Bill Roache’s Nightmare is Over! But Is It?
The headline suggests the guy can return to work and live his live as a free man as nothing has happened. The producers, directors, ITV Grenada will allow Bill to carry on playing the part of Ken Barlow working down at the studio as he once did. – Like hell.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552261/Bill-Roach-trial-jury-retires-consider-verdicts-accusations-rape-indecent-assault.html
Apart from having to suffer the humiliation of this insane 40 to 50 plus year old allegation and its hefty price tag, advertisers with fears of backlash from buyers will pressure the BBC to get rid of him. Give him and exit package, make him say he is to traumatise to carry on acting. I hope he does not take it.
What a circus, little to no chance of a conviction but 100% success in destroying a man’s legacy and what little remains of his future not to mention the anguish his family and friends went through.
Without exception men should have the right to have their names withheld until after a conviction is secured as the only sensible passage to a fair outcome for men should they be found not guilty.
Anonymity for both accuser and accused or none for both.
Comment by CitymanMichael — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 5:48 am
CitymanMichael: There is already anonymity for accusers in sex-crime allegations. You don’t know the name(s) of the person or people who accused Roache, do you? So it’s strange that you would make this response.
Aside from that, why would you believe that the right of an accuser to be anonymous should be at least equal to that for the accused?
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 9:20 am
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, when he was Attorney General in Lange’s Labour government, introduced legislation that made publication of identifying details of people accused of crimes illegal. Was present for about three years or so and was removed when National was re-elected. In the current pro-victim mentality such legislation will not be reconsidered by any party.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 9:26 am
“His (Roache’s) wild behaviour led fellow stars to dub him C**k Roache and he added he could not control his sex drive at the time, he said”
from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552261/Bill-Roach-trial-jury-retires-consider-verdicts-accusations-rape-indecent-assault.html
The guy lived a sexually wild life, he could not control himself. I hate to see innocent men accused, but when you live on the wild side expect trouble.
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 9:49 am
Thats true Bruce if you bang alot of women your going to come across more then a few nut cases!!! Must make him guilty. The accuser probably wants her name out there so she can sell her story to womens day.
Comment by Ritche — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 10:38 am
Man X – Yes, his accusers have anonymity, but Roache did not. It is entirely possible that the falsely accused suffer through no fault of their own. Indeed William Roche is such a person – falsely accused of rape and now must suffer the old adage “no smoke without fire”. Indeed even on this comment page there are suggestions that he was “responsible”. Not fair.
The alternative is to make the accuser and the accused public – then everyone can see the full story – justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Comment by CitymanMichael — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 11:36 am
He should actually be suing everybody in sight.
Comment by gwallan — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 11:10 pm
CitymanMichael: Ok, you were trying to say that the accused should have anonymity if the accuser has. Fair enough, but I don’t agree that the accused should not have anonymity if the accuser doesn’t. Another reasonable alternative is that the accuser’s name is released but the accused remains anonymous unless and until found guilty. After all, there is no doubt about what the accuser is doing: making allegations against someone and asking society to act against that person. The only thing that might be wrong is what the accuser is saying, not that it was said. The public perhaps has more right to know who is calling upon the state to deal with his/her grievances against someone else than the identity of people about whom unsubstantiated things have been said.
One exception to releasing the name of accusers may be when they did not initiate or request legal proceedings but the police or other agent of the state went ahead anyway, referring to that unwilling party as ‘the complainant’. For example, if police are called by neighbours to a loud argument they can and often will press charges regardless of the expressed wish by both parties that they don’t. In their relentless war against men, feminists demanded and achieved law change allowing police to prosecute on behalf of a ‘complainant’ in domestic cases even without any complaint and/or against the strong, clear wishes of the party whom they then force to be a ‘complainant’. (Oh, that’s right, ‘complainants’ are now called ‘victims’ even before any actual victimization has been established.) Or CYFS and police will subject a child to manipulative ‘evidential interviews’ and thereby use that child as an unwilling and non-consenting pawn in their legal campaign against someone. In such cases, i.e. unless there is a willing accuser seeking prosecution, the ‘complainant’ perhaps deserves anonymity.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th February 2014 @ 11:54 pm
Laws have been changed to acquiesce to feminist demands – indeed in Wales they are about to pass a non-gender neutral law – violence against women act.
Due to the high percentage of false accusations of rape, it seems logical that both accused and accuser should have anonymity. However, I did read an article by Barbara Hewson arguing that both should have no anonymity. I have lots of respect for Barbara’s views.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13604/#.UvTL0m1FB9B I think her article re. anonymity is also somewhere on Spiked
Comment by CitymanMichael — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 12:05 am
Roache stated in his brief valedictorian, that in cases like this, there are no winners.
So true for him; he has lost regardless of the outcome, because some people will never look at him the same again. Some mud always sticks. You can’t expunge from the internet every article regarding his alleged crimes, they will crop up for years to come, and the feminazi will always say where there’s smoke, there’s fire; In some people’s eyes he will remain guilty … forever.
I don’t know the facts; I don’t know if there was any truth to anything; he has, however been found not-guilty, and on that verdict, we must all stand.
