Legally maybe, but now he's a sex offender in the eyes of most whether he's found guilty or not.
Bill Roach charged
- Thread starter chameleon
- Start date
Legally maybe, but now he's a sex offender in the eyes of most whether he's found guilty or not.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
How on earth do have enough evidence to arrest some one from an incident from so long ago? Obviously his comment a few month back sparked someones interest or memory. This is all getting silly. Surely there's a danger that if all police efforts are going into criminal proceeding of yesteryear, then there's a danger of neglecting what's going on today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,114
Thanks for the correction.
This is why we need a law which protects the identities of all concerned until after the verdict is in. There have been a few cases recently where people have been falsely accused and then vilified through the rabid press.
All hail the all seeing eye - ye great one who can keep watch over our all life in our terraqueous landscape.
Pray lord, where does thy obtain such information?.
On a side note, I find it strange that people think that being held accountable for abuse should have a "sell by date".
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
If someone makes an allegation then the evidence is there to make the arrest providing the necessity test is met. Evidence to charge is another matter but there's enough perceived given the CPS decision to charge.
It does make you wonder how much of this may be a witch hunt.
Judging by the fact that 25% of women admit to have been raped or sexually abused it may just be that it's coming to light how common it really is in our society - it's silly to jump to instantly make our they are all making it up.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
.. and the strain this has on current resources.
Hasn't he been charged though?
Hasn't he been charged though?
This is what I don't get. It happened so long ago that surely there can be no proof about what happened. Meaning that it is just his word against hers? I can't see how they could get any sort of conviction out of something like that.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I'm not sure there will be such a strain Huddy, certainly not on frontline response. The Met has a dedicated team of detectives running Savile and other allegations and Lancashire police who are investigating the allegation against Bill Roache will either use CID or Major Crime to investigate.
Other stuff like burglaries, robbery etc will still be investigated and perhaps tecs will be seconded to investigations but I doubt the impact on day to day policing is such a detriment.
According to the press he has been charged.
Other stuff like burglaries, robbery etc will still be investigated and perhaps tecs will be seconded to investigations but I doubt the impact on day to day policing is such a detriment.
According to the press he has been charged.
doesn't the due process of the law require proof?
a lot of these old creepy guys that operation Yewtree is dragging though the mud may well have abused youngsters, but surely they should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise and that proof needs evidence...
a lot of these old creepy guys that operation Yewtree is dragging though the mud may well have abused youngsters, but surely they should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise and that proof needs evidence...
Not in the respect it should be public knowledge, like any "allegation" of this kind that leads to an arrest. Until charges are made, this should not be known.
So many people have been smeared through allegations which are often unfounded.
IF he or any accused are guilty, they should be treated accordingly.
I for one am boycotting watching Coronation Street until the end of this sorry affair.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,114
See any contradictions ?
That's quite an unpalatable and depressing statistic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,495
- Location
- Bucks
All this sex abuse stuff is just getting out of hand. the police did nothing for 20 odd years got caught out hard and now are on defcon 5 to try and prove everyone and their dog abused someone, something once.
all these cases do simply boil down to he said / she said - and thats the most depressing thing about all of this....because its not justice no matter how you look at it.
I would not be surprised if this back fires hard on the CPS/Police once its all said and done - millions wasted, nothing or very little to show for it, and clear abuses of power.
is that 25% pre or post saville? Big difference.
Last edited:
Bearing in mind that Stuart Hall has now admitted to indecent assaults going back to 1967, and bearing in mind that charges are unlikely to have been laid unless there was a reasonable chance of conviction, the possibility is less remote than you might think. With Hall, clearly he would not have admitted to anything unless the evidence against him is compelling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Evidence will be along the lines of expert interviewers and psychoanalyses who are practiced at spotting and extracting conflicting versions of events from people. It is very unlikely that anyone would be charged after so long on the basis on one person's story.
Indecent Assault:
What is considered indecent assault nowadays "COULD" have been the norm back in the "Swinging Sixties"
Indecent assault could be as little as a grab of a backside to face burying in cleavage.
Although he's been charged with Rape. That's a different matter.
However is it Rape or Statutory Rape???
What is considered indecent assault nowadays "COULD" have been the norm back in the "Swinging Sixties"
Indecent assault could be as little as a grab of a backside to face burying in cleavage.
Although he's been charged with Rape. That's a different matter.
However is it Rape or Statutory Rape???
Last edited: