FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
Ah bless. :mmm:
Coronation Street Actor
- Thread starter Doon frae Troon
- Start date
Ah bless. :mmm:
He best get back to the Street sharpish cos that Wife of his is fairly putting herself about just now.
Norris could be her next victim.
Norris could be her next victim.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Firstly ive no idea if he did it or not ,
But there has got to be proof , if there is not proof he cant be convicted ,
im amazed at some of these cases coming to court at all and wonder would it have done so if he wasnt a well known actor .. ?
Even the case with Bill Roach where's the proof ? i know different women say he did it them but surely each case has to be persued individually and only the evidence of that case permitted in that case ..
Im all for these (infraction word) kind of people being caught & charged etc , but in some cases (maybe not these) there are other agendas (ie money) ..
I dont have the answer but the day any one of us can be charged, with any crime, large or small, without sufficent proof , is a dangerous day for everyone
But there has got to be proof , if there is not proof he cant be convicted ,
im amazed at some of these cases coming to court at all and wonder would it have done so if he wasnt a well known actor .. ?
Even the case with Bill Roach where's the proof ? i know different women say he did it them but surely each case has to be persued individually and only the evidence of that case permitted in that case ..
Im all for these (infraction word) kind of people being caught & charged etc , but in some cases (maybe not these) there are other agendas (ie money) ..
I dont have the answer but the day any one of us can be charged, with any crime, large or small, without sufficent proof , is a dangerous day for everyone
Wildrover
Tour Rookie
According to what I read yesterday which may or not be true, he was the victim of a made up story trying to destroy his career, if this is the case then the person making the allegations should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If it is just a case of not enough evidence then clearly no further action could or should be taken, IMHO.
Coatsy79
Q-School Graduate
It's a tough one because you could have your life ruined because someone decides to tell stories, but then there are so many rape cases that don't get prosecuted because someone doesn't feel they can/should come forward
It's a real grey area as there are a lot of nutters out there but also many many genuine cases
It's a real grey area as there are a lot of nutters out there but also many many genuine cases
williamalex1
Money List Winner
If someone falsely accused me of a crime I know I did not commit, and I was then found not guilty, I would sue privately for the damage to my name which people will always have doubts about even with a not verdict, mud sticks.
I would want to know why someone was so malicious in making up a pack of lies , and would want a public apology.
I would want to know why someone was so malicious in making up a pack of lies , and would want a public apology.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I find it a bit of a problem this. On the one hand - identifying the individual charged with such offences prior to trial might well encourage others to come forward - however on the other hand an individual should surely be tried on the evidence provided by the accuser. Trawling for additional 'evidence' by revealing the name of the accused does not fit with accuser vs accused. If the accuser cannot convince the jury, why should evidence from others affect the outcome of that specific case? Jurys are often made aware of other convictions an accused may have but only after the conclusion of the case.
Quite separately - I found it odd and discomforting to see someone reported as being an alcoholic celebrating his discharge with a pint of lager. I am left wondering how real this alcoholism actually is - or whether the defence were using it as a mitigation.
Quite separately - I found it odd and discomforting to see someone reported as being an alcoholic celebrating his discharge with a pint of lager. I am left wondering how real this alcoholism actually is - or whether the defence were using it as a mitigation.
Last edited:
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
But a counter argument is that in some specific crimes the victims do not come forwards. So if you had been abused by a person but not said something, and you then saw that they were being tried for the same crime, you would be more than likely to come forwards and increase the chance of a rapist or abuser being put in jail.
I suppose it depends on a definition of trawling for evidence. Surely encouraging other people who may have been abused to come forwards is not really trawling for evidence, it's just building a tighter case. In the same way that police investigating if someone had committed multiple burglaries is not trawling for evidence.
A trial does not have to be one person against one other, if they have committed multiple crimes then the accuser can be a number of people. And even in rape cases previous convictions are still not revealed to the jury. But having a previous conviction is different from having multiple people say that you committed the same crime to them.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Don't disagree - but the accuser isn't coming forward to represent a group of abused. The accuse is accusing in her own right. Taking other accusations into account does not the truth of whether the accused is guilty - it might well affect the probability in the mind of the jury that the accused is guilty but should it. Each abuse or rape is a crime in it's own right and unless the accused confesses to other similar cases (as multiple murderers often do to reduce their overall sentence) then the case should be assessed in isolation of other accusations - which again may or may not be true. To say the falsehood ten times does not make it true.
Very different situation if individuals have come forward to the police with accusations independently over a period and up to a certain point the CPS have declined to proceed with charges againt an individual. Eventually the volume of accusations and evidence from independent sources might well merit charges being brought, and as we are then talking multiple-accusations it would then be appropriate to release the name of the accused prior to trial to enable others to come forward.
Last edited:
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
I totally agree that saying falsehoods 10 times does not make it true, but in reality are there ever going to be a lot of falsehoods, once the police have weeded out the nutters which I expect appear in every high profile case? I do get that all sorts of nut jobs may well start claiming they were abused by someone from a soap opera, but they will be weeded out and only those with a credible claim will be taken seriously.
I think you are inferring that each crime should be taken in isolation, but if you have a serial rapist, killer, burgler, flasher or whatever then I am under the impression that multiple crimes are tried at once? So why should abusers/rapists be any different?
Baldy Bouncer
Blackballed
No harm done though......and he`s come out of this smelling of Rosie.............:rofl:
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
In this particular case the original complaint was not deemed enough for the CPS, based on evidence. So the mother and daughter then made up more to force a case. What has happened here is someone dirty washing has been forced out into the public. Should the accusers be prosecuted ... Yes.
The point being you have to have strong enough evidence to stand up in a court of law and pass cross examination, then the judge will advise the jury and allow them to make a judgement. In these cases the judgement is made with media intervention, so called do good journalists are corrupting a very good system. They are also causing a lot of false accusations to be made. So perhaps his accusers should be named and shamed ....
Either way each case should be looked at individually and not lumped into the generic "oh another rapist got off" pile. There are people who lie and seek to take some advantage and there are some that manipulate, find them out and shame them... Like a cheat on the golf course.
The point being you have to have strong enough evidence to stand up in a court of law and pass cross examination, then the judge will advise the jury and allow them to make a judgement. In these cases the judgement is made with media intervention, so called do good journalists are corrupting a very good system. They are also causing a lot of false accusations to be made. So perhaps his accusers should be named and shamed ....
Either way each case should be looked at individually and not lumped into the generic "oh another rapist got off" pile. There are people who lie and seek to take some advantage and there are some that manipulate, find them out and shame them... Like a cheat on the golf course.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Well I'm thinking that maybe that is what should happen under law - as previous convictions are usually not revealed to a jury. And when multiple crimes are tried at once that may be when the asccused admits to others to 'get them out of the way' and hopefully to reduce overall sentence as he has admitted to them or if the CPS assesses that there is sufficient evidence across multiple similar cases for them all to be considered as one.
I am just uncomfortable that if others had come forward with accusations against the guy and that fact got out (regardless of the strength of these otehr accusations) - which it would - then even although the jury would now nothing about the other accusations I think that the jury would find it very difficult to assess the rights or wrongs of the one case for which the guy is being tried. In fact the defence might well in such circumstances claim for the case to be dismissed on grounds that a fair trial could not take place.
