William Roache Cleared of All charges

[arista]

He claims they all agreed to have sex.
And none under age?


The Judge warned the jury
its not about the part he plays
its about him.


http://news.sky.com/story/1194815/william-roache-sent-signed-photo-to-victim


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/1/14/282271/default/v2/william-roache-1-1-522x293.jpg



Roache trial told to ignore Ken Barlow role
Coronation Street actor is on trial at Preston
crown court for sex offences,
including two counts of raping a 15-year-old girl
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/roache-trial-told-ignore-ken-barlow-role-coronation-street

[Livia]

This was way back in the 60s, right? He would have been quite young himself...

[Z]

This spate of historical rape cases just seems so disingenuous to me; I know it's horrible to suggest that actual victims are liars because there's been a "trend" but why would you wait 50 years to report a rape? I mean come on...

[user104658]

This was way back in the 60s, right? He would have been quite young himself...

He's 81, the alleged offense was in 1967, so he would have been 35. Not that young, tbh...

I think the additional allegations span 1964 to 1968, so age 32 - 36, with the girls being aged 12 to 15. At this point it really DOES seem like they were all "at it" though - 30-something year old TV personalities banging their teenage groupies.

I'm dubious about most claims of all-out rape but the issue of course is informed consent. I think most of these men probably did take advantage of their status and manipulate young girls into sexual activity. Celebrity then wasn't what it is now... they probably didn't think their personal lives would ever end up under a microscope.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For me too long has passed. The 60s and 70s were different times, just watch Benny Hill to see what people thought was acceptable and funny. For me this is a waste of judicial time and does real rape cases no favours - same goes with DLT

[Nedusa]

He sent a signed note to a "victim" ???

Yeah right..........did you read the note, there was NOTHING untoward on it, all strictly above board in fact the perfect note you would expect from a TV star of the time.

not rude or smutty or sexually suggestive in any way...just a note

How the hell can this possibly be used as evidence for the "Prosecution" ???

You must be joking right................

[Jake.]

This spate of historical rape cases just seems so disingenuous to me; I know it's horrible to suggest that actual victims are liars because there's been a "trend" but why would you wait 50 years to report a rape? I mean come on...

You say that. but then look at the Saville case

[Z]

For me too long has passed. The 60s and 70s were different times, just watch Benny Hill to see what people thought was acceptable and funny. For me this is a waste of judicial time and does real rape cases no favours - same goes with DLT

Then again, if it weren't for modern interpretations of historical incidents, we wouldn't have had any kind of justice for people like Alan Turing who was a victim of what people thought was acceptable at the time; but by today's standards isn't at all. Perhaps that's why so many people have only come forward now, having seen other people take the first step... I don't know. I find it all a bit unrealistic but I don't feel comfortable saying that too loudly because I don't want to belittle anyone who has been the victim of a serious crime. Michael Le Vell was cleared of any wrong doing, it was a girl crying wolf - not everyone who's accused of sex crimes is guilty.

You say that. but then look at the Saville case

I know, but that was the one that sparked it all. This became a phenomenon and, whether justified or not, a celebrity smear campaign after the initial Savile claims.

[smudgie]

Perhaps the women are coming forward now as they believe they will be listened to due to operation Yewtree?
Very different to in the 60's and 70's.
I wonder just how many girls and women did not report rape at the time.

[Z]

Perhaps the women are coming forward now as they believe they will be listened to due to operation Yewtree?
Very different to in the 60's and 70's.
I wonder just how many girls and women did not report rape at the time.

Yeah... I guess being born in the 90s and growing up in the age of information and in a time where there are human rights breakthroughs all around the world and here in my own country, I find it hard to fathom why a woman would keep the fact she was raped to herself for 40 years; but then I don't know what life was like back then... and I know how scary something like that must be, to go to the police about something so scary and have to relive it... I'm just amazed at the sheer numbers of people coming forward

[Jezzy]

For me too long has passed. The 60s and 70s were different times, just watch Benny Hill to see what people thought was acceptable and funny. For me this is a waste of judicial time and does real rape cases no favours - same goes with DLT

I do agree. I'm sure most people have heard of the casting couch showbiz mentality, groupies have always existed, a rape is a terrifying incident - not something to be dragged up 50 years later.

What will we get next? Rockstar groupies claiming non-consent because they were too drugged out of their heads to give informed consent?

Savile was pure evil, I wouldn't apply that label to most of those that have been retrospectively accused under operation yewtree.

