Proves the police are right to name sex offenders, a la Bill Roache ....... usually they are serial offenders, so once its out there, gives others the courage to come forward ....
Shows how a court appearance can reduce a man to rubble. What did he say when he was first arrested ? The charges were "pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious" What did he say today ? "Guilty your honour. I'm sad about this (and disgusted). Yet another icon of my childhood outed as somebody who should never be an icon ! ! I can honestly say, growing up in the 70's, the only person in the public eye to appear slightly strange in my innocent mind was Tony Blackburn. He had "freak" written all over him in my eyes, yet he appears to be about the only celeb from the 70's to be clean ! ! Sad day.
You have just proved why that is such a dangerous thing. Suddenly, Bill Roache has gone from loveable TV veteran to 'serial sex offender' based on an accusation of something that occurred 45 years ago and has yet to be investigated.
Yes, it does make you think that the only reason the names have been released is because the police reckon they are guilty or have enough evidence. As you say, it may then lead to other victims coming forward. One of the things about the initial Savile case was that so many of his victims were vulnerable people, so none of them came forward for fear of being disbelieved. It took a couple to come forward to give others the courage to do so. It must have been awful for them to have had to live with that all their lives. Just a shame in his case that he died untarnished by it all and didn't have to face up to his crimes. I was clinging to the hope that the people named that I actually like may be innocent and simply a case of overzealous policing, a bit like what Matthew Kelly was put through, but it seems that this is not going to be the case. I'm particularly disappointed about Rolf Harris who, until all this, was universally recognised as the nicest man in showbiz. The BBC will be glad it has got all of its TV Centre tribute shows out of the way, as there aren't going to be many shows that they can repeat once this is all done.
I would be interested to know how you could come up with an alibi or version of events after 45 years. I can barely remember 45 days ago with any degree of accuracy. Could it be entirely possible that it happened 44 years ago when the girl was 16... Given Roache's alleged legendary success with women, if he was a serial offender there would be more complaints than just the one. Not saying he is guilty or innocent, but he has had lots of women throwing themselves at him and it might just be that he didn't ask for a birth certificate or passport first.
It's not dangerous. Most people don't assume he's guilty because they know the difference between an accusation and a court hearing deciding upon his innocence or guilt. Following this logic we shouldn't really name anyone who is accused of murder either.
There might be, it might just be they don't want to press charges. I dare say they have some other evidence.This article makes interesting reading. Didn't realise the Blackpool FC majority shareholder was a convicted rapist and business friend of Roache who also knows Stuart Hall. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bill-roache-corries-ken-barlow-1779995
I'm alright where I was on this one, I don't credit most people with that much awareness or restraint. You don't think that this is susceptible to any personal vendettas, cranks, the settling of old scores and the damage that can cause by naming the person prior to investigation, or simple 'assisting with enquiries'? As it is, this morning Loache has been charged with two counts of rape, which in my opinion is the right time no name the culprit.
I can see 'The Sun' headlines now.... ..." 'It's a knockout' blow for 'Guilty' Stuart Hall!" As regards some people not knowing the difference between being charged and being found guilty there as some people out there don't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician as a doctor found to her cost some years ago when her house was attacked by the good people of her borough. Scary but true!
Re: I can see 'The Sun' headlines now.... Stuart Hall has pleaded Guilty in court. It is no longer a case of being charged (for him anyway).
Re: I can see 'The Sun' headlines now.... True, but that's no reason to make the rules to suit the idiots in society.
Re: I can see 'The Sun' headlines now.... You're not. You would be making the rules to protect the innocent from the idiots in society.
Re: I can see 'The Sun' headlines now.... So you'd apply this to all crimes, or are you just being selective?