Some were according to the Stuart Hall trial, yes.
And Stuart Hall was guilty and admitted it and justice was eventually done. That doesn't relieve victims of their responsibility to come forward. Their silence over decades could well have resulted in Hall being able to continue his filthy lifestyle during those decades that they kept quiet. Justice could and should have been done a lot earlier.
And Stuart Hall was guilty and admitted it and justice was eventually done. That doesn't relieve victims of their responsibility to come forward. Their silence over decades could well have resulted in Hall being able to continue his filthy lifestyle during those decades that they kept quiet. Justice could and should have been done a lot earlier.
He awaits another trial this year, too, I believe.
I suppose if, as a teenager, you're afraid to come forward at the time of the offence, there may be a feeling that you've left it too late after some years have passed.
That said, I'm amazed the CPS let this go to trial with so many discrepancies in the stories of the accusers.
Agree with all who have said anonymity should be for everybody involved as, even with an acquittal, the allegations against these men will hang over them forever and that is not right.
BIB: This! The longer the trial went on the more my jaw hit the floor. IIRC one of the women couldn't even remember when she was supposed to have been raped! What the hell were the CPS thinking? All this wasted money, time and (more importantly) tarnishing a man's reputation possibly forever because mud really does stick with some people in these cases.
I also agree that there should be anonymity for the accused, lives have been ruined through allegations like this.
Good, hope the rest of the peoplpe accused of these crimes get found innocent too, and that the women who accused Bill get put away for the same amount of time he would have
Unfortunately, nobody is ever found to be innocent.
Are we allowed to ask questions now? One thing that bugged me dur ok ng the trial-the prosecution alleged that Jonny briggs told one the complarinants to "watch him" ie Bill. Why wasnt Jonny called to give err vidence?
Because Johnny Briggs wasn't even working for Coronation Street when that happened.
Unfortunately, nobody is ever found to be innocent.
Quite; not guilty is different.
I wished that character witnesses had been called other than Coronation Street actresses and actor; the judge had stated it was the person and not the soap character that was on trial.
Christ, when will these people learn not to name the accused unless they are found guilty? :mad: Too many lives are being destroyed by false allegations. Guilty or not, mud sticks and Mr Roache will now have to carry this for the rest of his life. It must have been so frustrating not being able to do anything. In all seriousness though I hope Bill can now move on from his devastating ordeal and get his life back on track.
In amongst all of this, I think it's important that Fiz has an opinion that is heard on Ken's return. Perhaps a good 4-5 of the episodes following his return should be focused on her feelings on the matter.
Can older people on here remember clearly everything they did 40/50 years ago, which he had to do with the charges brought against him!?
I haven't read all the info about this case, or all this thread, but why did those women suddenly decide to make these accusations after all this time?
Didn't they ever tell anyone whats supposed to have happened to them?
Were they thinking about it every day?
Were they married?
I hope an Australian bloke and someone who plays records will be innocent as well.
Its a pity that the accused doesnt have any comeback on the accusers when they are found not guilty. If I had been put through what Bill Roache has suffered it doesn't seem right that the accusers can remain anonymous and just disappear into the background to carry on with their lives. Still as another poster said you are found not guilty and innocent which is wrong.
William must be so damaged right now I dont know how he will recover from this also I think he will quit Corrie from all this he probably go back to film a quick exit then leave the UK for a while to let everything die down
If you are found 'not guilty' you are innocent. It's exactly the same thing, as one of the basic foundations of our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty.
And for all the people here calling for the accusers to be 'named and shamed', do they really want to add another barrier to victims of crime to come forward? The fear of knowing their name may be plastered all over the tabloids could deter genuine victims.
If you are found 'not guilty' you are innocent. It's exactly the same thing, as one of the basic foundations of our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty.
And for all the people here calling for the accusers to be 'named and shamed', do they really want to add another barrier to victims of crime to come forward? The fear of knowing their name may be plastered all over the tabloids could deter genuine victims.
I do agree about naming the accusers but it just seems so unfair that they can throw accusations at people and then walk away without any recourse.
Comments
And Stuart Hall was guilty and admitted it and justice was eventually done. That doesn't relieve victims of their responsibility to come forward. Their silence over decades could well have resulted in Hall being able to continue his filthy lifestyle during those decades that they kept quiet. Justice could and should have been done a lot earlier.
He awaits another trial this year, too, I believe.
BIB: This! The longer the trial went on the more my jaw hit the floor. IIRC one of the women couldn't even remember when she was supposed to have been raped! What the hell were the CPS thinking? All this wasted money, time and (more importantly) tarnishing a man's reputation possibly forever because mud really does stick with some people in these cases.
I also agree that there should be anonymity for the accused, lives have been ruined through allegations like this.
Because Johnny Briggs wasn't even working for Coronation Street when that happened.
Quite; not guilty is different.
I wished that character witnesses had been called other than Coronation Street actresses and actor; the judge had stated it was the person and not the soap character that was on trial.
It must have been hell for him and his family. I hope he does make a comeback as Ken, but understand if he feels he needs to walk away from Corrie.
LOL bless!
He was sacked but then was cleared of the offence..
I haven't read all the info about this case, or all this thread, but why did those women suddenly decide to make these accusations after all this time?
Didn't they ever tell anyone whats supposed to have happened to them?
Were they thinking about it every day?
Were they married?
I hope an Australian bloke and someone who plays records will be innocent as well.
And for all the people here calling for the accusers to be 'named and shamed', do they really want to add another barrier to victims of crime to come forward? The fear of knowing their name may be plastered all over the tabloids could deter genuine victims.
I heard that one of the women said they had sex in his gold rolls, and he got it twenty years later than when she said it happened.
I do agree about naming the accusers but it just seems so unfair that they can throw accusations at people and then walk away without any recourse.