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/15/article-2539768-1AAFD3B400000578-917_634x596.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/15/article-2539768-1AAFD3A500000578-199_634x821.jpg
[Gift: The jury in the trial of Coronation Street actor
Bill Roache was shown this signed photo, allegedly
sent to a 14-year-old girl who has accused
him of indecent assault in the 1960s]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540555/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-court-child-sex-trial.html#ixzz2qZS3nMrS


He started young
on children.


He is Guilty

[Jezzy]

Not an innocuous letter from a "star" to a fan? I see nothing incriminating in that letter.

[Livia]

Nothing in that letter could possibly incriminate him.

[Nedusa]

More likely to be used as evidence for the defence rather than the prosecution........!!!!

[Niamh.]

I ca't even make out what that letter says

[Jezzy]

"Thank you for your marvellous letter and the nice things you said in it. I am enclosing a photo which I hope you like.

I am away for 3 weeks now but I would like a letter from you waiting for when I get back.

Write to me when you start school again and tell me more.

Love, Bill."

[arista]

I ca't even make out what that letter says

Note: The letter, which is allegedly from the star, now 81, was addressed from Granada TV and asked her to write back 'when you start school again'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540555/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-court-child-sex-trial.html#ixzz2qZYOqQhv

[arista]

Nothing in that letter could possibly incriminate him.


Thats his line

[Niamh.]

"Thank you for your marvellous letter and the nice things you said in it. I am enclosing a photo which I hope you like.

I am away for 3 weeks now but I would like a letter from you waiting for when I get back.

Write to me when you start school again and tell me more.

Love, Bill."

hhmmm it's not incriminating but it does prove that he was in contact with the girl and was aware she was underage. I assume they'd have more evidence then just that letter though and tbqh if he did do something with her, I hope they find out and he's convicted for it because she was only 14, i don't care how much time has passed, times were different back then, it could have been extremely difficult for her to do anything

[Jezzy]

Note: The letter, which is allegedly from the star, now 81, was addressed from Granada TV and asked her to write back 'when you start school again'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540555/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-court-child-sex-trial.html#ixzz2qZYOqQhv

Addressing it from Granada TV would seem to suggest that's where the girl's letter was sent.

Maybe she was not actually aware of his home address, which casts some doubt on whether she had been there.

[Jezzy]

hhmmm it's not incriminating but it does prove that he was in contact with the girl and was aware she was underage.

Fanmail?

[Niamh.]

Addressing it from Granada TV would seem to suggest that's where the girl's letter was sent.

Maybe she was not actually aware of his home address, which casts some doubt on whether she had been there.

Well, it seems like her letter was their first correspondence though so she probably hadn't been at that stage (not saying that she ever was but you know, just trying to look at it from both sides of the fence)

[Niamh.]

Fanmail?

Yes, that's what it looks like, that's why I'm saying that they probably have more to go on then just that letter. What the letter does prove is that he knew what age she was, if they have more to back the claims up

[Jezzy]

I agree with looking at it from both sides like you Niamh, maybe he is guilty, but there is nothing in the evidence presented to us yet that would suggest so...it is awfully difficult to bring about an historic conviction like this :(

[Niamh.]

I agree with looking at it from both sides like you Niamh, maybe he is guilty, but there is nothing in the evidence presented to us yet that would suggest so...it is awfully difficult to bring about an historic conviction like this :(

Yeah definitely, if she's lying it's an evil thing to do but if she's telling the truth then I hope she gets some justice. I would imagine a sex crime like this is extremely difficult to prove though so many years after the event

[Jezzy]

Yeah definitely, if she's lying it's an evil thing to do but if she's telling the truth then I hope she gets some justice.

100%.

[Nedusa]

You would have to think it is extremely unlikely given the time that has passed since the alleged incidents that any Jury could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt Mr Roache's guilt.

Methinks another massive NOT guilty verdict and cheers all round before the big lavish Coronation Street return party......

[Crimson Dynamo]

she was "raped" but them met with him again and found her self alone with him in his gaff?


Sorry but unless she was witnesses this aint gonna fly

[user104658]

she was "raped" but them met with him again and found her self alone with him in his gaff?


Sorry but unless she was witnesses this aint gonna fly

I thought this too - she claims force for the first incident, and yet, was alone with him again for a second incident? This suggests that both incidents were consentual, in my opinion.

HOWEVER - she was star-struck and underage. This is still illegal. If he did have any sexual activity with her, he is still guilty, as he was a man in his 30s and should have known better.

