William Roache aka Ken Barlow

[seafoid]

Acquitted on all charges.

I read three books on it and I always knew he was guilty

[AZOffaly]

That's your man the mechanic in Corrie, and now Ken Barlow, both aquitted.  What happens to their accusers now? Can they be charged with something?

[Tony Baloney]

I'm amazed any of these celebs are being brought to court on the basis of no physical evidence and seemingly entirely on the word of an accuser from 30-40 years. Are the public prosecution services not just pissing public money up against a wall.

[nrico2006]

I'm amazed any of these celebs are being brought to court on the basis of no physical evidence and seemingly entirely on the word of an accuser from 30-40 years. Are the public prosecution services not just pissing public money up against a wall.

Was thinking the same myself earlier.  How is it possible that someone is going to be prosecuted in these cases when its one word against another and on top of that its decades later.  Would love to see counter action against the accusers in cases where the accused is found guilty. that would deter people from coming out of the woodwork.

[deiseach]

I'm amazed any of these celebs are being brought to court on the basis of no physical evidence and seemingly entirely on the word of an accuser from 30-40 years. Are the public prosecution services not just pissing public money up against a wall.

I'm guessing they're running a cost-benefit analysis. We'll run a few high-profile no-hopers through the system - and lordy, this one looks like a right no-hoper - in the belief that it'll show genuine victims that they will be taken seriously should they come forward.

[ziggysego]

I'm amazed any of these celebs are being brought to court on the basis of no physical evidence and seemingly entirely on the word of an accuser from 30-40 years. Are the public prosecution services not just pissing public money up against a wall.

I'd rather see an innocent person to through the courts and be proven non-guilty, than a guilty person avoid the courts.

[AZOffaly]

And of course, in fairness to the accusers, there is a difference between being found not guilty, and there being no basis to the allegations. I hate it when people bring false cases, probably in the hope of an out of court settlement, or a monetary award, but I'm not suggesting that was the case here at all. It's a tough one. If the DPP and the Cops felt there was enough there to prosecute, then it's hard to call the accusers liars.

[deiseach]

I'd rather see an innocent person to through the courts and be proven non-guilty, than a guilty person avoid the courts.

In a perverse way celebrities are the ideal type of innocent people to put through the wringer. Despite all the initial reports, everyone is going to know that Bill Roache DIDN'T do it. Joe Bloggs might not be so lucky.

[balladmaker]

Surely another example of preventing any naming of the accused or reporting of the issue until the person is found guilty.  If they are acquitted, then their name should never be associated with any such accusations.

[nrico2006]

Surely another example of preventing any naming of the accused or reporting of the issue until the person is found guilty.  If they are acquitted, then their name should never be associated with any such accusations.

Spot on, don't understand how people are named when only charged or going to trial.  Were the accusers named in this instance?

[Lazer]

Surely another example of preventing any naming of the accused or reporting of the issue until the person is found guilty.  If they are acquitted, then their name should never be associated with any such accusations.

Exactly

I have always been suspicious that the allegations against William Roache were arranged by some group who (rightly) took offence at his comments about people being abused having done somthing to deserve it in previous lives.

I would like to see some punishment given to the accusers, if they are obviously lying - as far as i know perjury is still a crime, perhaps someone should charge these so called "victims" with perjury. (IMO especially the ones who the evidence prove have been spouting lies - for example the one who said Johnny Briggs warned her against William, but Johnny wasn't even on the show at the time at the time of the alleged innocent).

After succeeding in gaining a conviction for Perjury - Willian should go after them for defamation for character (although his last experience of suing for defamtion cost him a fortune).

Obviously we don't want anything to act as a deterrent for real victims coming forward to report their abuser but we want something to act as a deterrent to people making up abuse and ruining peoples lives, careers and reputations.

[ziggysego]

Surely another example of preventing any naming of the accused or reporting of the issue until the person is found guilty.  If they are acquitted, then their name should never be associated with any such accusations.

I would agree with you there balladmaker. Their identities should be kept secret, until it is proven if they are guilty. The old adage - "No smoke without fire" would follow them around for the rest of their live.

[Never beat the deeler]

Can't agree with the sentiments about bringing the accusers to court.

Unless I have missed something, there is no evidence they have lied. The case fell down as their memories "were not always accurate" according to this Telegraph report.

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.

The idea of perjury charges should only come up in cases of blatant fabrication. We can't have genuine victims afraid to come forward because they didn't think they would be believed.

Having said all that, I agree that the accused's name should not be released, and the prosecuting service should be choosing cases that they have a realistic chance of winning.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10621418/Bill-Roache-not-guilty-high-stakes-gamble-backfires-for-CPS.html

[Tony Baloney]

I'm amazed any of these celebs are being brought to court on the basis of no physical evidence and seemingly entirely on the word of an accuser from 30-40 years. Are the public prosecution services not just pissing public money up against a wall.

I'd rather see an innocent person to through the courts and be proven non-guilty, than a guilty person avoid the courts.

That's not how it works. If it is clear from the outset that the prosecution cannot meet the requirements of BRD, then tough and all as it may be on the accuser, there is absolutely no point in pursuing a criminal case IMO. In a case 30-40 years old with no possibility of actual evidence other than the word of the accuser how was Ken EVER going to be convicted BRD. In a lot of these instances the spectre of Jimmy Saville looms large, so every case seems to be taken forward on the basis that they need to be seen to be on the side of the victim regardless of the impact on the defendant.

[THE MIGHTY QUINN]

Surely another example of preventing any naming of the accused or reporting of the issue until the person is found guilty.  If they are acquitted, then their name should never be associated with any such accusations.

But do the names not get out anyway?  High profile Irish sports journalist springs to mind