After so much time surely it is one person's word against that of another. There can't be any forensic evidence and how can a defendant be expected to remember events so long afterwards if their actions were perceived normal for the time?
this. If he, or anyone in these cases, said they has never met the victim and left it at that it would be up to the victim to prove otherwise and after all this time that will be difficult. What is sad is that in amongst all these allegations there are a few where someone has been abused but that is being swallowed up in what looks like a witchhunt where eventually I doubt there will be relatively few trials and even fewer convictions.
Proving rapes is hard enough, it helps if the victim goes straight to the police so that dna samples can be taken.
When the incident happened 45 years ago, there'no evidence other than 1 person's word against another person's...
The whole 'Affair Saville' is becoming a KGB style witch hunt with arrests on suspicion, hearsay and with little evidence. The police are anxious that the public and meedjjja are aware that they are 'on the case' no matter how fragile and leaky those cases may be. I am all for dirty old, young, or middle aged men getting nicked for rape, indecent assault, outraging public decency, sodomy, buggery and any other various and associated wicked acts, however, evidence must be produced and due process of law must be seen to be carried out. I suspect that many a career, albeit of venerable and past it 'personalities' has been ruined by the Old Bill Propaganda Machine on the basis that there is no smoke without a raging inferno
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree. Far too many police announcements of arrests/accusations which will for ever besmirch the lives of those being investigated. If they are found guilty, throw the key away but give them a fair trial before the public humiliation.
There may have been witnesses to some or all of the incident.
And for 40 odd years they've all kept quiet. But now there might be some money in it they all have perfect recollection!
So, if YOU went on, let's say Jim'll Fix It in the 70's and he did "something" to YOU & you didn't report it, as most kids wouldn't. Do you think it would be wrong for you to report it now as an adult ?
Also, where do you draw the line ? Should we not investigate murders, because they may have happened 40 years ago ?
It is all a bit daft. Most of this probably relates to someone getting their bum squeezed 30 or 40 years ago. Why is it now coming to light?
Do you know that for sure?Of course you don't.Crass and ignorant comment.The fact that a crime may have happened 30 to 40 years ago is immaterial,an offence is an offence.I would think it is obvious why it is coming out now.It is because people feel that they can come forward and report a crime.Saville hid behind the cloak of celebrity and he felt that he could get away with anything because of who he was.The yewtree investigation has shown that just because you are a celebrity does not give you carte Blanche to do what you want.
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree with this. Look at when Dave Jones was accused. Suspended by his club, his life ruined for a couple of years, he also said it contributed to the death of his dad. Then when it got to court it was thrown out in the first week and one of his accusers even admitted to lying to try and win compensation.
It is all a bit daft. Most of this probably relates to someone getting their bum squeezed 30 or 40 years ago. Why is it now coming to light?
Do you know that for sure?Of course you don't.Crass and ignorant comment.The fact that a crime may have happened 30 to 40 years ago is immaterial,an offence is an offence.I would think it is obvious why it is coming out now.It is because people feel that they can come forward and report a crime.Saville hid behind the cloak of celebrity and he felt that he could get away with anything because of who he was.The yewtree investigation has shown that just because you are a celebrity does not give you carte Blanche to do what you want.
Read my subsequent replies and you'll see I quantified that statement With an example against jimmy saville on top of the pops
what I'd be interested to know is since this whole Saville thing blew up how many people have contacted the Police saying that in the past a celebrity abused them and how may have said that in the past a normal Joe Bloggs abused them? Or are we saying that all abuse against a person years ago was only carried out by celebrities?
what I'd be interested to know is since this whole Saville thing blew up how many people have contacted the Police saying that in the past a celebrity abused them and how may have said that in the past a normal Joe Bloggs abused them? Or are we saying that all abuse against a person years ago was only carried out by celebrities?
There will be criminal charges going out soon for a series of abuses in North Wales against foster children in care homes going back several decades. I doubt that any of those alleged to be doing the abuse were celebrities.
According to an interview with one of those who was abused in one of the NW care homes it seems that up to 13 of the people who were abused have since committed suicide. Historically there are high levels of depression and suicide amongst those who were abused as children. Who knows how many lives have been wrecked?
There is a statute of limitations on some crimes - but rape (along with sexual assault and murder) should quite correctly have no such limitation. Justice should not stop merely because someone is elderly, the issue is about whether the crime can be proven or not.
Does anyone think this is getting like the McCathey witchhunts in the US? if somebody assaults and violates children they get all they deserve but why are people being hauled in for grabbing some birds bum 40 odd years ago and whilst we are at it can't we have a law that protects the assumed innocent party until they are proved to be guilty? Sorry this is now decending into the trash, gutter press world. 90% of these cases will probably be unprovable yet again wasting tax payers money.
if somebody assaults and violates children they get all they deserve but why are people being hauled in for grabbing some birds bum 40 odd years ago and whilst we are at it can't we have a law that protects the assumed innocent party until they are proved to be guilty?