[Z]

I thought this too - she claims force for the first incident, and yet, was alone with him again for a second incident? This suggests that both incidents were consentual, in my opinion.

HOWEVER - she was star-struck and underage. This is still illegal. If he did have any sexual activity with her, he is still guilty, as he was a man in his 30s and should have known better.

I dunno, I guess it could have been that she felt she had to do what he said because she was in awe of him and just wanted to be around him but I just don't know if I buy into these accusations... why would you wait 50 odd years?

[Jezzy]

The latest is that she is claiming another Coronation Street actor, Peter Adamson (deceased) warned her about Mr. Roache and his wicked ways.

a) This is impossible to corroborate and should be completely disregarded
b) This is the same Peter Adamson that lost his job with the street because of the following allegation:

"On 24 April 1983, a Sunday newspaper reported that Adamson had been arrested for indecently assaulting two eight-year old girls in a public swimming pool in Haslingden where he had assisted as a part-time instructor. One was allegedly assaulted the day before, the other on 16 April. The police complaint alleged that Adamson's hands had strayed while giving the girls swimming lessons.
He was represented by the barrister George Carman QC, who had a prominent career defending celebrities. On 26 July 1983, a Crown Court jury found Adamson not guilty. The following year, after his wife's death and still suffering financial woes and drinking problems, he was allegedly persuaded by freelance Sun reporter Dan Slater to change his story following several bottles of whisky. Adamson was alleged to have told Slater "I am totally guilty of everything the police said"...."But what I hope you will print - there was no sexual intent."
As a result, Lincolnshire Police interviewed Adamson who categorically denied the confession. No charges were made against him."

[arista]

Courts: He is not guilty of All Charges


On all news now


http://news.sky.com/story/1207537/william-roache-trial-verdict-not-guilty


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/2/6/287344/default/v3/9730824-1-1-626x352.jpg

[Black Dagger]

Great!

Hopefully the same outcome for DLT and Rolf Harris. I hate bad outcomes regarding these situations.

[Livia]

Of course, the accuser will retain her anonimity while Roache's reputation is smeared forever and his career is probably over. There will be people who assume that there's no smoke without fire, so he's damned for all time. It's a sad state of affairs.

[arista]

ITV should put him back in the soap

[MTVN]

Great news, bring back Ken Barlow asap

[arista]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02813/Roache-free_2813812d.jpg


He has just spoken Live on all TVNews and Radio

he wants to get back to work aged 81

[Cherie]

Great news he has been proven innocent by a Jury so that is an end to it. Bring back Ken and his Kimono.

[HD]

Great outcome, but sad this means he will be returning to Corrie :/

[Vicky.]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out

[Tom4784]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out

I was thinking this, I think it's going to happen a lot more in the future sadly.

[arista]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out



Yes the Legal Deals tempt so many

[Nedusa]

You would have to think it is extremely unlikely given the time that has passed since the alleged incidents that any Jury could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt Mr Roache's guilt.

Methinks another massive NOT guilty verdict and cheers all round before the big lavish Coronation Street return party......

Looks like this is exactly what happened........struggling to understand how 6 different woman can suddenly remember these alleged incidents. Their memories were probably jogged by the publicity surrounding the Jimmy Savile case.

What is harder to understand is how the DPP decided this was ever a prosecutable case............?????

[the truth]

There has to be a time limit on this stuff......If a surgeon messes up an operation , theres a limit on the time window in which you can take legal action. Id say the same should apply to rape. 48 years later is ust absurd. how on earth is everyone supposed to recall every tiny detail ? now there was no concrete evidence here, Roache hasnt come off well out of all this mind. But rapist? no. also IF some of the charges were totally make believes and packed with lies, then those false accusers should be put on trial too

[Crimson Dynamo]

Great news

[anne666]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out

Sadly I have to agree. This is such damaging stuff. Something needs to change. Protection until found guilty.

[muchadoaboutnothing]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out

I am so pleased that Bill was found NOT guilty and I have been rooting for him all along. He is a fine example of what dignigty is all about. I also agree with your comments Vicky and whilst it will be a sad day for those who were genuinely abused in their younger years and feel they will not be believed years later, it is the avalanche of those jumping on the Jimmy saville bandwagon that is making it difficult for them to speak out.

