William Roache aka Ken Barlow

[deiseach]

There is a big difference between being legally found "Not guilty" and being proven innocent. In the first case, the evidence is not strong enough to secure a conviction. In the second case, it has been proven the accused is free of wrong-doing.

Explain to us which Bill Roache is.

[seafoid]

I think what was quite interesting about Ken B was the revelation that he was a serial womaniser in real life.
I'd say a lot of those actors and musicians  feel like they have won the all Ireland week in, week out and if you spun it out over a number of decades you'd have a lot of notches.
Lemmy from Motorhead would be up there with Magic Johnson but would the Corrie lads be far behind ?

[Hardy]

Ah you get fed up with it after a while. Sometimes you'd rather have a good night's sleep.

[Premier Emperor]

Lemmy from Motorhead would be up there with Magic Johnson but would the Corrie lads be far behind ?

Norris and Roy Cropper!

[Main Street]

There is a big difference between being legally found "Not guilty" and being proven innocent. In the first case, the evidence is not strong enough to secure a conviction. In the second case, it has been proven the accused is free of wrong-doing.

Explain to us which Bill Roache is.

The case collapsed, there's no case to answer anymore. There is a possibility that the woman was speaking the truth but it can't be proved. It's not worthy of speculation.
When there's only a single accusation dating back all that time, then IMO it's ridiculous to pursue a prosecution.

In Savile's case there were allegations from many women unconnected with each other. With Stuart Hall  it was similar, there were allegations from 13 women. I think it's beyond doubt that a prosecution can proceed if there are many different witness statements to the abuse suffered.
The crown prosecution have muddied the waters with this pursuit of Roache based on a single allegation, 'her word against his word'.

[armaghniac]

There has to be a question whether the resources used in proceeding in the very weak Roache case might not have been better used in investigating current cases and people who are very much likely to perpetrate these offences in the near future.

[magpie seanie]

Thought William Roache spoke very well afterwards. A horrible position to be put in when the accusations appeared to be false. I hope it makes people making up false allegations think twice about it.

[johnneycool]

With the goings on and cover up of Jimmy Saville I bet the cops and CPS are taking no chances and putting every single accusation against a celeb through the courts..

[seafoid]

Ah you get fed up with it after a while. Sometimes you'd rather have a good night's sleep.

Sure after a couple of hundred they'd do your head in with all the soft chat

[Geoff Tipps]

There is a big difference between being legally found "Not guilty" and being proven innocent. In the first case, the evidence is not strong enough to secure a conviction. In the second case, it has been proven the accused is free of wrong-doing.

Explain to us which Bill Roache is.

The case collapsed, there's no case to answer anymore. There is a possibility that the woman was speaking the truth but it can't be proved. It's not worthy of speculation.
When there's only a single accusation dating back all that time, then IMO it's ridiculous to pursue a prosecution.

In Savile's case there were allegations from many women unconnected with each other. With Stuart Hall  it was similar, there were allegations from 13 women. I think it's beyond doubt that a prosecution can proceed if there are many different witness statements to the abuse suffered.
The crown prosecution have muddied the waters with this pursuit of Roache based on a single allegation, 'her word against his word'.

Were you following the case at all?? There was more than 1 accuser.

[Main Street]

There is a big difference between being legally found "Not guilty" and being proven innocent. In the first case, the evidence is not strong enough to secure a conviction. In the second case, it has been proven the accused is free of wrong-doing.

Explain to us which Bill Roache is.

The case collapsed, there's no case to answer anymore. There is a possibility that the woman was speaking the truth but it can't be proved. It's not worthy of speculation.
When there's only a single accusation dating back all that time, then IMO it's ridiculous to pursue a prosecution.

In Savile's case there were allegations from many women unconnected with each other. With Stuart Hall  it was similar, there were allegations from 13 women. I think it's beyond doubt that a prosecution can proceed if there are many different witness statements to the abuse suffered.
The crown prosecution have muddied the waters with this pursuit of Roache based on a single allegation, 'her word against his word'.

Were you following the case at all?? There was more than 1 accuser.

You're right. I was mistaken, one original accusation and 4 others after it became public.
it just so happened that they all crumbled together when faced with scrutiny in court.

[Never beat the deeler]

There is a big difference between being legally found "Not guilty" and being proven innocent. In the first case, the evidence is not strong enough to secure a conviction. In the second case, it has been proven the accused is free of wrong-doing.

Explain to us which Bill Roache is.

They're not mutually exclusive. He is the first, having been found not guilty in court. He may well be the second, however there is no onus to prove innocence (rightly so, imo)
I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the can't innocence, merely pointing out that 'Not guilty' doesn't always mean false accusation