Not really, it took seven months to get to trial, the same time frame as Michael Le Vell who awaits his in September, and Bill Roache who in light of the new allegations awaits his trial in January.
Nice to have a positive outcome, I hope Andrew Lancel can get past this and his career recovers.
His personal reputation is in tatters though despite being found not guilty
Well it damn well shouldn't be! :mad: Poor bloke has been through 7 months of sheer hell and the jury took 29 minutes to find him innocent? The CPS should be ashamed of themselves if they couldn't come up with enough evidence to justify more than 29 minutes of deliberation time. :mad:
Well it damn well shouldn't be! :mad: Poor bloke has been through 7 months of sheer hell and the jury took 29 minutes to find him innocent? The CPS should be ashamed of themselves if they couldn't come up with enough evidence to justify more than 29 minutes of deliberation time. :mad:
Well it damn well shouldn't be! :mad: Poor bloke has been through 7 months of sheer hell and the jury took 29 minutes to find him innocent? The CPS should be ashamed of themselves if they couldn't come up with enough evidence to justify more than 29 minutes of deliberation time. :mad:
This is pretty much it .
I bet the tabloids wont plaster this verdict all over the front page like they did when he was arrested :rolleyes:
Well it damn well shouldn't be! :mad: Poor bloke has been through 7 months of sheer hell and the jury took 29 minutes to find him innocent? The CPS should be ashamed of themselves if they couldn't come up with enough evidence to justify more than 29 minutes of deliberation time. :mad:
Absolutely agree, especially with the BIB - I really feel for the poor guy because mud unfortunately sticks.
They should be named and shamed that's my view I wont change it.
This is my view too, they have committed a crime and must be prosecuted.they lied about this poor man, how many other celebs have to go through hell because of a liar??
This is my view too, they have committed a crime and must be prosecuted.they lied about this poor man, how many other celebs have to go through hell because of a liar??
If you 'name and shame' and prosecute people who have accused someone of a crime, very few genuine victims of rape and sexual assault would come forward to say that they have been attacked, unless they had absolutely concrete evidence it had happened. Why would they? Prosecution rates are abysmal enough as it is.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who falsely accuse others of rape, but you can't change a very valid and necessary law to penalise a tiny minority of people who cry false rape.
So will the false accuser now be prosecuted for trying to ruin this mans life...?
It doesn't mean the person lied, it simply means there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
Prosecuting cases of historic child abuse is extremely difficult - little evidence will remain after all those years.
This is my view too, they have committed a crime and must be prosecuted.they lied about this poor man, how many other celebs have to go through hell because of a liar??
How do you know they lied? Because a crime can't be proven in court does not mean a crime has not been committed.
It doesn't mean the person lied, it simply means there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
This is my view too, they have committed a crime and must be prosecuted.they lied about this poor man, how many other celebs have to go through hell because of a liar??
Surely that statement undermines the whole point of Law.
If you are not guilty of a crime , then you are innocent . Or am I being daft.
I don't subscribe to this 'no smoke without fire' mentality that is so widespread nowadays
Many guilty people are found not guilty everyday because there is a lack of evidence.
It's not a smoke without fire mentality. It's knowing that the justice system has its limits. A verdict does not equal the Truth.
It's difficult to get a conviction in rape cases because of the nature of the crime. So even if the victim is telling the truth, without evidences the truth means nothing in court.
Comments
Kevin is looking after his dad.
Nice to have a positive outcome, I hope Andrew Lancel can get past this and his career recovers.
I completely agree with you!
There's no reason his career shouldn't recover now that he's been cleared
Well it damn well shouldn't be! :mad: Poor bloke has been through 7 months of sheer hell and the jury took 29 minutes to find him innocent? The CPS should be ashamed of themselves if they couldn't come up with enough evidence to justify more than 29 minutes of deliberation time. :mad:
This.
The CPS are coming a joke with regards to these celebs now!
Love Andrew and hope to see him back on-screen soon.
That's a disgrace they took the case so far based on that? just wtf is happening.
They should be named and shamed that's my view I wont change it.
This is pretty much it .
I bet the tabloids wont plaster this verdict all over the front page like they did when he was arrested :rolleyes:
Absolutely agree, especially with the BIB - I really feel for the poor guy because mud unfortunately sticks.
This is my view too, they have committed a crime and must be prosecuted.they lied about this poor man, how many other celebs have to go through hell because of a liar??
If you 'name and shame' and prosecute people who have accused someone of a crime, very few genuine victims of rape and sexual assault would come forward to say that they have been attacked, unless they had absolutely concrete evidence it had happened. Why would they? Prosecution rates are abysmal enough as it is.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who falsely accuse others of rape, but you can't change a very valid and necessary law to penalise a tiny minority of people who cry false rape.
It doesn't mean the person lied, it simply means there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
Prosecuting cases of historic child abuse is extremely difficult - little evidence will remain after all those years.
How do you know they lied? Because a crime can't be proven in court does not mean a crime has not been committed.
Delete
I have to agree.
Many guilty people are found not guilty everyday because there is a lack of evidence.
It's not a smoke without fire mentality. It's knowing that the justice system has its limits. A verdict does not equal the Truth.
It's difficult to get a conviction in rape cases because of the nature of the crime. So even if the victim is telling the truth, without evidences the truth means nothing in court.
It did seem strange to me at the time that there were suddenly three cases of this and that all the people accused were Coronation Street actors.