Ken Barlow cleared of all charges
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Steezy
Well she hasn't got much else going for her
bless her!Totally agree on Edmonds though!! And Chris Tarrant...
Original post by TheBigJosh bless her!
Totally agree on Edmonds though!! And Chris Tarrant...
bless her!Totally agree on Edmonds though!! And Chris Tarrant...
Yeah maybe Chris Tarrant as well.... Although I think he's more of a womaniser than a peado
The worst thing about this is that everyone is being tarred with the same brush; Dave Lee Travis is being done for indecent assault. The difference between rape and indecent assault is the difference between kicking someone in the shins and stabbing them in the head. Yet he's been thrown in the same little group as Rolf Harris and William Roach by the press, they were both charged with rape.
Very sensitive topic but i was just shocked at:
How a woman could claim such digraceful acts, yet had no memory of it...
How another woman was warned by an actor to keep clear of Roach, yet the actor she claimed to have recieved the advice wasnt even on the show at the time...
How a woman could claim such digraceful acts, yet had no memory of it...
How another woman was warned by an actor to keep clear of Roach, yet the actor she claimed to have recieved the advice wasnt even on the show at the time...
These cases are difficult to prove.
As I said to a guy I know about this, who was ranting about how these women should be locked up....what would he say if his daughter came home and accused a guy of groping her, but couldn't prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Would he support her being jailed for making a malicious accusation? His response was that he would go round and knock the bloke's teeth out....
I suspect what has happened in a lot of these cases of celebrities is that in times past powerful men had quite an easy ride in taking liberties with women and some have behaved in quite an obnoxious way and harassed women. However none of these men should be convicted of an actual crime, without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean they didn't do it, it means you err on the side of not sending an innocent man to jail.
In practice these men have suffered a lot now because mud sticks with this type of offence.
There's another wider point about guilt in the court of public opinion. When an accusation of improper sexual harassment takes place, like it or not people form a subconscious opinion over whether that person is likely or not to be guilty based on their character. This is where men that engage in racy or suggestive 'lad banter' can end up being falsely accused of things. I remember being at college where we had a lecturer who was a bit inappropriate. A week in to term I mentioned that I had a friend who was interested in enrolling but as it was a week late wasn't sure if she could join. He was like "its a girl yeah? that depends....is she hot?". He was about 40 and he would be talking about a 17 year old girl. I kind of laughed this off but I did think hmm this sounds dodge.... then a few times in class he would make 'banter' with the 6th formers about stuff like "taking one for the team" or "its like going to Ibiza and scoring and then waking up next to her the next day and thinking what on earth is that???". Most of the guys just thought this was funny. But then there was an accusation that he had indecently assaulted a girl. Immediately, especially amongst the girls in our class, he was pretty much thought guilty and I have to say even though I had no evidence, I thought hmm....it wouldn't be out of character would it. I remember the college speaking to people from our class asking had he behaved inappropriately before, and people were dobbing him in for his banterous comments. He ended up getting suspended. I do wonder whether he was found guilty on the evidence of him acting in a bit of a pervy way for a 40 year old, which is a totally different thing from indecent assault.
But it did have an effect on me, in that after that I've always been very careful about what sexual banter I do, even in jest, because if you create the impression that you're a bit sleazy or creepy, you never know what could happen to you if a false accusation is thrown round.
As I said to a guy I know about this, who was ranting about how these women should be locked up....what would he say if his daughter came home and accused a guy of groping her, but couldn't prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Would he support her being jailed for making a malicious accusation? His response was that he would go round and knock the bloke's teeth out....
I suspect what has happened in a lot of these cases of celebrities is that in times past powerful men had quite an easy ride in taking liberties with women and some have behaved in quite an obnoxious way and harassed women. However none of these men should be convicted of an actual crime, without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean they didn't do it, it means you err on the side of not sending an innocent man to jail.
In practice these men have suffered a lot now because mud sticks with this type of offence.
There's another wider point about guilt in the court of public opinion. When an accusation of improper sexual harassment takes place, like it or not people form a subconscious opinion over whether that person is likely or not to be guilty based on their character. This is where men that engage in racy or suggestive 'lad banter' can end up being falsely accused of things. I remember being at college where we had a lecturer who was a bit inappropriate. A week in to term I mentioned that I had a friend who was interested in enrolling but as it was a week late wasn't sure if she could join. He was like "its a girl yeah? that depends....is she hot?". He was about 40 and he would be talking about a 17 year old girl. I kind of laughed this off but I did think hmm this sounds dodge.... then a few times in class he would make 'banter' with the 6th formers about stuff like "taking one for the team" or "its like going to Ibiza and scoring and then waking up next to her the next day and thinking what on earth is that???". Most of the guys just thought this was funny. But then there was an accusation that he had indecently assaulted a girl. Immediately, especially amongst the girls in our class, he was pretty much thought guilty and I have to say even though I had no evidence, I thought hmm....it wouldn't be out of character would it. I remember the college speaking to people from our class asking had he behaved inappropriately before, and people were dobbing him in for his banterous comments. He ended up getting suspended. I do wonder whether he was found guilty on the evidence of him acting in a bit of a pervy way for a 40 year old, which is a totally different thing from indecent assault.
But it did have an effect on me, in that after that I've always been very careful about what sexual banter I do, even in jest, because if you create the impression that you're a bit sleazy or creepy, you never know what could happen to you if a false accusation is thrown round.
