Ken Clarke Sex Abuse Accuser Ben Fellows Is Cleared

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33724010

I am confused here. Fellows was charged with perverting the course of justice. But the Jury in his case has now found him to be not guilty.

So where does that leave us ? If the Jury believed him, than it should follow that they believed that he WAS groped by Ken Clarke.

More to the point, where does this leave Clarke ?

[fiction-factory]

We may need to wait and see if any clarification is given. Maybe the jury just couldn't reach a 12-0 verdict (if that's what would have been needed)

[ummmm]

Reasonable doubt and all that.

[fiction-factory]

"Since receiving the verdict, they have assured Mr Clarke they regard this matter as closed, and Mr Clarke takes the same view."
Speaking outside the court, Mr Fellows said: "I shall make no further comment now or in the future about Mr Clarke."

Perhaps some sort of 'deal' was struck

[hc4361]

It means there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was lying.
There isn't enough evidence to prove Ken Clarke is guilty.

Stalemate.

[mikey4444]

FF...difficulty here is that there will always be some people that think that it might have happened after all.....no smoke without fire-type of people.
And mud has a terrible tendency to stick.

For the record, before someone mentions it, I have no doubt whatsoever, that Clarke is innocent.

[ummmm]

Do you know him then?

Or is this similar to the people that thought that Rolf Harris was innocent?

Not saying Ken Clark is guilty btw.

[naomi24]

Strange.

[mikey4444]

Correction then Ummm...highly unlikely, and I was one who was disappointed and surprised by Rolf Harris.

[retrocop]

Mikey
//disappointed and surprised //
That is very tame coming from you on matters of paedophillia.? :-)

[mikey4444]

R-cop....Fellows said that the alleged incident happened when he was 19, so even it it did happen, it hardly counts as paedophilia now does it !

[jackthehat]

There are echoes of the Nigel Evans prosecution in this case.
Fellows never made much of a claim about the 'abuse' but it was documented and used as an allegation about Clarke.
He then found himself in the position of being legally obliged to defend his comments. The Jury found that this did not amount to perverting the course of Justice.

[ummmm]

I think Retro was talking about Rolf.

[retrocop]

Mikey
I was referring to your surprise and disappointment at Rolf Harris not this case.

[mikey4444]

R-cop...just read your post again....it was Harris you were referring to I see, not Clarke, so accept my apologies.

But I was surprised about Harris. Like most people my age, he was part of my childhood and I never had an inkling that he was involved in paedophilia, unlike Savile, who I always thought was a creep, at the very least.

Disappointed that he thought he could betray people like me. But glad that he is now behind bars.at last.

[Khandro]

This appears to be a useless thread about a non-event !

[retrocop]

No apologies required or expected but thanks any way.

[mikey4444]

I am not sure what offence, if any was committed in this case. Its not a crime for someone to make sexual advances to a 19 year old man. By his own admission, Fellows said that it was a

"It was not upsetting at all. It was weird but not upsetting... this was no more than a minor groping you would get in a nightclub on a Saturday night"

Hardly amounts to a sexual assault, even it it did occur.