William Roache in court

py2006 · 06-02-2014 01:40PM

Gatling wrote: »

Unfortunately there protected by the courts with "life long anonymity" even if identified through social media the person/s identified the accuser gets dragged to court too

People 'accused' of rape/sexual abuse should receive anonymity and their name should only be given to media IF they are found guilty.

Anyone, who deliberately falsely accuses somebody of these crimes should have there names all over the media and given a sentence.

ArmaniJeanss · 06-02-2014 01:40PM

py2006 wrote: »

The accusers should be named and shamed now.

Whatever about named (arguable) why 'shamed'?
They have committed no crime, broke no law and in the eyes of society have nothing to be ashamed about.

py2006 · 06-02-2014 01:42PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whatever about named (arguable) why 'shamed'?
They have committed no crime, broke no law and in the eyes of society have nothing to be ashamed about.

Do you say the same about women who falsely accuse men of rape?

ArmaniJeanss · 06-02-2014 01:46PM

py2006 wrote: »

Do you say the same about women who falsely accuse men of rape?

I'm happy if these women are named if they are convicted of a crime - if the CPS decides they have a case to answer, evidence is heard in front of a judge and then a jury decides beyond reasonable doubt that they deliberately made a false allegation.

You appear to want them named and 'shamed' today.

Gatling · 06-02-2014 01:46PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whatever about named (arguable) why 'shamed'?
They have committed no crime, broke no law and in the eyes of society have nothing to be ashamed about.

Committed no crime /

Perjury ,

Making false accusations,

Defamation ,

Did nothing wrong so let's say you or someone you know gets accused of any crime ,goes to court one person say you done this and you done that ,even though your 110% innocent and you prove it ,

Would you still say the same ahh sure they didn't do anything wrong ,sure no harm came of it ??

StephenHendry · 06-02-2014 01:46PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whatever about named (arguable) why 'shamed'?
They have committed no crime, broke no law and in the eyes of society have nothing to be ashamed about.

i see where you're coming from but surely it would prevent people making up claims/accusations against people, there has to be some consequences if they proceed all the way with their claims

StephenHendry · 06-02-2014 01:48PM

Gatling wrote: »

Committed no crime /

Perjury ,

Making false accusations,

Defamation ,

Did nothing wrong so let's say you or someone you know gets accused of any crime ,goes to court one person say you done this and you done that ,even though your 110% innocent and you prove it ,

Would you still say the same ahh sure they didn't do anything wrong ,sure no harm came of it

yes and surely there has to be greater effort to protect the identity of the accused as well

py2006 · 06-02-2014 01:49PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm happy if these women are named if they are convicted of a crime - if the CPS decides they have a case to answer, evidence is heard in front of a judge and then a jury decides beyond reasonable doubt that they deliberately made a false allegation.

You appear to want them named and 'shamed' today.

you do realise these accusations can and do destroy peoples lives. Not just the victim but there families too. People have to be held accountable.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-02-2014 01:51PM

Gatling wrote: »

Committed no crime /

Perjury ,

Making false accusations,

Defamation ,

Did nothing wrong so let's say you or someone you know gets accused of any crime ,goes to court one person say you done this and you done that ,even though your 110% innocent and you prove it ,

Would you still say the same ahh sure they didn't do anything wrong ,sure no harm came of it ??

Not to mention the huge damage that people making false claims of rape and abuse do to the genuine victims, who have to fight twice as hard to be believed.
I don't know what the solution is. You don't want to deter genuine victims from coming forward for fear they'll be charged if they can't prove their case. But people who knowingly defame people and damage their reputations for the rest of their lives really should be punished.

Gatling · 06-02-2014 01:52PM

StephenHendry wrote: »

yes and surely there has to be greater effort to protect the identity of the accused as well

Definitely but where there isn't a real case to answer to then you shouldn't get to be protected for life ,
In this case the accused get to walk way and enjoy there life ,the innocent accused gets his name all over the media and spends the rest of there life with "accused of " for the rest of there life ,

There has to be equal balance

Conall Cernach · 06-02-2014 01:52PM

WikiHow wrote: »

He will be going for a pint in the Rovers after all that

Only a half surely. This is Ken we're talking about.

willmunny1990 · 06-02-2014 01:52PM

StephenHendry wrote: »

i see where you're coming from but surely it would prevent people making up claims/accusations against people, there has to be some consequences if they proceed all the way with their claims

There is a flip side to that though, it could put genuine victims off reporting crimes like this due to the fear of being named/shamed or whatever if the accused is found not guilty.

