egafd.com

Well, Bill Roache, the Corrie actor has been found not guilty of all charges including rape.

So far in terms of the "celebrities" accused of sexual offences, we have:

Freddie Starr, Paul Gambaccini and Jimmy Tarbuck remain on bail after being arrested last year.
Bill Roache is the third Coronation Street actor who has been accused, tried and not convicted.
Max Clifford and Rolf Harris are awaiting trial.
Jim Davidson, the radio presenter Mike Osman, and BBC producers Ted Beston and Wilfred De?ath ? spent months on police bail before being told no further action would be taken.
Dave Lee Travis's trial is nearing a conclusion.

Now given that the CPS typically will only bring people to trial when there is a realistic chance of a conviction, so far only Stuart Hall has been convicted out of all of the above.

Do the esteemed forumites think that the CPS has over-reacted to all the criticisms that have occurred re. the Savile affair in terms of not listening to complaints and as a result they are much more likely to bring cases against people accused of sexual offences? One of the complainants in the Roach case changed her story re. how old she was, in terms of years, when Roache raped her. Now I would have thought that this in itself would be enough for the CPS to decide that chances of a conviction for her complaint was unlikely.

Or am I missing the point?

David Johnson wrote:

> So far in terms of the "celebrities" accused of sexual
> offences, we have:
>
> Freddie Starr, Paul Gambaccini and Jimmy Tarbuck remain on bail
> after being arrested last year.
> Bill Roache is the third Coronation Street actor who has been
> accused, tried and not convicted.
> Max Clifford and Rolf Harris are awaiting trial.
> Jim Davidson, the radio presenter Mike Osman, and BBC producers
> Ted Beston and Wilfred De?ath ? spent months on police bail
> before being told no further action would be taken.
> Dave Lee Travis's trial is nearing a conclusion.
>
> Do the esteemed forumites think that the CPS has over-reacted
> to all the criticisms that have occurred re. the Savile affair
> in terms of not listening to complaints and as a result they
> are much more likely to bring cases against people accused of
> sexual offences? One of the complainants in the Roach case
> changed her story re. how old she was, in terms of years, when
> Roache did not rape her. Now I would have thought that this in itself
> would be enough for the CPS to decide that chances of a
> conviction for her complaint was unlikely.
>
I thought that she changed her story mid-trial so the CPS would not have had the opportunity to pre-decide that.

But on your main point, absolutely. The police and CPS are running around like headless chickens.

In the olden days a complaint would be made, the police would investigate and then if there was sufficient evidence go and feel a collar. The suspect would then help them with their enquiries. After 48 or 72 hours, the suspect would be released or charged. Nowadays, arresting them first seems to be a basis for negotiation. And allegations made an arrest follows. Then it seems the police look for evidence. Meanwhile, some poor bugger's life is put on hold for months and months while they go on a fishing trip. Jim Davidson lost a year's work and paid out a further six figures to his legal team. As far as I am aware, since the case did not come to court he cannot reclaim that money.

You forgot Gary Glitter who has been on bail since October 2012. Now irrespective of his past misdemeanours if the police had anything on him this time, surely it would not take even the most stupid, short-sighted copper this long to dig up something by now?

It's about money. Nothing else. If these people weren't celebs then nothing would have been done.

Arginald Valleywater wrote:

> It's about money. Nothing else. If these people weren't celebs
> then nothing would have been done.

Yewtree is about the police totally overreacting due to the kicking they got from the Savile affair. Now it's just about putting everyone subject to a compliant before a jury, let them decide.

If anything I've read on the matter is true, it's frightening. I've said all along there must be more to it than someone walking into a police station and claiming "Bill Oddie touched my bum in 1975" for them to make an arrest, but it seems not.

Someone makes a complaint, the person is arrested, splashed over the newspapers, which is used as a way of gathering evidence, asking "anyone else want to make a complaint against this guy, too?" Statements are taken at face value and as fact, the presumption is guilty until proven innocent, and even when the allegation crumbles, it's still allowed to proceed.

More reason for the accused to be given anonymity in rape/sexual offence cases.

"More reason for the accused to be given anonymity in rape/sexual offence cases."

I agree with this. If someone is found innocent of these charges they can still have their lives ruined.

"Now given that the CPS typically will only bring people to trial when there is a realistic chance of a conviction, so far only Stuart Hall has been convicted out of all of the above."

I don't personally think there is a celebrity witch hunt but if most 'celebrity' cases are thrown out because of lack of evidence i'm sure the police & CPS will reassess cases where people claim to have been sexually abused years ago.
Remember most of these cases are decided by juries. Who knows what decisions a jury will make?

Obviously not true. Depends on how serious the abuse is. On the same day as Roache was acquitted some ex headmaster of a school was banged up for 8 years for abusing boys from 1959-1970.

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

> Obviously not true. Depends on how serious the abuse is. On the
> same day as Roache was acquitted some ex headmaster of a school
> was banged up for 8 years for abusing boys from 1959-1970.
>
Not just some ex-headmaster... the ex-headmaster of Nick Clegg's school.

"I thought that she changed her story mid-trial so the CPS would not have had the opportunity to pre-decide that."

I think you are probably right about that. I was reading yesterday about some more detail of the trial and it is gobsmacking that this came to trial.

One woman claimed she was groped by Roache in his dressing room some time between 1968-70. How can you defend yourself against that when you don't know which year it was? She originally told the police that she was warned off Roache by Johnny Briggs who played Mike Baldwin. In court when she was told that Briggs wasn't working on Corrie then, she chose someone else.

Another said she was assaulted by Roache in a gold Rolls Royce, a car that Roache proved he had not owned until a decade after the date of the accusation.

And so it went on and on. You would have thought that the police in their initial interviews of the complainants and Roache would have bottomed some of this out. It appears to have been as Roache's defence argued - people had complained about sexual assaults so it had to go to court in the atmosphere post-Savile.

David Johnson wrote:


> One woman claimed she was groped by Roache in his dressing room
> some time between 1968-70. How can you defend yourself against
> that when you don't know which year it was? She originally
> told the police that she was warned off Roache by Johnny Briggs
> who played Mike Baldwin. In court when she was told that
> Briggs wasn't working on Corrie then, she chose someone else.
>
I seem to recall she changed her story and it was the actor who played Len Fairclough who warned her ? and he, conveniently, is dead.