To think Bill Roache needs to hang his head in shame?

[dublindee]

Just saw sky news article on my iPhone re this:

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/coronation-street-actor-bill-roache-1772534

I am disgusted. I think he should be sacked and I think he should make a public apology.

[somedizzywhore1804]

What a fruitcake. Really terrible things said there.

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

it is unwise to say "i'm convinced he is guilty" on a public forum before the verdict has been reached as It could affect the outcome. but afterwards- how do you think it unwise? in what way?

[ilovesooty]

If someone has been acquitted they are not guilty as far as the law is concerned. I'm sure if a newspaper ran an article tomorrow saying he's guilty whatever the jury decided there would be legal consequences.

[SpinDoctorofAethelred]

Fine. Hopefully it really upset ana, though.

anapitt, although the thread features the name Bill Roache, it is not about the trial!

This thread was (note past tense) about his remarks in the national press. Remarks he actually made. Before he was ever charged. None of the posters in this thread need to "apologise" because the charges were not mentioned. Because they hadn't happened yet

Before you search the archive in order to redeem his reputation, it might be a good idea to read the OP. I had completely missed that he said that rape victims deserved it. Until you resurrected this thread.

I previously held no opinion on Bill Roache's character. This has now very much changed. While I acknowledge that the prosecution were unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and Bill Roache is legally innocent, I will now view him with a jaundiced eye. Good going.

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

well that would be like MN running a 'we think he's guilty' headline across the homepage which of course wouldn't be ok, but individuals can express opinion within the site without HQ being in trouble. just like if a newspaper runs a story online and someone comments underneath it saying 'well I still think he did it' that is allowed because it is an individuals opinion and the newspaper can still let the comment stand. happens all the time. I don't know why bill roache would be protected from public opinion.

[SouthernComforts]

Wow, he may have been found not guilty but the MNers upthread were absolutely spot on at predicting what would happen.

[IHadATinyTurtle]

IMO he either said that in the knowledge of the possibility of past abuse coming out, to put across the view that he didn't know girls ages/possibly even who he's slept with due to having '1000' sexual partners.

Or he pulled a lot of nerves with the comments (understandably) and caused false claims. Either way the timing seems too close to be unrelated.

[MrsBucketxx]

Seems like it doesn't matter how sline ball men like this treat women cause there a sleb they will get off.

I feel the same about kevin whats his face.

Why would a woman sob in the doc, shame herself in that way doesn't make sense.

No smoke without fire in my book.

[whomadeyougod]

shame this wasnt heard before the trial , saying things like this makes him sound as guilty as hell .

[hackmum]

"individuals can express opinion within the site without HQ being in trouble. just like if a newspaper runs a story online and someone comments underneath it saying 'well I still think he did it' that is allowed because it is an individuals opinion and the newspaper can still let the comment stand. happens all the time"

Nope. Completely wrong. This is why newspaper sites close comments on news reports of trials. Before and during the trial, you've got the risk of prejudice; after a trial, you've got the risk of libel. The newspaper or forum owner is just as liable as the person making the comments, and it makes more sense to sue them because they are more likely to have money. Hence, you may remember, why Gina Ford threatened to sue Mumsnet.

[nennypops]

In theory he could sue for libel, but does anyone seriously think he would? It would cost an absolute fortune, he would in effect have to go through the whole trial all over again, and would risk a different outcome given that it's a lower standard of proof for a civil claim.

[SpinDoctorofAethelred]

Well, I reported my original and posted again without stating my private opinion of him. It's up to MNHQ now.

[Fantissue]

MrsBucketxx - shame herself? Where's the shame in being attacked? Do tell.

[PumpkinPie2013]

He should really have just kept his big mouth shut shouldn't he?

Tosser!

[Damnautocorrect]

The les battersby actor said he thinks the women should be accountable.
Now if he did it or not, it is not for us without the evidence to judge.
But in order to find someone guilty you need evidence, and if the evidence is not there the jury cannot find a guilty verdict. So what he's effectively saying is all failed convictions the victim should be charged?!?!?
If there's evidence they made it up, absolutely. But for a failed conviction?! You absolute prick

[Damnautocorrect]

It would be much better for all concerned to as pp said keep your mouth shut and move on.

[midnightagents]

He's just mad a hatter really isn't he? I don't think anyone should be paying much heed to what he says. It does make me question his innocence though, if he condones sex with underage girls it is possible he may have done it at some stage.

[MrsBucketxx]

Ok what meant to say why would any sane woman say what she did and it not be true.

Harrowing for her, and then a jury to say she was lying its just wrong.

Shame wasnt the right word sorry.

[MrsBucketxx]

Thats the thing damn, these historical cases are so hard to prove without doubt.

The sleb will always have the jury in their favour.

[hackmum]

"Thats the thing damn, these historical cases are so hard to prove without doubt. The sleb will always have the jury in their favour."

I agree, MrsBucketxx. And one of the key things in cases like this is, not only is it the word of the defendant vs the witnesses or witnesses, without any other evidence, the court process is heavily weighted towards the defendant. So the defence lawyers can bring in evidence to undermine the credibility of the witnesses, but the prosecution is not allowed to do the same to the defendant. So in the Roache case, the judge disallowed evidence about remarks he had made in public. In those circumstances, it's very hard for the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

[anapitt]

quite calm, thanks

[donnie]

the man is an utter wanker. Total tosspotting effing shitting bollocking numbskull.

Wouldn't you say, anapitt? or do you agree with his views?

[ohhifruit]

“If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won’t happen to you.”

Is an utterly disturbing thing to say. What an odious creature.

[SpinDoctorofAethelred]

Slept off the hangover then, ana?

[anapitt]

recovering alcoholic, I never drink but appreciate your concern