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.
So, where is the information coming from then? Police enquiries are, or ought to be, conducted discreetly. Is it the alleged victims themselves? In which case it might be pretty close to perverting the course of justice, given that police enquiries could not then be conducted in the way the police would wish. Or what? I don't believe the police are squeaky clean on this issue - there have been cases where police officers have been proven to have sold the info to journos, or have leaked news to big themselves up. Maybe not always those directly on the case, but those around them.
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'
There are a 100 ways this could come out.
One of which is from within the police.
Absolutely, it could have from within the police but from what I know about these things is very unlikely indeed that it's a policy decision taken at a senior level in order to "big themselves up".
Could be a copper tipping off a journo but in the current climate I doubt many would be that stupid. Could also be a local stringer staking the place out (let's not forget the names are circulating out there), could be his neighbours, could be his cleaner, could be a business associate, relative or the victim themself, could be someone who works in Greggs opposite the police station for all we know...
Don't get me wrong, the names of the accussed should remain confidential, but with the increased use of social media it's going to get harder and harder to do.
not sure it is the police a lot of these names have been on the net for ages, its not fair on the accused to be named also for the ones that are guilty its not going to help the victims
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
agree entirely
Have to disagree. I could be convinced of the need for an embargo on names being released just because someone's been arrested, as that's a procedural thing. But preventing names from being released until someone's found guilty would stop other victims or witnesses coming forward that could help secure a conviction, or clear the accused's name. Limiting anonymity to the point when someone is charged is the most I could support.
The law has to change. No matter who they are , their names should remain anonymous until found guilty.
agree entirely
Have to disagree. I could be convinced of the need for an embargo on names being released just because someone's been arrested, as that's a procedural thing. But preventing names from being released until someone's found guilty would stop other victims or witnesses coming forward that could help secure a conviction, or clear the accused's name. Limiting anonymity to the point when someone is charged is the most I could support.
How about before someone is charged? Because it's wrong to name and shame everyone getting arrested only to be released with no accusation holding true against them. Yet they're still tarred with the brush of being a pedophile. People should know to come forward if they've been assaulted (or even witnessed something), not have to have the name dangled out in front of them before they choose to come forward.
So, watching ITV news - tv news cameras outside Bill Roache's house when the police arrived. They wouldn't camp outside a celeb's house "just in case". Clearly they were tipped off. Fecking outrageous. Those responsible for leaking information ought to face prosecution themselves.
Lincs said: 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 With respect, none of us on this site know what evidence the police possess and so it is grossly unfair to portray this and other enquiries as 'arrests on suspicion, hearsay and with little evidence.' From my own experience the police will have, at the very minimum, a statement from the 'victim' (some prefer the term 'complainant' until the allegation is proved). That constitutes 'evidence' and faced with that (and I suspect more by way of supporting evidence) they had little choice but to arrest and interview. Like most on this site I deplore the leaking of a suspect's name as the old adage of 'no smoke without fire' is often the reader's reaction. If the police feel that there is anything in the case they will pass the buck...oops...pass the file to the CPS who will have the unenviable task of either charging the suspect or advising no further action. One factor in that decision (assuming the evidence is sufficient to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction') is Roache's age. Watch this space (at least it is more entertaining than Corrie....
What I dont understand why are they arrested. Then bailed for months and then (never as yet) charged. What ever happened to being "questioned". These days the police seem to raid peoples houses at the crack of dawn and search for evidence of crimes that happend decades ago. If its for groping what are they going to find? They must be on an ego trip
What I dont understand why are they arrested. Then bailed for months and then (never as yet) charged. What ever happened to being "questioned". These days the police seem to raid peoples houses at the crack of dawn and search for evidence of crimes that happend decades ago. If its for groping what are they going to find? They must be on an ego trip
Videos on their personal computer of 'violent groping'?
Haven't read anything on this thread apart from the heading. I have thought for years that there should be annonimity for both victim or accused. It seems a fair stance, purely because even the age old - innocence until proven guilty is harder to cling to when you know the identity of the defendant. The urge to make jokes or
Haven't read anything on this thread apart from the heading. I have thought for years that there should be annonimity for both victim or accused. It seems a fair stance, purely because even the age old - innocence until proven guilty is harder to cling to when you know the identity of the defendant. The urge to make jokes or
(Bloody computer) . . . the belief of there is no smoke without fire is too strong. I feel sorry for the victim yes, but also for the wrongly accused or the acquitted whose reputation is hard to rebuild or put right.
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"
Totally agree. There's some really crass and ignorant comments on this thread. Have a think about the victim.
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"
Totally agree. There's some really crass and ignorant comments on this thread. Have a think about the victim.
Absolutely. You only have to read some of the comments on here to understand why a victim may not have come forward at the time. And it was far worse back when the alleged offences occurred.
So which of the mods is a huge Rolf Harris fan? My thread lasted no time before being closed yet it's open season on Bill. Maybe a mod could explain this blatent double standard.
Bill's been charged, Rolf hasn't. (and iirc there may have been legal reasons why the mainstream media didn't report it when Rolf was first brought in for questioning, which we don't want AFKA, Lookout etc to fall foul of)
Neither has Jim Davidson, and he was arrested back in January.
Bill Roache, however, has just been charged within 12 hours..?! That's pretty quick and it makes you wonder about the differences in the cases. Roache obviously got nicked AFTER they had a sufficient case, either that or he's put his hands up and said he's done it.
