Bill Roache Of Coronation Street Charged With Two Counts Of Rape.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317606/Bill-Roache-Coronation-Streets-Ken-Barlow-charged-counts-rape.html

Yet another celebrity charged with sexual offences, the question I wish to ask is, what possible evidence could have been brought forward after all these years for the CPS to instruct the police to charge Bill Roache (in this particular case) with rape, surely rape is a hard enough offence to prove when it allegedly takes place at the time, never mind after 46 years ago?

[anotheoldgit]

If the police did have evidence of his wrong doings forty six years ago and yet did nothing, then if Bill Roache is indeed found guilty, surely the police have just as much to answer for as apparently they did over the Stephen Lawrence affair.

[magsmay]

@sqad - whatever the timescale and for whatever reason I crime perhaps has been committed -so the perpetrator should be brought to justice. Just because something happened 'a lifetime' ago does not mean it should go unpunished -if indeed the 'crime' ever happened - its up to the CPS to decide if there is a case to answer.

[furrypusscat]

The point I am trying to make is that even if a girl consents, if that girl is under 16 she cannot legally consent and therefore it would be classed as rape. We all know how girls dress and wear makeup which can make them look older than their actual age even so long ago.
I agree with Cloverjo that any accused should not be named until case proven, the stigma remains even if proven innocent.

[Sqad]

magsmay.....I totally agree with your post.

The "discussion" that i was having with JTH was one of motive of complaint.

[ummmm]

The police had evidence against Jimmy Savile but covered it up...

[magsmay]

@furrypussycat -consensual sex with a 13-15 year old is classed as having sex with a child. Consensual sex with a child under the age of 13 is always classed as Rape.

[magsmay]

@Sqad well I'm in agreement with you on the 'motive of complaint'

[jackthehat]

Motive of complaint is immaterial.

If an offence was committed then an offence was committed. Quite why it takes such a long time for some victims to come forwards is amply illustrated by the dismissive and suspicious minds regrettably displayed on this forum.

[Sqad]

JTH...you are now saying the same thing over and over again.

We will have to agree to disagree over "motive."

[jackthehat]

LoL....*I'm* saying the same thing over and over again...???!!!

You're never far away from these threads with your 'let's be suspicious of/blame the victim' comments.

Why be suspicious of any motives where an offence has been committed?
Vicky Pryce may not have covered herself in any glory, but the fact that an offence had been committed there was established beyond any doubt!

[furrypusscat]

It is not certain that any offence has been committed until proven in court.

[VHG]

>>>>the charge here is rape. not the amount of sexual partners.

The point I am making is how is a person supposed to remember who they had sex with 46 years ago, particularly if you HAVE had a lot of sexual partners.

SHE may say it was rape, but he may not even be able to remember having sex with her.

[ummmm]

I don't think anyone has claimed that he is guilty.

[jackthehat]

Of course it isn't.

Which is why an accusation is followed by an investigation is followed (where appropriate) by a court-case is followed by a verdict.

Motive of accusation is usually eliminated at a fairly early stage.....

[jim360]

That's true, but equally we should be wary of automatically assuming innocence, and that the one bringing the complaint had a sinister (or money-driven) motive for bringing cases to trial.

[ummmm]

VHG - do you not think he'd remember if he forced himself on someone? It's a bit different to consensual sex.

[jno]

VHG, for all I know (which is nothing) he may have raped so many teenagers he can't remember this one; but an offence would still have been committed and if there's anough evidence of it, he should be punished.

[jno]

Stuart Hall has remembered the people he assulted, including a nine-year-old, it seems. (After some vehement denials before he got to court.)

[jeanijay]

Cloverjo

I think the accused should remain anonymous at least until being charged or taken to court, if not until proven guilty.
_________________________________________________________


Memory of events 46 years ago cannot be relied on, agree with you cloverjo. Anyway all the young lads I knew all seemed to have an extra pair of hands then. Now, if I could remember a particular incident perhaps a visit to the police could be in order