Original post by Steezy
I don't understand it at all - by saying he's innocent, you're saying the women are guilty - they should face prosecution and public humiliation as they caused William Roache to face.
I don't understand it at all - by saying he's innocent, you're saying the women are guilty - they should face prosecution and public humiliation as they caused William Roache to face.
No, that is a completely idiotic conclusion to come to.
I don't think it means he absolutely never did the crimes, just means there wasn't enough evidence for the court to say he did. If he actually is totally innocent then it is very said, as i doubt he will be seen in the same way after all the accusations.
Original post by DorianGrayism
No, that is a completely idiotic conclusion to come to.
Someone's lying & should be punished.
Guilty ****er is guilty.
The women cannot be named as Roache has not been proven innocent, he's been found not guilty. All that means is that the prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. With a case like this stretching so far back, the prosecution would have rested primarily on the accounts of the women, there can't have been any DNA evidence or anything, so meeting this standard of proof is very difficult.
I'm not saying he's guilty, just trying to point out how the judicial system works.
I'm not saying he's guilty, just trying to point out how the judicial system works.
Original post by DaveSmith99
The women cannot be named as Roache has not been proven innocent, he's been found not guilty. All that means is that the prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. With a case like this stretching so far back, the prosecution would have rested primarily on the accounts of the women, there can't have been any DNA evidence or anything, so meeting this standard of proof is very difficult.
I'm not saying he's guilty, just trying to point out how the judicial system works.
I'm not saying he's guilty, just trying to point out how the judicial system works.
Thank you. Some of the posts on this thread are idiotic, would any rape victim take their rapist to court if there was a chance they themselves would be imprisoned for lying? My opinion on whether he did it or not is just that, an opinion, and in the grand scheme of things it matters not. He was found not guilty, he will not face any punishment for what he may well have done. What I do wonder though, is whether in these historic sex offence cases, can anybody actually be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt? How can anybody prove that something happened decades ago? Proving a historic offence beyond reasonable doubt is incredibly difficult. I hope that the women in this case are all right, they certainly don't deserve the hatred some people are aiming at them.
Whether Roache is guilty or not one thing about these cases really bugs me. Some of these women will have thrown themselves at him and then forty years later decide to claim rape; despite throwing themselves at him... It really ****ing bugs me. Women at times take no responsibility.
Original post by uktotalgamer
Whether Roache is guilty or not one thing about these cases really bugs me. Some of these women will have thrown themselves at him and then forty years later decide to claim rape; despite throwing themselves at him... It really ****ing bugs me. Women at times take no responsibility.
Since his defence was that he never even met any of these women, I doubt anybody "threw" themselves at him.
Original post by Messalina
Since his defence was that he never even met any of these women, I doubt anybody "threw" themselves at him.
My point still stands for any of these cases really.
Original post by uktotalgamer
My point still stands for any of these cases really.
No it doesn't, you were not there, you have no idea what those women did or what they are like. You are simply making assumptions based upon your own bias. You can just as easily say that one of the women jumped on a magical purple dragon and flew away, thus saving herself from rape. You can say it, but doesn't make it even remotely true.
Original post by Messalina
No it doesn't, you were not there, you have no idea what those women did or what they are like. You are simply making assumptions based upon your own bias. You can just as easily say that one of the women jumped on a magical purple dragon and flew away, thus saving herself from rape. You can say it, but doesn't make it even remotely true.
Are you mental? Have you seen the way that women go on with rock stars or musicians, or some TV stars? Justin Bieber for example.
How naive are you. That being said I should point out at this point that I'm not condoning rape at all. It's disgusting. However if you throw yourself at someone you can't regret it and then call rape later.
Thank goodness, but let's be honest, we'll never know whether he actually did it or not.
TBH, I'm not convinced.
He hasn't been proven innocent, there was simply not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty. So obviously it makes no sense that the women should be punished and they should still have right to anonymity.
He hasn't been proven innocent, there was simply not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty. So obviously it makes no sense that the women should be punished and they should still have right to anonymity.
Shame that anyone remotely considered as famous or a celebrity has these sort of allegations taken so seriously.
It's tough, you want genuine victims to get justice done in their name but you also want to stop petty little "he done touched me wot he did!" from some random people with a need for attention, and there does seem to be a witch hunt through the older cohort of media presenters and actors.
There needs to be some reasonable substance to these claims, not early morning raids to nick these guys because someone just goes "he touched me" randomly one afternoon at a local police station.
It's tough, you want genuine victims to get justice done in their name but you also want to stop petty little "he done touched me wot he did!" from some random people with a need for attention, and there does seem to be a witch hunt through the older cohort of media presenters and actors.
There needs to be some reasonable substance to these claims, not early morning raids to nick these guys because someone just goes "he touched me" randomly one afternoon at a local police station.
well i'm not listening to take that again
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- IPhone SE (2022) or IPhone 13 mini?
- sociology digital textbooks
- Undergraduate Accommodation 2023-2024 (Imperial College London)
- Top Energy Saving Tips to Save Money on Bills
- Where to get signatory for penalty charge
- Choice Model Management
- A level physics Capacitance question (5)
- A level chemistry high charge density ionic bonding small ions
- Looking for Friends reading Pharmacy
- Summer retainer period
- What is your dream life?
- Settled status with student finance
- Physics homework help
- Student housing hell
- Confusing Capacitor question
- Cambridge college recommendations?
- Credit files
- How does accepting/rejecting an offer on UCAS work?
- Clearing and university
- Setting/Places In A Christmas Carol
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
