So, he's been cleared of all charges yet the claimants are still entitled to anonymity. The courts have effectively said he didn't do it so surely the women should be named? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034 Surely allowing them to remain anonymous just opens the doors up to scores more people to make unfounded claims?
How could they prove either way that he did it or not ? its his word against hers plus it supposedly happened in the 60s . My personal view is they should both get anonymity or neither .....
^this, which I'd think would apply to all of the cases going through the courts. I wonder how they're going to prove this stuff, given that it's one person's word against another.
Waste of Court time, It will cost ITV £££££ as I'm sure he'll get compo for loss of earnings ect, Whilst he was not on the show.
Ergo anyone found not guilty of a crime must be guilty, they just didn't get found out? A thirst for revenge driven by the frustration of the JS debacle doesn't serve as justice...
I'm three for three on this. Correctly predicted JS, SH and now WR. Just DLT and Rolf to go, I should've had an accumulator with Paddy Power.
It's more than one person's word against another. There would be other evidence - access, dates when people were in the same place - the fact that there were witnesses called means there was other evidence.
As said the jury have to be beyond reasonable doubt , really the law needs looking at on how long you have to report a crime . If someone is held for a crime they cant hold them for fifty years before they charge them , so why not the same for reporting it ?? The only people that win on these cases are the Lawyers.
Would refuse the bet TBR, all those ads re we will give odds on anything are tosh , re my attempt to get odds on a certain country staging a limited nuclear strike on a n other country in 5 years , after several phone calls to their head office ,bet refused, i also tried for odds re a physics discovery(H.B.)<bet refused.i rarely wager dosh ,i was very disappointed.
I said right from the start, that it wasn't plausible that these accusations (if true) have only just come out because of Jimmy Savile, when there have been plenty of other opportunities, when similar celebrity cases came about. The most perfect opportunity to have made these allegations would have been in the 1980's when Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough in Coronation Street) was accused of child molesting. Those accusations were taken seriously so if anyone at the time had allegations to make against Roache they could have come forward. I think his statement outside court was dignified and magnanimous. I agree with all those who say that if the accuser gets anonymity then so should the accused. However I also believe there is too much press interest in celebrities and the gossip culture surrounding anything people say about them.