[MTVN]

Reckon he might have been seen as a bit of an easy target as well because he's got a bit of a seedy reputation and is known for having slept around a lot

Though I can't help but find the whole thing suspicious still, with Michael Le Vell there was only one accuser whereas here there were five, none of whom knew each other. Just strange they would all come together spontaneously to make these allegations and all of them lying :shrug:

[HD]

Norris Cole touched me

[Scarlett.]

I am so pleased that Bill was found NOT guilty and I have been rooting for him all along. He is a fine example of what dignigty is all about. I also agree with your comments Vicky and whilst it will be a sad day for those who were genuinely abused in their younger years and feel they will not be believed years later, it is the avalanche of those jumping on the Jimmy saville bandwagon that is making it difficult for them to speak out.

This is one of the most annoying things about all this post-Saville madness, aside from ruined reputations, it also makes it harder for actual victims to come forward, because they fear they wont be believed. Though I'm a Corrie fan, I watched the news of it all objectively, as there could have been a chance that he did it, it'd have been unfair to just write it off because I like him as Ken Barlow. I think there needs to be a change in the legal system to protect the accused party's privacy.

[Vicky.]

This is one of the most annoying things about all this post-Saville madness, aside from ruined reputations, it also makes it harder for actual victims to come forward, because they fear they wont be believed. Though I'm a Corrie fan, I watched the news of it all objectively, as there could have been a chance that he did it, it'd have been unfair to just write it off because I like him as Ken Barlow. I think there needs to be a change in the legal system to protect the accused party's privacy.

At the risk of sounding really harsh..I dont really think people should be believed really if they wait half a century to speak up, and then do it in groups.

IIRC some of the saville victims reported it to the police at the time but were ignored, THOSE people I have time for. Anyone who waits until 50 years later and mention of compensation in the press..well...

[Marc]

I bet he is guilty though

http://www.africastarnews.net/newseditor/Upload/Images/hand-grenade-in-rwanda.jpg

[user104658]

I bet he is guilty though

If only because of the... odd... excuses he was coming out with for the men involved in cases of historic sex offenses BEFORE he was accused, I sort of agree. He was babbling on publicly about how the girls involved "will have done something in a past life" to "deserve" what happened to them. I can think of no logical explanation for someone to say something like that, other than to justify something that they themselves have done.

He's been found legally not guilty though so it's all pure speculation. The vast majority of these cases will go nowhere in the courts - whether the allegations are true or not - simply because after so much time, most will be all but impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There would really need to be hard physical evidence, or unbiased witnesses. When it's a case of "accusers word against defendants word", with no other evidence, it's highly unlikely to see someone found guilty.

Hell... the vast majority of CURRENT rape cases don't even go to trial through lack of evidence, and the conviction rate at trial is minuscule. Some will be false allegations but many will simply be because it can't be proven. That's the reason that it's estimated that most rapes are never even reported to the authorities: people know the likelihood of conviction is low, and the accuser is forever thought of as a victim, or worse, a liar, for nothing.

Proving something beyond reasonable doubt 40 or 50 years after the event? ... Very hard to do. It doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen, though. I personally think that's worth remembering.

[the truth]

Of course, the accuser will retain her anonimity while Roache's reputation is smeared forever and his career is probably over. There will be people who assume that there's no smoke without fire, so he's damned for all time. It's a sad state of affairs.

a very fair and reasonable point. There is everything to gain for those who are rotten enough to make things up for monetary reward. its hard to believe but some people actually do this. christine and neil hamilton had that and the false accuser did go to jail. there really needs to be more justice meeted out for false accusers imo

[Nedusa]

I bet he is guilty though

You're joking right...???

Or do you know something the rest of the Country don't know ??

[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.

[Nedusa]

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.

As much as I agree with your sentiments I personally do not think the accusers should lose their anonymity as it may be possible in some cases they were raped but there was not enough evidence to prove it so the victim would have gone through all that personal pain and humiliation for nothing and now face the prospect of being publicly named and accused of being a liar.

Also as they would not be believed in any future incidents they might become easy prey for sexual predators who know their previous history. Any future jury would be even less inclined to believe her story if she had already been publicly discredited and branded a liar on a previous occasion.

[joeysteele]

As much as I agree with your sentiments I personally do not think the accusers should lose their anonymity as it may be possible in some cases they were raped but there was not enough evidence to prove it so the victim would have gone through all that personal pain and humiliation for nothing and now face the prospect of being publicly named and accused of being a liar.