I personally can't see anyone admitting guilt to an offence 46 years ago where there would likely be no evidence*. Nor can I see the kind of representation that Roache's bank balance could afford advising him to give in without a fight.
*Although, in the CPS statement they point out that there obviously is sufficient evidence - so short of a confession god knows what that would be after 46 years. I doubt word-of-mouth is 'sufficient evidence' otherwise Harris and Davidson would both have been charged; a long with every other person they've nabbed.
Yet for this offence 40 years ago - the accused has got charged within 12 hours. Now compare this to Davidson and Harris and the others have all been bailed for months whilst investigations are carried out.
It makes you wonder what kind of investigations could take months after such a long period of time:
- Forensics, CCTV etc: Going to be minimal, if any. - People: Either too young, too old/dead, or simply unable to recall the events of a given time 40 odd years ago..!
back in March, Bill Roache was supposedly caught saying that victims of abuse had somehow bought it on themselves. I am not sure how true this is but I believe he apologised for it so must be somewhat true. Hardly normal views though, a bit disturbing.
Innocent until proven guilty but respect and consideration is also needed towards the victim/s.
back in March, Bill Roache was supposedly caught saying that victims of abuse had somehow bought it on themselves. I am not sure how true this is but I believe he apologised for it so must be somewhat true. Hardly normal views though, a bit disturbing.
Innocent until proven guilty but respect and consideration is also needed towards the victim/s.
In March, Roache apologised after he appeared to suggest victims of sex crimes were being punished for past sins.
He told New Zealand's One News TV show that "if you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love … these things won't happen to you".
Asked to clarify if that meant "victims bring things on themselves", Roache added: "No, not quite, but and yet I am … everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives."
What I dont understand why are they arrested. Then bailed for months and then (never as yet) charged. What ever happened to being "questioned". These days the police seem to raid peoples houses at the crack of dawn and search for evidence of crimes that happend decades ago. If its for groping what are they going to find? They must be on an ego trip
The reason for the arrest and the dawn raid is stop them destroying or altering evidence. Although these incidents happened years ago it might be possible to alter diaries etc that might suggest that the alleged perpetrator was at the other end of the country on the day in question.
Comments
Your nicked sat in the cons i am telling pc big nose
Could be a copper tipping off a journo but in the current climate I doubt many would be that stupid. Could also be a local stringer staking the place out (let's not forget the names are circulating out there), could be his neighbours, could be his cleaner, could be a business associate, relative or the victim themself, could be someone who works in Greggs opposite the police station for all we know...
Don't get me wrong, the names of the accussed should remain confidential, but with the increased use of social media it's going to get harder and harder to do.
People should know to come forward if they've been assaulted (or even witnessed something), not have to have the name dangled out in front of them before they choose to come forward.
Edit: I just looked it up. To be fair to Roache, Hamilton could have lied to him also.
We're talking about Ken fuckin Barlow from Coronation Street, not some psychotic national dictator!
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
With respect, none of us on this site know what evidence the police possess and so it is grossly unfair to portray this and other enquiries as 'arrests on suspicion, hearsay and with little evidence.' From my own experience the police will have, at the very minimum, a statement from the 'victim' (some prefer the term 'complainant' until the allegation is proved). That constitutes 'evidence' and faced with that (and I suspect more by way of supporting evidence) they had little choice but to arrest and interview. Like most on this site I deplore the leaking of a suspect's name as the old adage of 'no smoke without fire' is often the reader's reaction. If the police feel that there is anything in the case they will pass the buck...oops...pass the file to the CPS who will have the unenviable task of either charging the suspect or advising no further action. One factor in that decision (assuming the evidence is sufficient to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction') is Roache's age. Watch this space (at least it is more entertaining than Corrie....
If its for groping what are they going to find?
They must be on an ego trip
I have thought for years that there should be annonimity for both victim or accused.
It seems a fair stance, purely because even the age old - innocence until proven guilty is harder to cling to when you know the identity of the defendant. The urge to make jokes or
(and iirc there may have been legal reasons why the mainstream media didn't report it when Rolf was first brought in for questioning, which we don't want AFKA, Lookout etc to fall foul of)
Bill Roache, however, has just been charged within 12 hours..?! That's pretty quick and it makes you wonder about the differences in the cases. Roache obviously got nicked AFTER they had a sufficient case, either that or he's put his hands up and said he's done it.
I personally can't see anyone admitting guilt to an offence 46 years ago where there would likely be no evidence*. Nor can I see the kind of representation that Roache's bank balance could afford advising him to give in without a fight.
*Although, in the CPS statement they point out that there obviously is sufficient evidence - so short of a confession god knows what that would be after 46 years. I doubt word-of-mouth is 'sufficient evidence' otherwise Harris and Davidson would both have been charged; a long with every other person they've nabbed.
Yet for this offence 40 years ago - the accused has got charged within 12 hours. Now compare this to Davidson and Harris and the others have all been bailed for months whilst investigations are carried out.
It makes you wonder what kind of investigations could take months after such a long period of time:
- Forensics, CCTV etc: Going to be minimal, if any.
- People: Either too young, too old/dead, or simply unable to recall the events of a given time 40 odd years ago..!
Innocent until proven guilty but respect and consideration is also needed towards the victim/s.