What am I saying?
Was he ‘sleazy’? Maybe.
Was he guilty? Not in a court of law.
Is he innocent? Well that is not answered.
Can he live a ‘normal’ life? Never again.
Should his accusers have permanent anonymity? I think that suppresion is entirely valid if the crimes are shown to have occurred. If you have been raped, society does not need to know by name that it was you who were raped. And I think in cases where accusations are shown to be unfounded, fabricated, false, twisted, contorted, exaggerated , vexatious etc? Name the bit#hes!
Perhaps it is time for a law that says ‘the accuser (victim) has name suppression unless (or until) their allegations are shown to be entirely false or unfounded , etc’.
Then name and shame, and sentence the accuser to the same penalty that they would have an innocent mane go down for.
That, to me, would be justice.
Comment by OMG you're &*^(%$ — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 11:35 am
Anonymity – Girls behaving badly
Rape trials must be completely open
Let’s unmask this travesty of justice
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 8th February 2014 @ 1:45 pm
Allan #3
Can you remember anything more about the legislation to not publish names of accused? The judge now has the discretion to publish or not the accused’s name, does he not?
I agree, a far more confrontational anti-accused, pro-victim mentality applies now. The old standard of “innocent till proven guilty” is long gone for any crime where an effective lobby group is opposed to it.
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Sun 9th February 2014 @ 4:46 pm
Sorry Bruce I can’t remeber too much about that legislation. These days a key tennant of NZ justice is openess (unless you are talking Family Court which is basically closed). There is a lot of name suppresion where it may identify victims especially in sexual abuse cases. The Sensible Sentencing and other lobby groups are very opposed to name suppresion.
Organisations like the Teachers Council get flack that they protect the names of teachers who appear before their various disciplinary bodies although they throw to the wolves of media attention and sensationalism those they deregister.
Under Palmers legistation names and details of accused were not allowed to be publicly released until a conviction was made. The principle of innocent until proven guilty being at its core. These days that principle is eroded significantly in the media. Thankfully we still have the Bill or Rights Act that Palmer initiated on the books and fairly secure.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 9th February 2014 @ 8:57 pm
Just a correction to your worry that advertisers will have an effect on the BBC. There is NO advertising on the Beeb. It is funded by a licence fee.
Stick men like Roach are likely to have rogered many women who later on wished they hadn’t let him. Making some one else responsible for your own stupidity is the name of the game these days. I wish Rolf Hariss the best of British luck…..he is going to need it.
Comment by Kant — Tue 11th February 2014 @ 4:30 am
Correction for BBC recognised.
But I suppose there are men who look back at woman they had consensual sex with and with the passage of time, they now regret it. But I don’t see any men taking the woman to court in the hope of ruining their lives and in the pursuit of purging shame, change of mind or just getting some attention and money after a less than prosperous or enjoyable life.
In addition woman who aren’t followed up by that famous young guy they slept with (even years later) could make a woman annoyed and furious enough to complain.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 11th February 2014 @ 8:05 pm
As one who was falsely accused [the crown prosecution service refused to take the case to court] my sympathies naturally lie with Roach. Maybe a time limit should be placed on accusations of this type of case. My accuser boasted that she was going to “get me’ at the local teenagers pub or so some of my students told me. This is why I went public [tonsil touching teacher] better that way than submitting to public whispers. I doubt that Roach will ever return to total normality as will no doubt be true of me. It does strike me that the Roach prosecution was silly and that prosecution could have been fueled more by malice and jealousy rather than truth.
Comment by Andrew McCarthy — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 8:26 pm
Andrew,
I do not think in Roache’s case that it was malice.
Savile changed things. he was called a rapist and his accusers were called victims after he died. he had no opportunity to defend himself, but more than that – his supposed victims received compensation or promise thereof without having to face any rigour at all. this of course has meant that a lot of women now believe that they are entitled to recognition as victims and compensation for acts that may not necessarily be illegal.
We now live in a post Savile era and unless the DPP starts acting as an upholder of justice these cases will continue as more and more women succumb to the temptation of easy compensation. the good news is that Roache and DLT have been cleared by 12 of their peers and if Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Max Clifford manage to clear their name, irresponsible women will think twice before making claims which they should have done decades ago.
Comment by CitymanMichael — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 10:15 pm
Not unless there are any consequences for lying and dragging innocent people (men) through the gutter.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 10:24 pm
The consequences of claiming that one has been a victim of sexual assault has always been that they have had to stand in the witness box and be challenged by someone in a wig. If they have been lying, I would imagine it would be a bloody bad place for them.
Savile meant that this consequence was non existent, as he was dead, and his alleged victims did not have to appear in court.
Comment by CitymanMichael — Tue 18th February 2014 @ 10:35 pm
cityman michael may well be correct. In my case I suspect the cause was malice but money would tempt many people.
Comment by Andrew McCarthy — Wed 19th February 2014 @ 2:34 pm
If it is a dishonest accusation then it doesn’t matter what the motive is.
Comment by Scott B — Thu 20th February 2014 @ 8:28 am