Also as they would not be believed in any future incidents they might become easy prey for sexual predators who know their previous history. Any future jury would be even less inclined to believe her story if she had already been publicly discredited and branded a liar on a previous occasion.

That is a good strong point Nedusa,I take that into my thinking now as to this.

[Z]

At the risk of sounding really harsh..I dont really think people should be believed really if they wait half a century to speak up, and then do it in groups.

IIRC some of the saville victims reported it to the police at the time but were ignored, THOSE people I have time for. Anyone who waits until 50 years later and mention of compensation in the press..well...

I completely agree with you Vicky.

[Z]

I think it should be the legal default that the press aren't allowed to publish the names of anyone involved in criminal investigations unless they are found guilty.

[the truth]

Honestly, I think the majority of accusations now are simply for the compensation. Thats not to say there arent some genuine victims out there, but I fully believe that most of them are liars and just after cash. No way would thousands of people keep quiet for 50 years or whatever then decide to come out

Of course they are and only now when its gone absurdly crazy are we all (men and women0 allowed to actualy say this
in previous years anyone who suggested there would be a lot of fake claims in order to try and make money were all brand misgynist woman hating sexists. yet again this is another poisonous by product of radical feminism, which is destroying lives and wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money and police time

[the truth]

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.

[MTVN]

tbh using a case like this isn't the best example to set a change on the law upon, with Will Roache it would probably always come out anyway, or there would at least be suspicion, because he's so famous. Like people would start to question why he suddenly hadn't appeared in Coronation Street the last few months.

[joeysteele]

I took on Nedusa's important point as to if accusers were named after accusing someone falsely then some could see that as a green light to commit crimes against them,in that those people could be seen as not to be believed again.
So I can be persuaded that they should remain anonymous.

However for me, that even moreso opens the dooor that someone accused falsely has to have some 'protection' too.
Which is why, I would like to see no naming of those accused until the actual trial and then only when the person accused either pleads 'guilty' or is found 'guilty' by a jury after trial.

As to someone found 'not guilty',that would end the naming and exposing the identity of the accused right up to the end of the trial and they then really can get on with their lives as near as possible untarnished.

As to those who have accused someone falsely and if someone is found 'not guilty' then the jury didn't clearly believe the accusers.
If not naming such people has to be the norm then I do think at the very least they should be punished for in effect, at the very least, 'wasting police time'.

To falsely accuse someone of anything they haven't done is wrong and to further testify in court to that is even more wrong.
In the accusations of rape,which is a very serious and dangerous thing to accuse someone of ,so to do so falsely demands in my view anyway some punishment for doing it.

That will then possibly deter anyone from accusing someone of something falsely and not cause more problems for those who were genuinely abused getting proper justice.
I still firmly believe anyone making a false accusations about someone should get some punishment for doing so.
I take on board not naming those who accuse falsely but they should not be able to get away with it,in my opinion.

[the truth]

tbh using a case like this isn't the best example to set a change on the law upon, with Will Roache it would probably always come out anyway, or there would at least be suspicion, because he's so famous. Like people would start to question why he suddenly hadn't appeared in Coronation Street the last few months.

thousands of men are falsely accused every year and the false accusers rarely very rarely get puniched for it. meanwhile the men who are falsely accused usually lose their jobs immediately, their reputation is in shreds and their lives destroyed regardless of their innocence or guilt. this is surely wrong

[the truth]

I took on Nedusa's important point as to if accusers were named after accusing someone falsely then some could see that as a green light to commit crimes against them,in that those people could be seen as not to be believed again.
So I can be persuaded that they should remain anonymous.

However for me, that even moreso opens the dooor that someone accused falsely has to have some 'protection' too.
Which is why, I would like to see no naming of those accused until the actual trial and then only when the person accused either pleads 'guilty' or is found 'guilty' by a jury after trial.

As to someone found 'not guilty',that would end the naming and exposing the identity of the accused right up to the end of the trial and they then really can get on with their lives as near as possible untarnished.

As to those who have accused someone falsely and if someone is found 'not guilty' then the jury didn't clearly believe the accusers.
If not naming such people has to be the norm then I do think at the very least they should be punished for in effect, at the very least, 'wasting police time'.

To falsely accuse someone of anything they haven't done is wrong and to further testify in court to that is even more wrong.
In the accusations of rape,which is a very serious and dangerous thing to accuse someone of ,so to do so falsely demands in my view anyway some punishment for doing it.

