Bill Roach latest 'star'to be arrested. - Page 10

steve2qec · 07-02-2014, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Not guilty ... and it seems like, given the "evidence" that this is a fair verdict. I'm wondering how this might affect the other cases in progress. Seems like similiar accusastions are making the news over here ... though it seems like they are starting off at the bottom of the barrel.

Phillip Nolan, drummer in Stephen Harper's band, charged with sexual assault - Ottawa - CBC News

By the way, what do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians? Answer: A drummer.

Your Prime Minister has a band...?!!! Cool!

Eric · 07-02-2014, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve2qec

Your Prime Minister has a band...?!!! Cool!

He does have a couple of good points ... Nobody, not even a tory, is all bad.

And he performs with Yo Yo Ma ... Doesn't David Cameron have a band?

cashman · 07-02-2014, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

He does have a couple of good points ... Nobody, not even a tory, is all bad.

And he performs with Yo Yo Ma ... Doesn't David Cameron have a band?

Yeh Dick Turpin @ the Highwaymen or so i heard.

Less · 07-02-2014, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Doesn't David Cameron have a band?

No he doesn't have a band, but if someone could provide him with enough rope...

DaveinGermany · 07-02-2014, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Doesn't David Cameron have a band?

Aye, the lick-spittle arse kissers.

Studio25 · 08-02-2014, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

We have to remember that he is an ACTOR by trade and used to assuming a role...

One role. It's more than 50 years since he played any part other than Ken Barlow. In his career, he's had four other roles, two of which were so minor they were uncredited at the end.

Of all the actors who have been through this experience, I'm guessing he's the least able to "act". Anyone in the jury who has seen Corrie would know if he's trying to act while on the stand.

I don't like the character either - I agree he's creepy. I haven't seen him being himself so I can't comment on him as a person. I am glad he's been acquitted though. I'm not suggesting those women weren't abused, it might even have been by him - but if they really wanted to secure a conviction it needed to be back when their memory and his would be a lot more reliable. I'm much younger than any of them, and I can't remember the specifics of what happened one year ago, let alone 40.

accyman · 08-02-2014, 14:58

yet another case that should never have seen a court room its going to get to teh point where genuine people wont even bother

JCB · 08-02-2014, 16:10

I knew two male teachers who were accused of sexual abuse , one with girls , the other with boys .

They were both suspended immediately .

At the end of their trial they were both found to be innocent .

Two careers wrecked .

There must be a better way of dealing with this issue .

maxthecollie · 09-02-2014, 20:46

They should not be named until found guilty

cashman · 09-02-2014, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxthecollie

They should not be named until found guilty

Agree 100% wi that.

DAV007 · 10-02-2014, 20:03

why cant the CPS and the police be charged with wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money

davebtelford · 11-02-2014, 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

why cant the CPS and the police be charged with wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money

Probably for the same reason that the jury can't be prosecuted for bringing in a 'wrong' verdict.

Margaret Pilkington · 11-02-2014, 09:38

The jury came to that verdict as a result of the evidence they were given....if they were not 100% sure that the man had done these things then they had no choice but to acquit.
It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offences....and they didn't convince the jury.

Studio25 · 11-02-2014, 11:39

By the same token, the police and CPS prosecute cases where they feel they have a reasonable chance of conviction and (for cases like this) it is in the public interest.

They will interview everyone involved and decide whether they have a case. It is not up to them to decide whether or not he is guilty. Witnesses will not face the same level of "interrogation" from the police as they will from defence lawyers, so they are less likely to find weakness or contradictions in such evidence.

Margaret Pilkington · 11-02-2014, 12:20

The fact that this is a 'historical' case as well makes it impossible to obtain hard forensic evidence...and really it is just one person's word over another.

One of the women who alleged abuse is apparently going to pursue civil action and alleges that the police didn't use all the evidence she gave them and failed to check on some facts that she wanted to be used to better her case.

This case(as Bill Roache observed) has no winners. The women who brought these allegations are now seen as liars, and having made the accusations for financial gain/status/whatever.
Only those who were present know the truth......but as far as the court is concerned justice has been done through due process.