egafd.com

Due to his acquittal, it's hardly likely that he'll face another trial on similar charges.

I would hope not but the vindictiveness of the police and CPS should never be underestimated.

This is beginning to border on complete farce now.

First of all the original complaints were from decades ago. Roache was arrested in May last year with massive publicity.

Surely these new complaints could have been made either decades ago or some time after May before Roache went to trial?

It seems to me that there should be a time limit on these complaints being made, particularly when someone is being put on trial for similar complaints.

I agree with you DJ. Perhaps these new "victims" are thinking of a payout ? he is so grateful to have been acquitted that he'll cough up rather than facing more accusations... who knows? Probably Mail bollocks...

This is a very emotive subject.
On one hand all victims of abuse should be heard. And these trials should not stop them coming forward but,...
On the other had, should the accused be named without trail.
These other "victims" who have suddenly found voice do look like people wanting to make money from a scandal.
It is a tough call and sorry I don't have the answer.

This was debated on Question Time last Thursday and Tessa Jowell came out with a complete parcel of piffle.

The problem with being accused of a sexual offence is that even if you are cleared there is still the suggestion for some, the hint that you got away with it. No smoke without fire and all that so that is a case for anonymity until conviction.

The difficulty with that is other alleged victims cannot come forward as happened in the Stuart Hall case with the result he went back in the dock.

Victims of sexual abuse are automatically given anonymity for life as is right. Perhaps those who are not victims should be named? So we should know the names of the women who made up stories about William Roache and Michael Le Vell. The problem with this is that genuine victims might be deterred from coming forward for fear that they might not be believed and their suffering is then on every front page. Look at the case of the woman who wasn't believed and committed suicide.

The other problem with not naming the accused/arrested man is that inevitably some twat on twitter starts naming the wrong people as happened when both Jimmy Tarbuck and Paul Gambaccini were arrested. Two names were all over the internet ? wrongly. Who knows if the "beloved pop star" the police have spoken to over molesting a 10-year-old boy is the one whose name is in the twittersphere or someone completely different?

The other thing is that justice must be done and seen to be done so if people are being arrested and tried in secret, that militates against open justice.

Rape convictions are low because obviously it's most often a he said-she said scenario.

The law won't be changed ? the feminists would be too vocal ? so if forced to choose I would say either the accused and accuser have anonymity or if the accused is named and then acquitted his accused should be named.