Craig Charles

[MagicalMystical]

In the light of the culture we have now, can someone explain to me how Craig Charles escaped his now-cleared rape charge in 1995? I can only find articles from the Independent which is behind a paywall. It has let me read this one:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/red-dwarf-actor-led-gangrape-of-woman-in-flat-1574082.html

But I can’t read anything that shows how they decided this didn’t happen.

What stuff?

He spent almost 4 months in prison on remand and whilst in jail was stabbed by another inmate. I think that counts as affecting someone's life a little.

Some of these posts should be deleted. They are pretty much saying he is a rapist.

I was on the jury on a rape trial about 10 years ago. We acquitted the defender (Scotland). What happens in the Jury Room stays in the Jury Room. Even now if I was to disclose any of the deliberations or what individual jurors thought and I was identified, I'd be in Contempt of Court.

The same will be true in England, unless you know one of the jurors and they are prepared to risk a jail sentence (unlikely in a high profile case) you will never find out the jury's reasoning behind the verdict.

I didn't know about this case but I wish we could please move on from 'was found not guilty' equals 'the complainant lied' or 'it was found to be made up' unless that has been stated.

It simply doesn't necessarily apply in sex crime cases. The burden of proof is very high and the opportunity to provide evidence is often quite limited. That's all. It's a flawed system.

How would you fix it?

Additionally threads like this continue to put both parties on trial by social media despite the case having gone through the legal system

Its only flawed if a crime was committed but the person is found not guilty. And we wont know that.

And we dont know that in this cas but this whole thread has been set up to pretty much call him a rapist that got off. But no ones complaining about that, but instead complaining about people that thought that the story was that the woman involved had either made it up, or it wasnt true (those two things are not mutually exclusive)

There is no fixing this system, its not like a crime of theft or murder where there is often clear evidence. Rape and SA will nearly always be one persons word against another.

I can’t see why this thread is still up really

How to fix the systemic issues? More than I care to get into tonight in afraid! Long day.

My main point was about the assumptions made about sex abuse or rape accusers in such cases where the out cone is not guily. Not commenting on Craig Charles's guilt or innocence as I obviously don't know but I think one answer is not commenting 'she lied' or suchlike on threads like this, on jumping to conclusions about the complainant. That's not to say don't accept the verdict or tar the defendant forever but I certainly don't think the alleged victim should become the bad guy, knowing how the system is flawed. I think it's one way we can all help in the absence of reliable justice.

‘listening to women’ in the context of a police report just means ’don’t dismiss a woman immediately without making any further investigations into the criminal allegations she is making’.

It doesn’t mean ‘listening to women means trial by jury is no longer necessary’ (which is what MRAs like to pretend feminists are saying).

False allegations aren’t common but they do happen, nonetheless starting an investigation from the assumption that the woman is truthful and looking for corroborating evidence (and conflicting evidence) won’t harm men who aren’t guilty but will hopefully get a few more guilty ones in the dock.

It seems possible, perhaps probable, that the woman who brought this case was let down by the police failing to secure any physical evidence, but CPS going to trial regardless.

I do sometimes wonder if a rape case without physical evidence is worth the stress of court on the survivor but numerous women who have been through it have said that for them, facing their abuser and telling their story to the court was cathartic, even with a not guilty verdict, so I defer my answer to theirs.

I do kinda wonder why this one went went to court without any physical evidence (if that is what happened) when so many other celebrities were getting away with serial abuse, but I suppose Craig Charles wasn’t grooming/bribing cops the way Saville was…

I remember this case at the time and many people (female and male) believed, and openly called him a rapist, despite the not guilty verdict.
I still know some people who consider him to be guilty.
Obviously his career has revived, but there's still a good number of people who believe him guilty.

Agree

And @Hateam asked the same question. I am referring to the stories I have heard about Craig Charles' sleazy and inappropriate behaviour which I mentioned in my previous post: "I have also heard stuff about him from contacts in the music business". I am not going to post details as obviously it is hearsay, and I cannot be sure they are true.

But what I will say is that when every major news story has finally broken about the predatory, abusive, sexually inappropriate etc behaviour of rich and famous men, there have always been lots of people who were not at all surprised. The behaviour of these men is usually an open secret within their industries, but it is hushed up by those above them, and the victims and other people with less power do not feel able to risk their careers by speaking up, often until the person concerned is dead (Jimmy Savile, Mohammed al Fayed etc) or there is the weight of numbers behind the people making accusations.

Think about all the predators or sex pests (of varying levels of seriousness) who are currently or who have recently been in the news: Donald Trump, Gregg Wallace, al Fayed, Russell Brand, Tim Westwood, the owners of Pink News, Neil Gaiman, Harvey Weinstein, Hardeep Singh Kohli, the Abercrombie CEO, R Kelly, Kevin Spacey - the list goes on and on. In every case, the people around them knew what they were like. Private Eye used to make jokes about some of them, for years. There are lots more of them still out there.

It is not just rich and famous celebrities: in every industry (certainly I can think of cases in law, medicine, academia, journalism, politics) there are men who are well known to be problematic, but they get away with it for decades because they are successful and influential in their industries, and often because the only people with power over them are other men. Women will warn each other not to be alone with them, they will try to protect young and vulnerable staff or students from them and so on, but they still find new victims.

Obviously not all rumours about any man in the public eye are inevitably true, but given the large number of precedents, I would never dismiss them out of hand.

There was nothing to confirm or refute what had happened, and no semen was found.

The answer is in the link you posted.

The context is also in the article:

"[The prosecutor said that] after the incident the woman had gone to her neighbours and was eventually taken to a special police examination suite in Wimbledon. However, a "suitably qualified" doctor could not be found and she was not medically examined until the following afternoon.
By then, Mr Carter Manning said, the woman had washed herself with a flannel "because she felt dirty"."

https://archive.is/9CZ3O

Not specifically about this case, but it seems to me that if a man rapes a woman, there will be incriminating evidence somewhere and the thing that needs to change is the police having the training/ resources/ will to investigate allegations properly. If you force another human being to have sex with you against their will, it’s highly unlikely this is an act you carry out in total isolation from the rest of your life. There will be things you have watched and searched for on your computer or phone, things you have posted on social media, comments or behaviour you have made or shown to other people that are all evidence of your attitude towards women and, therefore, evidence you might be capable of carrying out this crime. At present, it seems as if the victim’s history is targeted as ‘evidence’ no crime took place, which happens with no other crime. Treating suspects as suspects would be such a massive start in trying to convict more men of this evil crime.

I’m not surprised you are angered by some stupid comments on here, Sword. I’m pretty sure most of us of here recognise how difficult it is to get a rapist convicted. You were wronged by the ‘justice’ system, as well as the rapist, and your anger is fully justified.

It was heroic of you to report him to the police. They have failed so many women. I wish you had succeeded— I wish all rapists got convicted. Well done for trying.

Exactly. Shame on anyone saying the victim lied, unless they have definite proof of this.

That was in response to Waterboatlass · 11/12/2024 18:56
who said:
I didn't know about this case but I wish we could please move on from 'was found not guilty' equals 'the complainant lied' or 'it was found to be made up' unless that has been stated.
It simply doesn't necessarily apply in sex crime cases. The burden of proof is very high and the opportunity to provide evidence is often quite limited. That's all. It's a flawed system.

@SwordToFlamethrower
I believe you