jambovambo Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/corries-ken-barlow-arrested-on-sex-assault-charge.1367400900 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasha Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You can't create a ruiner and then complain when he goes about ruining. It should be society up in the dock. Free the weatherfield one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfcjamie Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Parmesan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makateer Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Coronation Street is one big peado club. Roy Cropper next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 One thing being a ruiner if it's all legal and consensual. When it's neither then it's pitchfork and torches time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Coronation Street is one big peado club. Roy Cropper next. It's always the ones you don't suspect. Ill go for Martin Platt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makateer Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 There is only one real Ruiner in the Street anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Price Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'll go for Schmeichel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Delano Bluth Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 His comments on that programme meant this was inevitable. Asked to clarify whether that meant victims brought the abuse on themselves, he said: "No, not quite, but and yet I am, because everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts151 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 There is only one real Ruiner in the Street anyway. Where the **** is that last photo about lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Lecter Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 He has now been charged with 2 counts of raping a 15 year old girl in 1967 http://news.sky.com/story/1085727/corrie-actor-bill-roache-charged-with-rape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Stinkfinger Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Delano Bluth Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 He is denying the claims. But so did Stuart Hall. :maybenotsoruiner: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EreWeG0.. Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You mean 1001 ya smug **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamborich Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Coronation Street is one big peado club. Roy Cropper next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 The blue peter hobo next ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Palmer Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not guilty. http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-26068034 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not surprising. I can't see how a jury can convict when it is a case of one person's word against another. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I know their are a number of accusers, but I don't think any of them have witnesses to back up their claims, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Viva Ken Barlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not surprising. I can't see how a jury can convict when it is a case of one person's word against another. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I know their are a number of accusers, but I don't think any of them have witnesses to back up their claims, do they? don't know if it applies in England but up here we have the Moorov Doctrine which deals with exactly this sort of scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not surprising. I can't see how a jury can convict when it is a case of one person's word against another. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I know their are a number of accusers, but I don't think any of them have witnesses to back up their claims, do they? Obviously there is a difference in the cases, but how have the likes of Stuart Hall been found guilty then? Not that it means guilt, but the crown wouldnt let it get to court if there wasnt more evidence than simply "he did it it", "no, i didnt". Hopefully justice has been served today and i look forward to Ken's return to the cobbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:shitwine: Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Get that thread back in the classics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 At least we can wheel the smiley back out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not surprising. I can't see how a jury can convict when it is a case of one person's word against another. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I know their are a number of accusers, but I don't think any of them have witnesses to back up their claims, do they? Without knowing anything about the details of this case, I'd imagine sometimes it can be very obvious if one witness is telling the truth and another is lying - one can provide details of things that happened, explain any issues or inconsistencies and not avoid answering questions, for example, while another one gets caught out in court, won't answer certain questions and so on. That said, it's unusual for someone to be convicted when there is one witness. When there are fifteen witnesses, even if they are to do with different allegations, it's pretty unlikely that they are all making it up, and their accounts can corroborate each other if details match up and so on. Hence, convictions are much more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Obviously there is a difference in the cases, but how have the likes of Stuart Hall been found guilty then? Not that it means guilt, but the crown wouldnt let it get to court if there wasnt more evidence than simply "he did it it", "no, i didnt". Hopefully justice has been served today and i look forward to Ken's return to the cobbles. Pretty sure Stuart Hall pled guilty to every charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 At least we can wheel the smiley back out. William Roache on the steps of the court just said, "there are no winners today". Au contriaire, mssr barlow. The good people of kickback have come up trumps. Pretty sure Stuart Hall pled guilty to every charge. Regardless, he'll have done that as there will have been evidence that was clearly insurmountable. But if that doent float your boat, pick another who has been