Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal said the evidence against Mr Roache had been "carefully considered" and as a result, the Crown Prosecution Service would be charging him with two counts of rape.
"We have been reviewing evidence and providing early investigative advice to Lancashire Police since 1 March," he said.
"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged."
The media being allowed to name people before any convictions does need to stop. I have never supported it and never will.
But then on the flip side you may have in high profile cases other victims who come forward with credible evidence after realising what is going on. But I do on balance tend to agree with you.
But then on the flip side you may have in high profile cases other victims who come forward with credible evidence after realising what is going on. But I do on balance tend to agree with you.
I'm the same. I can understand the call for anonymity, but in some cases the publicity of an arrest can bring other victims forward.
The media being allowed to name people before any convictions does need to stop.
It's the price to pay for justice being seen to be done. There are good reasons for trials routinely taking place in public and being reported by the press. Besides, imagine the rumours if we never actually knew who had been tried and acquitted?
It's the price to pay for justice being seen to be done. There are good reasons for trials routinely taking place in public and being reported by the press. Besides, imagine the rumours if we never actually knew who had been tried and acquitted?
Indeed.. but the current set up is absurd. We have media sitting in the gallery not allowed to record and we then rely on their observations to tell us what is going on. Why not just introduce filmed courts that stream onto the internet?
Indeed.. but the current set up is absurd. We have media sitting in the gallery not allowed to record and we then rely on their observations to tell us what is going on. Why not just introduce filmed courts that stream onto the internet?
How many people are going to want to sit and watch the entire proceedings as they happen? We're still going to need journalists to precis the day's events - and they're restricted to telling us what happened, it's not as if they're allowed to embellish it while the trial is going on.
I don't think the accused should be named unless found guilty.
However - as an observation, they seem to have acted swiftly in this case - the fact that they have been working with the CPS since March 1st before, as far as we know talking to the accused would suggest there is sufficient evidence. Who knows - independent ex friends he bragged to or something to corroborate what the victim says? Anyway, innocent until proven guilty.......
The press wouldn't report unless they had been given the name kosher wise.
The press can report who is arrested and who is charged unless the police ask them not to. Of course the press don't have to comply.
They've held off on a few names one they decided to out two weeks ago but there are some they haven't.
True enough. Then there are those quotes in the press every few weeks claiming more big arrests are just about to happen in the very near future, once that was claimed in January but people were getting frustrated as there didn't seem to be any reported arrests etc. a month or so later. Almost the same quote was published again later on, its been claimed about 3 times this year I believe?. It feels like its turning into some kind of soap(!). Will The Sun be running some sort of free Ken campaign like they did when Deirdre went to court on the TV show? :rolleyes:
There must be someone or people talking to the press - do they get paid for their quotes/info?. Why do they choose not to name some names but are happy to name others? bizarre.
I don't think the accused should be named unless found guilty.
However - as an observation, they seem to have acted swiftly in this case - the fact that they have been working with the CPS since March 1st before, as far as we know talking to the accused would suggest there is sufficient evidence. Who knows - independent ex friends he bragged to or something to corroborate what the victim says? Anyway, innocent until proven guilty.......
Totally disagree, a lot of people either witnesses or even previous victims would never come forward if people were not named and not just for sexual offences, also there has to be some evidence for arrest anyway, its not often you would be arrested without something there, it really is no smoke without fire.
Jimmy Savile is the best reason to disagree, I would say had he been tried he probably would not have been found guilty on many occasions and therefore no one may have ever came forward if his trials were secret, i.e he was never found guilty.
Tim Bachman, who co-founded the iconic Canadian rock band Bachman-Turner Overdrive, was found not guilty Wednesday of sex charges brought by a woman who was a foster child in his home.
A British Columbia judge concluded the testimony of Stacy Bohun, now 24, was unreliable because of inconsistencies in her statements over the years.
Its quite rare they charge on the same day as the arrest, I feel strongly that had he been convicted he would never have earnt the money he has done over the years and therefore should he be convicted then I think he deserves to lose it all.
Some people just don't know when to keep their trap shut, silly old man either way
The media being allowed to name people before any convictions does need to stop. I have never supported it and never will.
There needs to be a balance between freedom of the press and respect for the right to a fair trial. Unless there is a specific court order in place the press have every right to report the names.
Its quite rare they charge on the same day as the arrest, I feel strongly that had he been convicted he would never have earnt the money he has done over the years and therefore should he be convicted then I think he deserves to lose it all.
Some people just don't know when to keep their trap shut, silly old man either way
There's no legal basis for the BiB, unless they could prove he made the money as a direct result of the rapes, which is severely unlikely.
there must be a dirty culture within our showbiz industry
Power I guess, but I can assure you its not a dirty culture in showbiz, I think the whole of the UK is toxic, Ive seen it so much in my life that goes unreported, so much
Totally disagree, a lot of people either witnesses or even previous victims would never come forward if people were not named and not just for sexual offences, also there has to be some evidence for arrest anyway, its not often you would be arrested without something there, it really is no smoke without fire.
Jimmy Savile is the best reason to disagree, I would say had he been tried he probably would not have been found guilty on many occasions and therefore no one may have ever came forward if his trials were secret, i.e he was never found guilty.
I am concerned about those that are innocent - there are cases where women cry rape and the man is proven innocent. Nobody remembers that bit - families split up etc as a result of the stress. I do take your point on JS. Hard to determine a suitable threshold of victims required before it is made public.
