[Kaz]

Matthew Kelly has thanked the public for their support during the time he was being investigated by police over an allegation of child sex abuse.

Police are taking no further action over an allegation Mr Kelly, host of Stars In Their Eyes, sexually abused a child in the 1970s.

When questioned by police over the sex abuse claim, Mr Kelly denied any wrongdoing and explained he had never met the man, who made the allegation.

He said as he went into the Civic Theatre in Darlington: "I would just like to say to everybody who has supported me that the public have been fantastic and all the theatre people lovely.

"The Birmingham rep were marvellous. I have worked ever since. The Liverpool people were sensational and Darlington is always a great date and I am looking forward to tonight."

The TV presenter is appearing as Lennie in a touring production of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, which is currently playing at Darlington.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm delighted to hear this news.

Poor Matthew - he must have been through hell these last few weeks.

I sincerely hope this false allegation has not damaged his TV career, and that he'll be back presenting 'Stars in their Eyes' very soon.

[LEE]

I agree Kaz.

I always thought it sounded a load of tosh.

Let's hope that people let him leave this awful time behind him and it doesn't do any long term damage to his career.

[James]

Now that he's been cleared it might be worth reminding ourselves of the way the tabloids reported the allegation.

Stories like this insinuated that he had something to hide:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003022618,00.html

As far as the tabloids are concerned it's guilty until proven innocent.

[Mairi]

I hadn't seen that story, James and I agree with you about the tabloids which is why I never read them!!!!

I didn't think for one minute that Matthew Kelly was guilty and I'm delighted that it's all over. I just hope he can put it behind him and get on with his life.

[jbellemeg]

He will be presenting Satrs In There Eyes again in the autumn according to the TV station.
They also said they had been behind him 100% during the investgations.
I am so pleased and these false allegations were probably made by someone trying to get a paper to buy his story.
Some people will go to any lengths to get money.

[Janette]

The suspicions and the stigma will always be there.


Don't forget Craig Charles was wrongly accused of rape and spent time in jail. His name was plastered all over the papers and then it turned out the woman had lied. It has done irreperable damage to Craig's career even though he was found innocent of all charges!

When this business about Matthew Kelly came up, Craig Charles was mentioned, not in a disparaging way true, but he was mentioned in a post. This shows that these things are never forgotten, be the person innocent or guilty!

I am absolutely delighted that charges have been dropped against Mr Kelly, because hopefully it means that a child WASN'T abused.

[Sticks]

But did not the police only say there was insufficient evidence to charge. They never charge if the CPS does not think it can win. Not exactly saying he was innocent is it, just that they did not have sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution.

[Kaz]

Posted by Janette
When this business about Matthew Kelly came up, Craig Charles was mentioned, not in a disparaging way true, but he was mentioned in a post. This shows that these things are never forgotten, be the person innocent or guilty!

I mentioned Craig Charles in my original post on the Matthew Kelly business, Janette - but the reason I used his name was purely to illustrate how it seemed to me that people in his situation were 'guilty until proven innocent'.

The woman who made the false allegation, on the other hand, had her name withheld 'for legal reasons'. The Law's an ass.

Exactly the same situation with Neil & Christine Hamilton. They had their names plastered all over the papers, while the person who accused them of abducting her remained anonymous. Until, that is, she was proved to be lying and is now in jail.

Surely something has to be done about this unfair situation.

[Janette]

That's exactly what I'm saying Kaz, it doesn't matter if the person is guilty or innocent! Once a suspicion has been laid at their feet, they can never escape from it.

[Kaz]

Very true, Janette.

But the point I'm trying to make (not very well, I'll admit!) is that the press shouldn't be allowed to print stories such this based purely on allegations.

If the allegations are investigated and substantiated, then fair enough. But until then, ALL identities should be withheld.

[Janette]

Agreed!

[BigSister]

I never suspected that Matthew Kelly was Gulity I thought he was always innocent "Innocent until proven Gulity"

I hope that this nasty incident is forgottion but unfortionalyI dont think it will

[susieq]

But did not the police only say there was insufficient evidence

I think the police said there was insufficient evidence to proceed - but did this mean there was insufficient evidence AGAINST Mr Kelly or did it mean there was insufficient evidence to back up this man's allegation - two different things I think.

I must admit to being very relieved for Matthew Kelly that his ordeal is now over. I agree with Kaz as well - the names of ALL parties should be withheld until someone has actually been charged. Our tabloids can make up enough rubbish & lies, without people giving them ammunition to have a field day with more unsubstantiated stories.

[peachy]

Sticks, insufficient evidence means that in the eyes of the law Matthew Kelly is innocent of any charges. Please don't anyone insinuate anything more. If the Crown Posecution Service had evidence against him they would have prosecuted him. I think he's been through a dreadful ordeal and has handled it very well.

Incidently, I met Matthew Kelly a couple of years ago, he was staying in the same hotel as us. He went out of his way to speak to everyone he met, not in a luvvy way but just as a genuinely nice guy. He particularly singled out a group of mentally handicapped young people and sat talking with them for about half an hour.

I hope his career isn't adversely affected but as we all know mud sticks unfortunately.

[Sticks]

Sometimes the police will know that certain people are guilty as sin, but due to witness intimmidation, no one in their right mind would testify (similar to where I live), or the police would have to reveal sources, so they have to drop the matter

In this case there is "insufficient evidence" for a conviction. It is not the same thing as saying someone is innocent. Often under our system, the guilty go free.

One of the tricks abusers use to keep their victims quiet is to say that no one will believe them, and for a long time nobody listened.

Defence lawyers are skilled in ripping a child's testermony to shreds. If there client is guilty, who cares, they are batting for his team.

Knowing this, and in order to protect the child, the CPS may advice that the case be dropped.

Even when someone does testify, sometime the courts let them off with a very light sentence.

None of us are privy to the Matthew Kelly case, but as far as I am aware, they have not charged the original complainent with wasting police time, like they did that women who falsely accused the Hamiltons.

[LEE]

Sticks please drop this, the poor man has suffered enough.

[susieq]

Sticks please drop this, the poor man has suffered enough.

I quite agree LEE - enough is enough. BTW Sticks, just for information, this allegation related to a supposed incident 30 years ago.