found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Great outcome, hopefully DLT's will also have a positive outcome very shortly. It really is time for the accused in these cases to have the same annonymity as the accusers, either that or the accusers have to be named to stop these ridiculous cases coming to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Great outcome, hopefully DLT's will also have a positive outcome very shortly. It really is time for the accused in these cases to have the same annonymity as the accusers, either that or the accusers have to be named to stop these ridiculous cases coming to court. If that was the situation Jimmy Saville's crimes wouldn't have come to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think his defence team were absolutely right in that he was a victim of the Jimmy Saville affair. It does seem that due to the shear incompetence of how allegations against him were handled (I rather not handled), they are now pressong charges to easily against other celebrities without actually thinking whether the evidence will stand up in court. It is like when a referee fails to give a stonewall penalty, realises it, so gives one later on that isn't, sending a player off in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Can we have our classics thread back please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 If that was the situation Jimmy Saville's crimes wouldn't have come to light. So you would not object to your name being dragged through the papers with accusation after accusation, with your career on hold in the process, then going to court for an allegation that is not proven, while the accusers (some of which could have an ulterior motive - I am not saying that was the case here) remain anonymous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWJ Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 If that was the situation Jimmy Saville's crimes wouldn't have come to light. Jimmy Saville's 'alleged' crimes, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Will action be taken against his accusers? I certainly hope so. That's the second Corrie star to be found not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Jimmy Saville's 'alleged' crimes, surely? Nope. He's dead. I can say he commited nazi war crimes and i'm fine. He was a peadophile. Probably one of the worst in british history. So you would not object to your name being dragged through the papers with accusation after accusation, with your career on hold in the process, then going to court for an allegation that is not proven, while the accusers (some of which could have an ulterior motive - I am not saying that was the case here) remain anonymous? As far as i'm aware i can't be named if someone simply makes a complaint about me. For the police to then arrest and charge me there'd have to something for them to follow up on. Now that doesnt mean guilt, but the greater good is achieved by this being known and allowing others to come forward. Whether i'd mind or not isnt the issue as the british legal system doesnt offer anonymity based on the fact that someone 'minds' or not. It's not perfect, but it's better. Will action be taken against his accusers? I certainly hope so. What the actual ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 don't know if it applies in England but up here we have the Moorov Doctrine which deals with exactly this sort of scenario. don't know if it applies in England but up here we have the Moorov Doctrine which deals with exactly this sort of scenario. Haven't heard that one in many ,many years. was it not to overcome the evidence of corroboration, that you could use multiple single witnesses who could give similar evidence although not present at the time the similarities of evidence from victims could corroborate each other. As evidence of a single witness is enough in England would it be needed in these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Haven't heard that one in many ,many years. was it not to overcome the evidence of corroboration, that you could use multiple single witnesses who could give similar evidence although not present at the time the similarities of evidence from victims could corroborate each other. As evidence of a single witness is enough in England would it be needed in these cases. . Exactly that Bob. You would have thought though in a case like this evidence of this sort would have been very strong - always supposing of course that the evidence given was credible. The fact that he has been found "not guilty" of all the charges makes me wonder about the credibility of the witnesses and their evidence. All in all I'm beginning to wonder if this had been Joe Soap if this case would even have made it as far as court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not surprising. I can't see how a jury can convict when it is a case of one person's word against another. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I know their are a number of accusers, but I don't think any of them have witnesses to back up their claims, do they? Ask our justice Minister who wants to remove corroboration - which would mean every rape accusation would be decided on one word against another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Will action be taken against his accusers? I certainly hope so. That's the second Corrie star to be found not guilty. Being proven not guilty doesn't mean his accusers lied, you already know that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Ask our justice Minister who wants to remove corroboration - which would mean every rape accusation would be decided on one word against another. . Exactly - if corroboration goes then we can all look forward to a steep rise in the number of wrongful convictions and a system of justice that has served the people of Scotland well for hundreds of years being in tatters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Will action be taken against his accusers? I certainly hope so. That's the second Corrie star to be found not guilty. Jesus christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Jung Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's a Dave Lee Travesty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zico Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's a Dave Lee Travesty That's a bit Barlow the belt, likesay Ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's a Dave Lee Travesty That's a bit Barlow the belt, likesay Ken. Deirdrie, Deirdrie me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.