Soft Falling Rain · 06-02-2014 01:53PM

py2006 wrote: »

Anyone, who deliberately falsely accuses somebody of these crimes should have there names all over the media and given a sentence.

How do you prove a false accusation has been made though, that's the problem.

You'd be depending on an omission from the person at question, and tbh I can't see too many people voluntarily piping up when they know there will be a sentence at the end of it to serve.

ArmaniJeanss · 06-02-2014 01:53PM

Gatling wrote: »

Committed no crime /

Perjury ,

Making false accusations,

Defamation ,

Seriously? They have not been convicted of any of these crimes.

They may be in the future.
Its also quite possible, even likely, that this case will reside in the massive legal grey area of cases where there is not evidence to convict and also not enough to suggest a false allegation.

py2006 · 06-02-2014 01:57PM

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

How do you prove a false accusation has been made though, that's the problem.

You'd be depending on an omission from the person at question, and tbh I can't see too many people voluntarily piping up when they know there will be a sentence at the end of it to serve.

Yea its a tough one. But there have been instances were the accuser has admitted lying and/or due to further investigation it has been proved that the person accused was nowhere near the accuser etc.

It does happen, and as a man it is very scary.

tritium · 06-02-2014 01:58PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome of the trial tbh, I think it was an awful thing for all parties to have gone through. Regardless of my own personal opinion about Roache (I stand by my opinion that he comes off as a pompous ass with a massive ego, but that's no reason to assume he's a rapist), I still hope that this case wouldn't have the effect of having people assume that people only coming forward years later must be only doing it for the money/notoriety, etc. This is one case among many thousands of cases, and it'd be unfortunate if the pendulum of public opinion were to swing too far the other way to say all accusers must be making it up when cases like this come to light. The right to a fair hearing must go BOTH ways and the presumption of innocence of both the accused and the accuser -

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Unfortunately the only way to assure this is anonymity for both parties. Equally unfortunately there are a host of (in many cases agenda driven) groups actively blocking this.

Gatling · 06-02-2014 02:00PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Seriously? They have not been convicted of any of these crimes.

They may be in the future.
Its also quite possible, even likely, that this case will reside in the massive legal grey area of cases where there is not evidence to convict and also not enough to suggest a false allegation.

Witness statements in this case where it was proven the supposed victim claimed she was made preform a sex act in a car ,
Then comes out ohh I don't remember that actually ever happend ,
So to me a lay person a false accusation made in court,

Also I'm not accusing them of anything thing I posted possible crimes committed against an innocently accused

ArmaniJeanss · 06-02-2014 02:03PM

StephenHendry wrote: »

i see where you're coming from but surely it would prevent people making up claims/accusations against people, there has to be some consequences if they proceed all the way with their claims

Well there are huge consequences if found guilty of perjury, its an offence with potentially a big sentence.
However merely not being believed when you appear as a prosecution witness (as these girls were) doesn't signify guilt. Otherwise by definition ~50% of the witnesses in every court case would be guilty of perjury?

I just find it terrible that so many AH posters have this attitude that if the defendant is declared innocent then by definition the other side must be automatically guilty of perjury/false allegation etc.

Like how many girls would read this attitude and think twice about making a genuine assault report to the police?

Beefy78 · 06-02-2014 02:15PM

This is exactly why I said yesterday that trials with no actual tangible evidence do not sit well with me. In a case where it's just 'he said/she said' none of us can know what actually happened. The verdict doesn't mean that he didn't do it and that the 'victims' are lying. A guilty verdict wouldn't mean that he did do it. Lives can be wrecked purely because of twelve individual gut feelings.

People are innocent until proven guilty. If there's nothing tangible to prove guilt then the CPS has no business taking something to trial.

06-02-2014 02:19PM

Now

Santa Cruz · 06-02-2014 02:19PM

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Only a half surely. This is Ken we're talking about.