But the law does protect the innocent until they are proven guilty. If Bill Roache or whoever is accused of anything it will be up to the CPS and his accusers to prove him guilty in court. Until then he's innocent. Any inference on guilt is down to what you choose to read into the news.
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree. Far too many police announcements of arrests/accusations which will for ever besmirch the lives of those being investigated. If they are found guilty, throw the key away but give them a fair trial before the public humiliation.
Once again, the police have NOT named Roach or any of the other suspects. Unfortunately we live in a society with 24 hours news channels and enough people armed with smart phones and instant access to those channels that any arrest of a celebrity is guaranteed to come out.
It is not in any investigators interest to conduct their work in the full glare of the national media and they would much rather the names are not out there I am sure.
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree. Far too many police announcements of arrests/accusations which will for ever besmirch the lives of those being investigated. If they are found guilty, throw the key away but give them a fair trial before the public humiliation.
Once again, the police have NOT named Roach or any of the other suspects. Unfortunately we live in a society with 24 hours news channels and enough people armed with smart phones and instant access to those channels that any arrest of a celebrity is guaranteed to come out.
It is not in any investigators interest to conduct their work in the full glare of the national media and they would much rather the names are not out there I am sure.
Unless of course they want to make it clear they are 'on the job'
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Well said Suzi, unless we have been through the trauma of being raped as a child I don't think we are qualified to ask "what has she been doing all these years"
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree. Far too many police announcements of arrests/accusations which will for ever besmirch the lives of those being investigated. If they are found guilty, throw the key away but give them a fair trial before the public humiliation.
Once again, the police have NOT named Roach or any of the other suspects. Unfortunately we live in a society with 24 hours news channels and enough people armed with smart phones and instant access to those channels that any arrest of a celebrity is guaranteed to come out.
It is not in any investigators interest to conduct their work in the full glare of the national media and they would much rather the names are not out there I am sure.
Unless of course they want to make it clear they are 'on the job'
Jeez do you seriously think that someone, somewhere in the Met or wherever has an agenda that would run the risk of a high profile investigation collapsing just in order to be seen to be doing their job?
This is not the same as a rogue copper tipping a tame journo off for cash but, given several have gone to prison for that recently, I doubt even this is the case today.
There are a 100 ways this could come out. I personally know a fair few coppers through work and socially and the last thing they want is the Daily Mail following their every fecking move when they are dealing with such dreadful events.
Don't agree with all this being made public, we've seen countless celebrities have their name tarnished by being arrested and not one has been convicted yet.
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
Totally agree. Far too many police announcements of arrests/accusations which will for ever besmirch the lives of those being investigated. If they are found guilty, throw the key away but give them a fair trial before the public humiliation.
Once again, the police have NOT named Roach or any of the other suspects. Unfortunately we live in a society with 24 hours news channels and enough people armed with smart phones and instant access to those channels that any arrest of a celebrity is guaranteed to come out.
It is not in any investigators interest to conduct their work in the full glare of the national media and they would much rather the names are not out there I am sure.
Unless of course they want to make it clear they are 'on the job'
Comments
But now there might be some money in it they all have perfect recollection!
Also, where do you draw the line ? Should we not investigate murders, because they may have happened 40 years ago ?
The accused shouldn't of course be named imo.
Totally agree with this. Look at when Dave Jones was accused. Suspended by his club, his life ruined for a couple of years, he also said it contributed to the death of his dad. Then when it got to court it was thrown out in the first week and one of his accusers even admitted to lying to try and win compensation.
There will be criminal charges going out soon for a series of abuses in North Wales against foster children in care homes going back several decades. I doubt that any of those alleged to be doing the abuse were celebrities.
According to an interview with one of those who was abused in one of the NW care homes it seems that up to 13 of the people who were abused have since committed suicide. Historically there are high levels of depression and suicide amongst those who were abused as children. Who knows how many lives have been wrecked?
There is a statute of limitations on some crimes - but rape (along with sexual assault and murder) should quite correctly have no such limitation. Justice should not stop merely because someone is elderly, the issue is about whether the crime can be proven or not.
But the law does protect the innocent until they are proven guilty. If Bill Roache or whoever is accused of anything it will be up to the CPS and his accusers to prove him guilty in court. Until then he's innocent. Any inference on guilt is down to what you choose to read into the news.
It is not in any investigators interest to conduct their work in the full glare of the national media and they would much rather the names are not out there I am sure.
a. make jokes
In my defense the thread title is "Bill Roache arrested" no mention of rape. My joke is therefore acceptable.
This is not the same as a rogue copper tipping a tame journo off for cash but, given several have gone to prison for that recently, I doubt even this is the case today.
There are a 100 ways this could come out. I personally know a fair few coppers through work and socially and the last thing they want is the Daily Mail following their every fecking move when they are dealing with such dreadful events.