[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nguish-three-w

[Livia]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nguish-three-w

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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

[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

[HD]

Norris Cole touched me

[Marc]

I bet he is guilty though

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marc

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.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Marc

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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.

[the truth]

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.

[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.

[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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

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.]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

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]

Originally Posted by Chewy

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

Got to agree, Chewy.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Chewy

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.

[Z]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

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.