How many people are going to want to sit and watch the entire proceedings as they happen? We're still going to need journalists to precis the day's events - and they're restricted to telling us what happened, it's not as if they're allowed to embellish it while the trial is going on.
Not really the point.. it should be there for those that want it.
I am concerned about those that are innocent - there are cases where women cry rape and the man is proven innocent. Nobody remembers that bit - families split up etc as a result of the stress. I do take your point on JS. Hard to determine a suitable threshold of victims required before it is made public.
Im sure they will (remember) in this case if he is found innocent,
I am concerned about those that are innocent - there are cases where women cry rape and the man is proven innocent. Nobody remembers that bit - families split up etc as a result of the stress. I do take your point on JS. Hard to determine a suitable threshold of victims required before it is made public.
I understand what you say, but ill never understand other peoples mentality I would never have a sexual relationship with someone I did not trust, so I would never be able to see my self in that situation of false rape, surely that has to play into it, and if you are a Celeb, either A or Z list then you should consider that.
Its a strange on me, but its the way I am, I would never put myself in that position so I can never understand how others do
I am concerned about those that are innocent - there are cases where women cry rape and the man is proven innocent. Nobody remembers that bit - families split up etc as a result of the stress. I do take your point on JS. Hard to determine a suitable threshold of victims required before it is made public.
BIB - Not just women, Matthew Kelly's accuser was male.
Comments
Prosecutors said Mr Roache will appear before Preston magistrates on 14 May.
Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal said the evidence against Mr Roache had been "carefully considered" and as a result, the Crown Prosecution Service would be charging him with two counts of rape.
"We have been reviewing evidence and providing early investigative advice to Lancashire Police since 1 March," he said.
"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged."
But then on the flip side you may have in high profile cases other victims who come forward with credible evidence after realising what is going on. But I do on balance tend to agree with you.
I'm the same. I can understand the call for anonymity, but in some cases the publicity of an arrest can bring other victims forward.
It's the price to pay for justice being seen to be done. There are good reasons for trials routinely taking place in public and being reported by the press. Besides, imagine the rumours if we never actually knew who had been tried and acquitted?
How many people are going to want to sit and watch the entire proceedings as they happen? We're still going to need journalists to precis the day's events - and they're restricted to telling us what happened, it's not as if they're allowed to embellish it while the trial is going on.
However - as an observation, they seem to have acted swiftly in this case - the fact that they have been working with the CPS since March 1st before, as far as we know talking to the accused would suggest there is sufficient evidence. Who knows - independent ex friends he bragged to or something to corroborate what the victim says? Anyway, innocent until proven guilty.......
True enough. Then there are those quotes in the press every few weeks claiming more big arrests are just about to happen in the very near future, once that was claimed in January but people were getting frustrated as there didn't seem to be any reported arrests etc. a month or so later. Almost the same quote was published again later on, its been claimed about 3 times this year I believe?. It feels like its turning into some kind of soap(!). Will The Sun be running some sort of free Ken campaign like they did when Deirdre went to court on the TV show? :rolleyes:
There must be someone or people talking to the press - do they get paid for their quotes/info?. Why do they choose not to name some names but are happy to name others? bizarre.
Totally disagree, a lot of people either witnesses or even previous victims would never come forward if people were not named and not just for sexual offences, also there has to be some evidence for arrest anyway, its not often you would be arrested without something there, it really is no smoke without fire.
Jimmy Savile is the best reason to disagree, I would say had he been tried he probably would not have been found guilty on many occasions and therefore no one may have ever came forward if his trials were secret, i.e he was never found guilty.
Tim Bachman, who co-founded the iconic Canadian rock band Bachman-Turner Overdrive, was found not guilty Wednesday of sex charges brought by a woman who was a foster child in his home.
A British Columbia judge concluded the testimony of Stacy Bohun, now 24, was unreliable because of inconsistencies in her statements over the years.
there must be a dirty culture within our showbiz industry
Some people just don't know when to keep their trap shut, silly old man either way
That's quite possible.
There needs to be a balance between freedom of the press and respect for the right to a fair trial. Unless there is a specific court order in place the press have every right to report the names.
There's no legal basis for the BiB, unless they could prove he made the money as a direct result of the rapes, which is severely unlikely.
Power I guess, but I can assure you its not a dirty culture in showbiz, I think the whole of the UK is toxic, Ive seen it so much in my life that goes unreported, so much
You just answered your own question.
I am concerned about those that are innocent - there are cases where women cry rape and the man is proven innocent. Nobody remembers that bit - families split up etc as a result of the stress. I do take your point on JS. Hard to determine a suitable threshold of victims required before it is made public.
Not really the point.. it should be there for those that want it.
Im sure they will (remember) in this case if he is found innocent,
He's in his 80's. Could die before it comes to trial - not a nice legacy if innocent. Can't stand the man by the way.
I understand what you say, but ill never understand other peoples mentality I would never have a sexual relationship with someone I did not trust, so I would never be able to see my self in that situation of false rape, surely that has to play into it, and if you are a Celeb, either A or Z list then you should consider that.
Its a strange on me, but its the way I am, I would never put myself in that position so I can never understand how others do
BIB - Not just women, Matthew Kelly's accuser was male.
If that were a hypothetical question one answer could be,
Paternity test + maths + medical records.
Not a joke