Deirdrey will put on t'kettle

py2006 · 06-02-2014 02:51PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Like how many girls would read this attitude and think twice about making a genuine assault report to the police?

I think you need to look to those women who falsely accuse men of rape as it them that make it difficult for the genuine victims.

dark crystal · 06-02-2014 02:53PM

py2006 wrote: »

The accusers should be named and shamed now.

This is the very reason many people are afraid to report rapes.

Take Ireland alone, only 1-2% of reported rape cases result in a conviction; the lowest figure in Europe. Are all 98-99% of those who fail to convict their alleged attackers liars, do you think?

Of course, Mr Roache now has the option to sue the accusers if he feels he was the victim of false allegations and the police can choose to file charges if they believe perjury was committed in this case. Until then, shaming these women is a ridiculous suggestion.

These women are innocent of any crime until proven otherwise in a court of law.

py2006 · 06-02-2014 03:00PM

dark crystal wrote: »

These women are innocent of any crime until proven otherwise in a court of law.

I meant that comment in relation to those who deliberately make a false accusation.

Mr Roach, had his name dragged through the mud based on an accusation. He should have been given anonymity too. That is just fair.

Although, it would probably be hard to keep such a high profile person anonymous.

dark crystal · 06-02-2014 03:02PM

py2006 wrote: »

I meant that comment in relation to those who deliberately make a false accusation.

Mr Roach, had his name dragged through the mud based on an accusation. He should have been given anonymity too. That is just fair.

Although, it would probably be hard to keep such a high profile person anonymous.

Agreed.

the_monkey · 06-02-2014 03:09PM

Deirdre and Tracy will be so relieved ...

Maybe Kev and him can have a few pints in the Rovers and move on ...

Gatling · 06-02-2014 03:25PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I just find it terrible that so many AH posters have this attitude that if the defendant is declared innocent then by definition the other side must be automatically guilty of perjury/false allegation etc.

Like how many girls would read this attitude and think twice about making a genuine assault report to the police?

In this case its pretty obvious that at least one of the complaints was making it up as she went along even to the point of using people long dead as witnesses ,

That is black and white ,

IMO what makes girls and lads who have been attacked in any way not make complaints is the lack of justice when its proven they were attacked ,
2 stories in yesterdays news one woman sexually assaulted and nearly raped , attacker knocked her unconscious then tried to rape her before a neighbor came to her aide, he was arrested charged claimed he was drunk and didn't remember it got a fairly light sentence ,
Second story girl attacked battered /strangled by her ex went to court attacker didn't remember doing it got a sentence which was reduced to mostly suspended ,

Now people have opinions in forums and I highly doubt people don't report crimes based off what they read on boards

smileyj1987 · 06-02-2014 03:34PM

I feel sorry for the man . I think all cases like this should be done behind closed doors . If you are guilty name and shame when justice is applied and if your innocent then you walk away with nobody knowing .

gramar · 06-02-2014 03:44PM

dark crystal wrote: »

This is the very reason many people are afraid to report rapes.

Take Ireland alone, only 1-2% of reported rape cases result in a conviction; the lowest figure in Europe. Are all 98-99% of those who fail to convict their alleged attackers liars, do you think?

Of course, Mr Roache now has the option to sue the accusers if he feels he was the victim of false allegations and the police can choose to file charges if they believe perjury was committed in this case. Until then, shaming these women is a ridiculous suggestion.

These women are innocent of any crime until proven otherwise in a court of law.

In the very same way that Roache couldn't be convicted because of the lack of evidence he would find it very difficult to prove that the accusers were lying for the self same reasons so pursuing them for this would be senseless.

K-9 · 06-02-2014 04:04PM

py2006 wrote: »

The accusers should be named and shamed now.

py2006 wrote: »

People 'accused' of rape/sexual abuse should receive anonymity and their name should only be given to media IF they are found guilty.

Anyone, who deliberately falsely accuses somebody of these crimes should have there names all over the media and given a sentence.

Did these accusers lie though?
It's a worrying trend in sex abuse cases like this, defendant gets acquitted and in some minds that means automatically the accusers lied. Dangerous territory to go down.

I'd agree with anonymity too, but I'd also have a not proven verdict like in Scotland.

William Roache in court

Comments