced by fame and prosecution seems to be largely motivated by a "political" response to errors in not prosecuting Saville. In a fair trial unhindered by jurors' prejudices and the cultural changes which have massively altered the way we think in the intervening years there seems to be only the remorest chance of successful prosecution for the reasons others have stated.

I am not suggesting that there were not instances of non-consensual sex in some or all cases but proof under the law...........?

Wozza · May 1, 2013

BensGrandad said:
Not Guilty or Guilty like ' Kevin' he has been written out of the series until the investigation is concluded so even if completely innocent he will suffer even if only financially.

Where have you read that his pay has been suspended?

Uncle Spielberg · May 1, 2013

Lewis Dunk's football career from being a glittering star has hit the skids. Whatever way , if he is innocent the damage is devastating, most to his mind and ability to carry on his job I would imagine with all this hanging over him. If he is guilty that is the consequence, if he is innocent it is just wrong. Accusers and the accused should both be named.

Uncle Spielberg · May 1, 2013

severnside gull said:
The world has indeed moved on.

As a young man (under the age of consent) in the 60's I certainly recall having sex with females both over 16 and under 16. As far as I recall it was always consensual but sometimes under the influence of alcohol and other substances so could I (or indeed they) be entirely sure at this distance?

Memory is a strange thing and often things I swear to be true are shown not to have been quite as I recall.

In many (I am sure not all) of the current cases there seems to be no suggestion of rape as most would view it but rather an abuse of position/celebrity. All of those being charged apear to be people whose fame might have attracted acolytes (dare one say "groupies"?) of an age to be possibly easily influenced by fame and prosecution seems to be largely motivated by a "political" response to errors in not prosecuting Saville. In a fair trial unhindered by jurors' prejudices and the cultural changes which have massively altered the way we think in the intervening years there seems to be only the remorest chance of successful prosecution for the reasons others have stated.

I am not suggesting that there were not instances of non-consensual sex in some or all cases but proof under the law...........?

Do you really want to post this on a public forum ? Think about it.

BensGrandad · May 1, 2013

I am sure that I read that the stars of Corrie were going to go on strike as they are only paid if and when they appear in an episode. As far as anonymity goes I think that both should be named or neither which is preferable, until after the court case verdict has been reached.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Getting out of hand.

New member

Well-known member

( . ) ( . )

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Greetings

#cpfctinpotclub

Well-known member

Daring to Zlatan

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sanity Clause

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Shite Supporter

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Share this page