That will then possibly deter anyone from accusing someone of something falsely and not cause more problems for those who were genuinely abused getting proper justice.
I still firmly believe anyone making a false accusations about someone should get some punishment for doing so.
I take on board not naming those who accuse falsely but they should not be able to get away with it,in my opinion.

those who falsely accused should be named. its a criminal offence to bare false witness and to lie in court, not to mention slander and wasting police time and money

[Z]

tbh using a case like this isn't the best example to set a change on the law upon, with Will Roache it would probably always come out anyway, or there would at least be suspicion, because he's so famous. Like people would start to question why he suddenly hadn't appeared in Coronation Street the last few months.

People would have suspicions of course but I just think it's completely wrong to publicly name and shame someone before the verdict has been given; and then when the verdict clears that person of all charges, the damage cannot be undone, there will be people who will forever accuse that person of crimes they were cleared of. Loads of actors take time off from soaps, all Coronation Street would have needed to have said would be "due to family/personal circumstances" if they'd even needed to have said anything at all.

[joeysteele]

those who falsely accused should be named. its a criminal offence to bare false witness and to lie in court, not to mention slander and wasting police time and money

I do agree with just about all you say there the truth.
However I took on board what Nedusa said, I can see that naming someone who had falsely accused someone of such a crime could then leave them open to those who would carry out such crimes.
Then also having the knowledge that these persons are not likely to be believed in the future.

I 100% agree with you that the person making a false accusation should be punished for doing so, for all the reasons you listed in your post.

[Vicky.]

The problem with punishing those who lie is that you can't really be 100% sure they are lying. I mean, quite a lot of rape cases get off because the accused says it was consentional when thats not the case but you cant prove that either.

If it can be proved that the accuser is lying though, I do think they should get the same sentence the person they accused would have got if they had been found guilty.

[sassysocks]

thousands of men are falsely accused every year and the false accusers rarely very rarely get puniched for it. meanwhile the men who are falsely accused usually lose their jobs immediately, their reputation is in shreds and their lives destroyed regardless of their innocence or guilt. this is surely wrong

As is rape - and let's face it many, many men have got away with rape over the decades, and still do, as women were often not believed, their reputations torn to shreds whilst the same standards not applied to the men and the general mentality, still rife today, that boys will be boys and the girls asked for it in some way.

Men have had the so-called scales of justice weighed in their favour for centuries, but hark at the winging by some when perceived that those scales have now gone the other way. What goes around comes around maybe.

False allegations of any kind are dispicable, but far more men have got away with wrong doing in these kinds of crimes than women.

[Scarlett.]

but hark at the winging by some when perceived that those scales have now gone the other way. What goes around comes around maybe.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What has the modern day justice system go to do with that of past centuries? Are you saying current day males deserve to have their names dragged through the mud because of how people behaved in past centuries?

[Livia]

The problem with punishing those who lie is that you can't really be 100% sure they are lying. I mean, quite a lot of rape cases get off because the accused says it was consentional when thats not the case but you cant prove that either.

If it can be proved that the accuser is lying though, I do think they should get the same sentence the person they accused would have got if they had been found guilty.

Agree. Sometimes there is clear evidence that someone's lied. If there is evidence they should throw the bloody book at them because they're making a mockery of the pain of real victims.

[Livia]

Sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

Got to agree, Chewy.

[sassysocks]

Sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What has the modern day justice system go to do with that of past centuries? Are you saying current day males deserve to have their names dragged through the mud because of how people behaved in past centuries?

Maybe not expressed very well but it isn't just about past centuries but pretty much the here and now as I would say still far more men get away with rape than women get away with making false allegations as double standards are still applied to women and many still believe the old 'she must of asked for it' garbage.

I am not condoning false allegations by any means, but it seems to me that the sexual mistreatment of women by men, past and present, can breed a lot of resentment in women.

[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554598/Cleared-Corrie-star-Bill-Roache-facing-fresh-anguish-three-w

[Livia]

Maybe not expressed very well but it isn't just about past centuries but pretty much the here and now as I would say still far more men get away with rape than women get away with making false allegations as double standards are still applied to women and many still believe the old 'she must of asked for it' garbage.

I am not condoning false allegations by any means, but it seems to me that the sexual mistreatment of women by men, past and present, can breed a lot of resentment in women.

Not to the extent they'd like to see an innocent mail jailed, and put it down to "what comes around, goes around", surely? Women should be resentful of other women who falsely accuse, and thereby weaken the cases of genuine victims.

