Matt Monro Forum

I was pleased to hear that William Roache has been cleared of the charges, it's enough to give someone of his age a heart attack.

What really annoys me is that the accusers are never named but because Mr. Roache is famous his name has been dragged through the mud.

I think it's very easy to accuse a celebrity, as you know I am friends with two and have stayed with them on holiday. Making accusations against them would be easy but it would be a lie.

I think the accusers should also be brought before the court, at least for bringing false accusations against William Roache. He and his family have been under terrible strain for many months, he has lost many months of loss of earnings, not to mention his reputation being scrutinized, and as Karl said, dragged through the mud.
I wish him well, and hope it won't be long before we see him back in "Coronation Street" where he belongs.

I agree with your comments. I also think even those other celebrities waiting for their cases to come up should have anonymity. They haven't been proved guilty yet, and there should be a change in the law.
Jimmy Saville was a case on it's own and quite different.

L&H I so agree with your last sentence.

It is very easy to accuse a famous name, I was shocked when it happened to Andrew Lancel as I like him as an actor and a person so I was pleased when he and Michael Le Vell were found innocent. However I think the accusers should be sentenced for wasting the time of the Police and the Courts and NAMED!

Although these people knew they were innocent the weight hanging over them and wondering which way the verdict will go must be absolute hell.

I am amazed at how William Roache has stood up to this ordeal, especially considering his age 81, but what has happened inside him can never be cured. I do not know how the accusers are allowed to get off scot free. there is something very wrong with the justice n this country. If the accused is found guilty , that is time enough for him/her to be named.

[quote="karl"]L&H I so agree with your last sentence.

It is very easy to accuse a famous name, I was shocked when it happened to Andrew Lancel as I like him as an actor and a person so I was pleased when he and Michael Le Vell were found innocent. However I think the accusers should be sentenced for wasting the time of the Police and the



They won't do this i heard because it would stop genuine victims speaking out ..and also even if a person thinks a defendant is guilty they cannot convict on hearsay....no matter what they are thinking ...it's just not how things work for the law...my husband said no evidence ...no conviction....and i it could be true for any other cases in the appears at the moment ......i just do not like his controversial opinions as expressed on New Zealand news programme ...pure love etc ...

I am glad he has been cleared too, should never have happened. It has become a type of witch hunt and you never know whose name is going to come up next. I can't believe the majority of the other celebrities that have been named are guilty either.

I am also glad William Roache was found not guilty I never thought from the start that he was.

Like you say they should be named he as been dragged through the mud and they should be.

John I think you hit the nail on the head saying it's a witch hunt, I doubt life can ever be the same for famous people after that.

I read tonight that three more people have come forward with allegations against William Roache............SO WHY WAIT ALL THIS TIME, WHEN THE CASE HAS BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE FOR MONTHS, PRIOR TO THE COURT CASE TAKING PLACE !!!!

I have been following the Dave Lee Travis case, and I cannot see how he can be convicted either (I thought William Roache was innocent).........DLT just seems to have been a friendly type of guy who liked an arms round the body cuddle when greeting people

It's worth bearing in mind that William Roache has not been proved innocent, he has not been proved guilty - not the same thing at all. A defendant is not required to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt, and to a high standard such that the jury is "sure" (ie beyond reasonable doubt). I expected Roache to be acquitted not because I thought he was innocent (I have no way of knowing this) but because of the difficulty of proving such a case after so long and because of the lack of corroborating evidence (eg forensic/circumstantial). The women making the allegations may well have been encouraged to assume they would now be believed after the allegations against Jimmy Savile have been so readily taken to be true by all and sundry (even though they have never been tested in a court of law) and not because they are making it up.

It was a unanimous not guilty verdict so if that's not innocent then what is?

But that must apply to everyone Jon, who goes through sanything like this. Thast is what is so awful about these cases, they always leave a doubt iin peoples minds.

True - a defendant is entitled to be regarded as innocent if aqquitted. But does this mean that everyone ever acquitted is actually not guilty of the offence they've been charged with? I doubt it. Juries are only as good as the evidence they're given, and in this case the evidence was not sufficient to pass the threshold required for a guilty verdict. A jury could say "not gulity" even if they believe a defendant 'probably' did it, as 'probably' is not good enough; in addition, many defence barristers do not believe their clients are innocent (but the 'cab rank' rule requires everyone to be represented).

This debate could go on as long as War & Peace, it seems to me Jon that yoiu don't particularly like William Roache.

I'd like to think the man is innocent as he always seemed a gentleman to me.

It is still a terrible thing to be accused of, especially if you're innocent, and a famous person.