Coronation Street Actor

[Doon frae Troon]

I see he has been found not guilty by a jury.

If the law is not an ass I assume the police will now be prosecuting the 14 year old girl.

 

[FairwayDodger]

FFS this chestnut again! There is a big difference between failing to demonstrate sufficient evidence for a conviction and a malicious complaint.

How could we reduce the already piss poor number of sexual offenders convicted? I know, let's prosecute anyone who makes an allegation that doesn't lead to a conviction.

 

[Imurg]

Agreed

He's been found not guilty - but all that really means is that the Prosecution were unable to prove "beyond reasonable doubt".
If there's reasonable doubt anyone walks - doesn't actually mean they didn't do it.

 

[AmandaJR]

He could be completely innocent or indeed guilty without sufficient evidence to find him so - BUT, if it's the former, then it seems wrong to me that his name is made public as his character is now stained regardless...

 

[In_The_Rough]

He has been cleared so that is the end of it really. With regards to his character being ruined he has only himself to blame for that due to his extra marital affairs 1 whilst his wife was undergoing chemo and the fact his is a confessed alcoholic. Have to say on what I saw and heard I thought he would be found guilty but he wasn't so that's it.

 

[AmandaJR]

Being known as unfaithful and an alcoholic is one thing - a paedophile is on a totally different level imo.

 

[In_The_Rough]

Not saying it is. However are all trials to be held in secret and only published if a guilty verdict is reached. No easy answer

 

[Hacker Khan]

One of the reasons why they do not keep the name of the accused secret in rape or sexual assault trails is to encourage any other victims to come forwards. Which happened in the Stuart Hall case and a few others.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think Scottish law still has an unproven verdict.
I know that some folks are trying to get rid of it but in some cases it seems to fit the bill.

 

[AmandaJR]

Not saying it is. However are all trials to be held in secret and only published if a guilty verdict is reached. No easy answer

Agreed.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I did jury service on a case just like this.

A young girl saying a guy had interfered with her (not rape) and a guy saying no he hadn't.

No witnesses, no DNA, no evidence.

How are you mean't to come to a decision?? You can't, so the law says you have to find the person not guilty because you cannot PROVE the guy did it. I have no idea if he is guilty or not but I voted not guilty. My conscience is clear.

 

[williamalex1]

Maybe the eastenders gang are setting the corrie guys up.:rofl:

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I did jury service on a case just like this.

A young girl saying a guy had interfered with her (not rape) and a guy saying no he hadn't.

No witnesses, no DNA, no evidence.

How are you mean't to come to a decision?? You can't, so the law says you have to find the person not guilty because you cannot PROVE the guy did it. I have no idea if he is guilty or not but I voted not guilty. My conscience is clear.

And this is the inherent problem with ALL historical cases, some going back 30 plus years.
I'm surprised that the CPS decided to proceed with the case where no actual evidence is available
You can't convict on hearsay

 

[Deleted member 1740]

His career is over and i doubt he'll ever be on " the street" again.

Innocent until proven guilty nowadays means your guilty regardless.

 

[pokerjoke]

FFS this chestnut again! There is a big difference between failing to demonstrate sufficient evidence for a conviction and a malicious complaint.

How could we reduce the already piss poor number of sexual offenders convicted? I know, let's prosecute anyone who makes an allegation that doesn't lead to a conviction.

Could have put it a little better.
Infraction incoming.
Action-read up on forum rules

 

[Beezerk]

His career is over and i doubt he'll ever be on " the street" again.

Not according to his post trial interview, I could have punched the radio when I heard him speaking :angry:

 

[Pin-seeker]

FFS this chestnut again! There is a big difference between failing to demonstrate sufficient evidence for a conviction and a malicious complaint.

How could we reduce the already piss poor number of sexual offenders convicted? I know, let's prosecute anyone who makes an allegation that doesn't lead to a conviction.

I suppose every ones guilty in your book?

 

[woody69]

Apparently he was found in his garage with a 14 year old escort.

 

[Rooter]

too soon woody...

 

[FairwayDodger]

I suppose every ones guilty in your book?

Nope and not even remotely what I said.