[Livia]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554598/Cleared-Corrie-star-Bill-Roache-facing-fresh-anguish-three-w

Speculation. Come back when he's charged with something.

[user104658]

Agree. Sometimes there is clear evidence that someone's lied. If there is evidence they should throw the bloody book at them because they're making a mockery of the pain of real victims.

I'm not so sure. Even if there did have to be clear evidence, I think the thought of charges being able to be "flipped" would put many genuine assault victims off when it comes to reporting the crime. Which in turn would increase the confidence of potential offenders in believing that they can get away with it. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent.

[Livia]

I'm not so sure. Even if there did have to be clear evidence, I think the thought of charges being able to be "flipped" would put many genuine assault victims off when it comes to reporting the crime. Which in turn would increase the confidence of potential offenders in believing that they can get away with it. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent.

Punishing someone for breaking the law does not set a dangerous precedent. I say this as a woman first, and a lawyer second, if someone accuses an innocent man of rape, and there is clear evidence that she has lied... I want to see her prosecuted.

[chuff me dizzy]

Speculation. Come back when he's charged with something.

Not MY article ,just copied and pasted it ,get off your high horse

[sassysocks]

Not to the extent they'd like to see an innocent mail jailed, and put it down to "what comes around, goes around", surely? Women should be resentful of other women who falsely accuse, and thereby weaken the cases of genuine victims.

Maybe, maybe not. A sense of injustice and resulting resentment can cloud people's judgement and perception of a situation causing them to lose sight of the rights and wrongs involved.

The 'what comes around, goes around' comment was just to highlight the correlation between the actions of one group to those of another.

[user104658]

Punishing someone for breaking the law does not set a dangerous precedent. I say this as a woman first, and a lawyer second, if someone accuses an innocent man of rape, and there is clear evidence that she has lied... I want to see her prosecuted.

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

[sassysocks]

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Very good post. As you say memory of events can be distorterd by time, not to mention the subtle pressure put on young, vulnerable girls to 'put-out' seemingly giving the impression to observers she was 'willing and consenting' when actually she was neither - but a victim of manipulation.

[MTVN]

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Agree, think this posts sums up why rape/sexual assault is such an inherently difficult case to decide upon, it would be a massive mistake to presume that because there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone then by necessity the accusers were lying

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/2/8/287979/default/v1/star-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/2/8/287977/default/v1/people-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/2/8/287976/default/v1/mail-1-329x437.jpg

[Livia]

Not MY article ,just copied and pasted it ,get off your high horse

I was responding to your post. Please don't resort to insulting me, it's against the rules and it makes you look small.

[Livia]

Agree, think this posts sums up why rape/sexual assault is such an inherently difficult case to decide upon, it would be a massive mistake to presume that because there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone then by necessity the accusers were lying

I was suggesting that false accusers should be prosecuted if there is clear evidence to say they were lying, not that there might be a little evidence. Unless it's okay for innocent men to pay the price because some rape victims are not believed. Sounds a little one-sided to me. Justice for everyone, isn't that what it's all about?

[Livia]

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Clear evidence is evidence that can be corroborated.

Your last paragraph is a little dramatic. I am not happy for innocent men to be accused, and for the accuser to get off scot free. I'm not spending an hour on the course the law may take. If you're guilty of wasting police time and attempting to pervert the course of justice, you should go to prison - whether you have a penis or not.

[lostalex]

We have a system that is designed to let most guilty men free. A system that unashamedly says it's better to let 99 guilty men free than to convict 1 innocent man. It's important to always remember that.

"not guilty" and "innocent" are very different things. Most guilty people are never found guilty of their crimes, that doesn't mean they are innocent though.

unfortunately there are still plenty of innocent people found guilty.

Maybe that's why so many people love the idea of religion and God, because it's comforting to think that the guilty will face SOME sort of justice eventually. but they won't, they just get away with it. :(

I'm just speaking in general, not about this case specifically.

[user104658]

Clear evidence is evidence that can be corroborated.

Your last paragraph is a little dramatic. I am not happy for innocent men to be accused, and for the accuser to get off scot free. I'm not spending an hour on the course the law may take. If you're guilty of wasting police time and attempting to pervert the course of justice, you should go to prison - whether you have a penis or not.

