Bill Roache Of Coronation Street Charged With Two Counts Of Rape.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317606/Bill-Roache-Coronation-Streets-Ken-Barlow-charged-counts-rape.html

Yet another celebrity charged with sexual offences, the question I wish to ask is, what possible evidence could have been brought forward after all these years for the CPS to instruct the police to charge Bill Roache (in this particular case) with rape, surely rape is a hard enough offence to prove when it allegedly takes place at the time, never mind after 46 years ago?

[Sharingan]

Perhaps the girl reported it years ago but was dismissed ad the climate was different then to allegations of assault by the rich or famous. I have no idea and I must say I think it will be a hard thing to prove, but I'm happy to wait and see what evidence is put forward before making a decision on guilt.

[anneasquith]

id assume the CPS must have some evidence. otherwise why waste money on a trial.

[ummmm]

The interview he gave certainly wouldn't have helped.

[VHG]

Not that I am condoning these type of sexual attacks, no matter when they happened, but it does make you wonder how many people are now coming forward in the hope of a "pay out" from the rich and famous.

In this era of "had an accident that was not your fault" it does make you wonder if the driving force is money rather then revenge or closure.

Being over 60 years old I am not sure I can remember who I had sex with around 40 years ago, and I am sure some of these famous people have had FAR more sexual partners than I have.

Makes you wonder what they will take as "proof" of sexual attacks after all these years.

[anneasquith]

the charge here is rape. not the amount of sexual partners.

[jno]

witnesses, pregnancy, reporting it to the police at the time, evidence of where the defendant was, all these and more could be evidence.

It is well known that rape cases are harrowing for the victim as she will be called a liar (as you just have) and a *** and worse. People don't do it for the money.

[andy-hughes]

As advised, the CPS will only bring a case if they believe it is 'in the public interest' to do so.

That is a legal terms which infers that the CPS have sufficient evidence to proceed to court with a realistic chance of obtaining a conviction - anything less would be a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds here, but we must be very aware of 'trial by media' in the mean time. Being a member of an off-piste religious sect does not make anyone a criminal.

[jackthehat]

Regardless of any speculation, here or elsewhere, the Police obviously feel that that accusations are credible enough to arrest Bill Roache.

And I, for one, am heartily fed-up of the insinuations that anyone coming forwards is after a financial pay-out. It's view-points like that which stop victims coming forwards!!

[ummmm]

If the allegations are true could you imagine how outraged his victim would have been watching that interview?

[Sharingan]

I wouldn't be surprised Ummmm if that interview wasn't what made her decide to come forward. It certainly would me, even I'd put it all behind me. Arrogant prat.

[ummmm]

I think it would have been enough to prompt me to come forward.

[jno]

I don't think it's specifically the fact that he has odd religious beliefs (or supports the Tories, for that matter) that might count against him, as much as his suggestion that abuse victims are being punished for something in their past lives. This might be seen to imply that he thinks such people somehow matter less than other people.

It is not proof, of course, and I'm happy to await any court case to provide the truth.

[Gromit]

Maybe there was a credible witness?

[Sqad]

JTH..\\\.And I, for one, am heartily fed-up of the insinuations that anyone coming forwards is after a financial pay-out.\\\

mmm! nobody is suggesting that ALL are after a payout, but in my opinion that is the motive for the majority....just an opinion.

Why not when it occurred?...OK they may well not have been believed.
Why not 25 years ago?....OK, same as above.
Why not 10 years ago....attitudes had certainly changed then to the reporting of sexual crimes.
Why now?...........two people, the victim and the offender have lived a "lifetime"

[furrypusscat]

I didn't see his interview. However, re the crime if he is guilty, he may have admitted sexual intercourse with this girl as she was then, he may not have been aware at the time of the girls age which if under 16 she could not give consent therefore it would be classed as rape.

[Cloverjo]

I think the accused should remain anonymous at least until being charged or taken to court, if not until proven guilty.

[jackthehat]

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, sqad......however misguided it may be.

[Sqad]

JTH

\\\\.however misguided it may be. \\\

LOL

My answer to your post didn't suggest that your opinion was "misguided"............but still........

[jno]

I'm not sure that's right furrypusscat - it would be statutory rape in the USA, I think; but as far as I know, in the UK rape is rape regardless of the age. I'm open to correction on this.

[ummmm]

You are right, jno, this was discussed yesterday.