Quote:
Originally Posted by joeysteele
I agree with Livia as to the anonymity of the accusers and Bill Roache having this smear set alongside him for good now.
I think naming the person facing the allegations may well bring others who have been abused to come forward.
Sadly however,I also think,in cases like this one, that it could bring out people to also accuse who have no substance at all to their accusations but maybe to try to settle scores with someone.
Clearly this jury,only needing 6 hours time too,did not believe any of the accusers and for em that is good enough, justice has it seems been done in this case and I hope Bill Roache and his family can now get back to some normality.
I also think and wish it is was so too, that when someone has faced allegations such as this and have then fought a trial against them and then been found 'not guilty',that those who were the accusers then lose their anonymity at that stage and are named.
I think the public need to know who those acusers were and be protected against them making any false accusations against anyone else.
|
but why do we need to hang these people out to dry to advertise this in order to encourage more to give evidence? if a perosn wants to come forward let them, I dont see why we should sacrifice the accused merely to act as a marketing tool for other accusers.
also time limits must apply...48 years? for goodness sakes.