You're suggesting that the justice system is infallible, though. Like incorrect evidence is never corroborated. Like innocent people don't end up behind bars. In an ideal world where miscarriages of justice don't happen, right, fine, charge those found to be making false accusations. But with the system being as imperfect as it is now? No. I can't see many rape victims if thy know there's even a CHANCE that a mistake might be made and they'll end up charged, shamed and jailed standing up and going forward with accusations. I certainly wouldn't trust the "justice" system to make the right call every time.

Victims are ALREADY afraid to speak out for fear of not being believed. Rape reporting rates are abysmal and conviction rates are shockingly low.Adding the possibility of flipped charges to that is utter madness.

[MTVN]

I was suggesting that false accusers should be prosecuted if there is clear evidence to say they were lying, not that there might be a little evidence. Unless it's okay for innocent men to pay the price because some rape victims are not believed. Sounds a little one-sided to me. Justice for everyone, isn't that what it's all about?

Well I was more talking about generally than anything someone specifically had said in this thread. It just always seems the case that when there's a not guilty verdict reached there's always a lot of calls for the accusers to be named and shamed or even prosecuted themselves. Rape and sexually assault is so notoriously difficult to prove either way that it's rare for any accusations to actually end up in a guilty verdict, I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases it's more that there was a lack of evidence to return a definite guilty verdict rather than the accuser's all just lying.

[the truth]

Those who are clearly exposed as lying and falsely accusing must be imprisoned.
This is the just way forward. This re-balancing the situation is essential. especially if we continue with the naming and hsaming of the accused. This will in effect discourage those thousands of women who make up rape claims simply for money or revenge. It will in turn free up police time for the genuine victoms of rape. This will save money and time working on false claims. it will lead to more justic and more balance. it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear. personally Id keep the accused anonymous. naming them is clearly being used as a way to advertise for victims in the daily mail and often even more gold diggers.
if anyone has a claim let them go to the police and through the right channnels, not this revolting media witch hunt which destroys lives.

[lostalex]

Those who are clearly exposed as lying and falsely accusing must be imprisoned.
This is the just way forward. This re-balancing the situation is essential. especially if we continue with the naming and hsaming of the accused. This will in effect discourage those thousands of women who make up rape claims simply for money or revenge. It will in turn free up police time for the genuine victoms of rape. This will save money and time working on false claims. it will lead to more justic and more balance. it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear. personally Id keep the accused anonymous. naming them is clearly being used as a way to advertise for victims in the daily mail and often even more gold diggers.
if anyone has a claim let them go to the police and through the right channnels, not this revolting media witch hunt which destroys lives.

No. That is not the right attitude to have.

Most rape victims already do not ever come forward, and your strategy would make them even LESS likely to come forward.

We need to encourage MORE rape accusations, not less.

[user104658]

it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear.


Again, the suggestion that the justice system is infallible and that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear. I wish I still lived in a world where I believed that to be true. But it just isn't. The justice system is massively human, and as such, massively open to error. The guilty are set free often, and the innocent wrongly convicted. I can guarantee that, if this suggestion of prosecuting accusers "found" to be lying, eventually a genuine rape victim would find themselves behind bars. It's simple law of averages. It would definitely happen. It would also create yet another imbalance between "haves" and "have-nots"... would you REALLY go up against a rapist who happens to be able to afford to have an expensive legal team behind them? Knowing that they could have the charges flipped? I doubt it. You'd be ****ing insane to risk it. If it was one of my daughters and I knew for a fact that it had happened, I still wouldn't risk the "justice" system if these proposals were in effect. I'd be sorting it out myself.

Add to that - because mistakes would definitely occur - and because most people instinctively know that the legal system can't be entirely trusted - fewer people would come forward with genuine reports in the first place.

Lower chance of a rape being reported at all then in turn increases the confidence of potential offenders to commit an act of sexual aggression. Round and round we go. Like I said - rates of these offenses (real rape, that has really happened) being reported at all is horrendously low, and conviction rates are already SHOCKINGLY low, of people who in all probability did rape someone but where it can't be adequately proven.

The situation with sexual offenses and "justice" really doesn't need to get any worse.

[the truth]

No. That is not the right attitude to have.

Most rape victims already do not ever come forward, and your strategy would make them even LESS likely to come forward.

We need to encourage MORE rape accusations, not less.

wrong we need more honest rape accusations, we need to punish the rapists and invest more time and money into those cases....but we cna only save money and time and resources into funding these legitmiate cases by punishing those who falsely accuse. there are tens of thousands of false accusers who are effectively stelaing the resources than should be being used on the real victims. there is only so much to go around, resources are finite, very finite