Bill Roach charged

elmarko said:
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".
Click to expand...

of course there is a "sell by date" or do you think alleged victims are all like monica lewinski and keep semen samples on their clothes, preserved in the freezer? :rolleyes:

If there were witnesses involved, then why haven't they said something before? Or is there evidence to suggest that the Police were more corrupt when the incident took place than they are today? Hence why the alleged victim did not come forward. I just don't "understand" how people can come forward after nearly 50 years to report a crime as serious and life changing as rape.

It doesn't add up.
 
I didn't know who this guy was until I googled, turns out he was in Coronation Street, is there no end to this man's depravity?
 
I believe it's 2 people against his, but that doesn't matter, I severely doubt there's enough evidence to find him guilty if it was 45 years ago.

I think part of this comes back to the Saville case, police are more willing to investigate, and also, the world seems to have found him guilty, even though he didn't have a chance to defend himself (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but I'm not saying he is either).

kd
 
Freakbro said:
The age of consent in the UK rose from 12 to 16 in 1885

Though there has been discussions recently about lowering it to 14 - this would only apply to consensual sex between individuals of approx the same age. As it stands at the moment, a 15 y/o boy can be criminalized and put on the sex offenders register for having sex with his 15 yo girlfriend, which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why only the boy?
 
Always good to see that once charged even though found not guilty some will just assume there wasn't enough evidence to prove conclusively he did it rather than he might actually have been innocent.

This is why in an ideal world someone accused of a crime with this stigma should receive the same anonymity as the the accusers until found guilty. Once accused there will always be an element of "there's no smoke without fire" even if the person is completely innocent. Once found guilty the gloves are off along with any restrictions.

It's difficult to see how we could achieve that however with a court and justice system based on free, open and public access. Closed "private" hearings are a bad thing generally for justice.

I guess we just have an imperfect system that is the best we can do considering human nature. There will always be someone who "gets away with it" and someone else who has a life and reputation falsely ruined.
 
I'm not sure what convicting an 81 year old man for something he did or didn't do 40 years ago benefits either side of the party anyway.

Oh wait... that's right, money!

One of the "victims" changed her mind about the age she was when she raped during the hearing.

e - she wasn't raped during the hearing... I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom