The latest celeb to be arrested in connection with sexual assault. This is turning into a real soap opera. You couldnt make it up.
This is one I'm not shocked at. Sure isn't big Ken the top dog druid in the UK? Of course he'll have been up to allsorts!
Priests now Druids !!!!! Whatever next.....
(http://p.twimg.com/A4OHkrzCUAALbcG.jpg:large)
(http://cdn4.faniq.com/images/photos/photo_large/80/file-22781080-1/Viva-Ken-Barlow.jpg)
Actually it was the soap opera joke I was hoping to get a reaction with! :D ;D
Quote from: BennyCake on May 01, 2013, 01:29:39 PM
This is one I'm not shocked at. Sure isn't big Ken the top dog druid in the UK? Of course he'll have been up to allsorts!
What's that got to do with it?
Liquorice allsorts?
(http://thumbsnap.com/s/KyXxME0g.jpg)
Quote from: ziggysego on May 01, 2013, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 01, 2013, 01:29:39 PM
This is one I'm not shocked at. Sure isn't big Ken the top dog druid in the UK? Of course he'll have been up to allsorts!
What's that got to do with it?
The higher you go up in any cult/mob/organisation/club etc, the more corrupt they are, and the more they get up to.
What is likely to happen here? Some doll makes up some random accusation about Roache, he says he didn't do it then what next? Do they not need evidence and what evidence could they really have? I find it strange that all these accusations are randomly coming out 40 years later, surely that reduces their credibility.
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
Hardly random nrico .... the jimmy saville scandal has kicked the hornets nest
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
It's not going to stop, whats the latest with Jim Davidson and Freddie Starr?
I've stopped groping the admin staff and sending dirty pictures to my friends wife just in case this comes back to me in 40 years when I'm a millionaire and 81 years old :-*
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted bastard like him.
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted b**tard like him.
No matter what he did, I wouldn't want him "kicked stupid everyday". If nothing else, a system which permits paedophiles to be assaulted as a matter of routine isn't going to be able to protect lesser offenders from a similar fate.
Quote from: hardstation on May 03, 2013, 11:53:40 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted b**tard like him.
Are you on about Hall or Roache?
Hall admitted it but Barlow didn't, but kick him anyways for being a shit actor and bedding over a 1000 women
Quote from: hardstation on May 03, 2013, 11:53:40 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted b**tard like him.
Are you on about Hall or Roache?
Hall
If there's an inquiry, will it be called The Jimmy Saville Inquiry?
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted b**tard like him.
yeah but unless roach confesses (he could be innocent btw) - how can you prove something like this 40 years on?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/197678_518986454831629_1624087126_n.jpg)
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 12:15:15 PM
Quote from: hardstation on May 03, 2013, 11:53:40 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Like Stuart Hall for example ::) - hopefully this **** goes to prison and get the fucked kicked out of him day in day out until he dies.
I presume once he's found guilty by a jury of his peers Cold Tea or should we get the pitchforks and torches ready now?
He admitted his guilt - send him to prison and hope he gets kicked stupid everyday - would you want anything else for a sick perverted b**tard like him.
Are you on about Hall or Roache?
Hall
Right,
that wasn't clear from your initial statement.
Quote from: Declan on May 03, 2013, 01:44:42 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/197678_518986454831629_1624087126_n.jpg)
Paedophilia isn't it hilarious!
It's ephebophilia Cold Tea and yes, that particular joke is hilarious.
Quote from: Asal Mor on May 03, 2013, 02:37:33 PM
It's ephebophilia Cold Tea and yes, that particular joke is hilarious.
It works on so many levels.
do you think its something in bettys hotpot thats making the cast of corrie sex maniacs?
Quote from: Cold tea on May 03, 2013, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Declan on May 03, 2013, 01:44:42 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/197678_518986454831629_1624087126_n.jpg)
Paedophilia isn't it hilarious!
Murder ain't hilarious but plenty jokes about it, drug abuse, alcoholism, baldness, ginger people, Irish men........ Could go on, where do we stop?
To be honest, if big Ken doinked a 15 year old, then that's not a pedophile. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent children. Only the law says it's paedophilia. The law of the jungle says otherwise.
'Only the law says it's paedophilia'
But that's the point, surely? If you're underage that technically makes you a child, does it not? He's not up for unlawful carnal knowledge, he's up for rape ... of a child ... according to the law. It's not as if he was 16 at the time and him and his 15-year-old girlfriend got carried away in the midst of passion
Acquitted of all charges.
Quote from: AQMP on February 06, 2014, 01:05:44 PM
Acquitted on all charges.
I read three books on it and I always knew he was guilty
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?
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.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
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 (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/06/william-roache-acquittal-inconsistent-testimonies) - in the belief that it'll show genuine victims that they will be taken seriously should they come forward.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: ziggysego on February 06, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 06, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
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?
Quote from: balladmaker on February 06, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
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.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 06, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
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.
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10621418/Bill-Roache-not-guilty-high-stakes-gamble-backfires-for-CPS.html)
Quote from: ziggysego on February 06, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
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.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 06, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
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
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 06, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
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.
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 ?
Ah you get fed up with it after a while. Sometimes you'd rather have a good night's sleep.
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2014, 09:57:39 AM
Lemmy from Motorhead would be up there with Magic Johnson but would the Corrie lads be far behind ?
Norris and Roy Cropper!
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 06, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
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'.
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.
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.
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..
Quote from: Hardy on February 07, 2014, 11:19:06 AM
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
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 06, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Geoff Tipps on February 07, 2014, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 06, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
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.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on February 06, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
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