Bill Roache, Not Guilty (page 23)

[bluethrunthru]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

You are aware that both Richard Madeley & Harry Redknapp were both acquitted?

You, I or any other person on the Clapham Omnibus would be sewing mailbags.

And Jonathan King and Stuart Hall got jail time.

Your point is?

Well for a start Stuart Hall pleaded "Guilty", so there was nowt down for him.

I can only assume that there was overwhelming evidence against Jonathan King. Either that or the jury viewed him as a loathsome wretch. In which case, his celebrity status didn't count for much.

By which process shall be judged everybody accused be they your bus passenger of TV " celeb"- thats UK justce and if any of these people are acquitted by a jury of their peers then they will be indeed innocent

 

[mcmanus]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

Not sure of the wisdom of posting that picture and associated comments at this stage of proceeding - M'learned friends may take a dim view

It's all in the public domain.

Any member of the jury (or the public) could find that picture by posting the names of the 2 convicted sex offenders and William Roache into a search engine.

That shit will get you in trouble.

 

[jimharri]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

You are aware that both Richard Madeley & Harry Redknapp were both acquitted?

You, I or any other person on the Clapham Omnibus would be sewing mailbags.

I certainly am, but thanks for reminding me. I'm also aware of the fact that Michael LeVell was also acquitted by a jury of his peers, despite being found guilty by the Royal Courts of BlueMoon justice. Are any/all of them innocent or guilty of the charges they faced? Fucked if I know; I wasn't there so it's impossible for me to judge without seeing all the evidence. I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) of that old adage; innocent until proven guilty.

Are you acknowledging that they were acquitted or that Joe Bloggs would be doing stir?

Not acknowledging (or denying for that matter)any such thing. I was simply saying that it's dangerous to be passing judgement on anyone (famous or not) based on speculation. Nothing more or less than that. Sorry if my post(s) caused confusion.

 

[TCIB]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

I certainly am, but thanks for reminding me. I'm also aware of the fact that Michael LeVell was also acquitted by a jury of his peers, despite being found guilty by the Royal Courts of BlueMoon justice. Are any/all of them innocent or guilty of the charges they faced? Fucked if I know; I wasn't there so it's impossible for me to judge without seeing all the evidence. I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) of that old adage; innocent until proven guilty.

Are you acknowledging that they were acquitted or that Joe Bloggs would be doing stir?

Not acknowledging (or denying for that matter)any such thing. I was simply saying that it's dangerous to be passing judgement on anyone (famous or not) based on speculation. Nothing more or less than that. Sorry if my post(s) caused confusion.

No speculation here Jim bud, good old tried and tested pitch fork mentality here.
The pitchfork method is solid.

 

[mcmanus]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

He might get a cell with Stuart hall.

The bloke on the right is Owen Oyston. Found guilty of rape & indecent assault. Draw you own conclusions.

Looks a fun night!!

Only 9 o'clock too.

 

[Blue Punter]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

And Jonathan King and Stuart Hall got jail time.

Your point is?

Well for a start Stuart Hall pleaded "Guilty", so there was nowt down for him.

I can only assume that there was overwhelming evidence against Jonathan King. Either that or the jury viewed him as a loathsome wretch. In which case, his celebrity status didn't count for much.

By which process shall be judged everybody accused be they your bus passenger of TV " celeb"- thats UK justce and if any of these people are acquitted by a jury of their peers then they will be indeed innocent

I think people should be judged on the basis of evidence.

Where that falls down is where celebrities use their wealth, power & influence to distort that. Terrible that you have self confessed "Mr Loophole" lawyers who'll get personalities acquitted of driving charges on a technicality because they can throw a few quid at it.

George Carmen QC one of the finest legal minds in the country doing a shoplifting charge? Do me a favour.

This is what the judge who sentenced Jonathan King said:

Judge David Paget, QC, said "You used your fame and success to attract adolescent and impressionable boys. You then abused the trust they and their parents placed in you."

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

It'd be fucking ace if they just stuck a seven foot deaf guy in a Mike Baldwin mask in his cell.

Nearly choked on my pinotage there, mate.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

I think people should be judged on the basis of evidence.

Where that falls down is where celebrities use their wealth, power & influence to distort that. Terrible that you have self confessed "Mr Loophole" lawyers who'll get personalities acquitted of driving charges on a technicality because they can throw a few quid at it.

George Carmen QC one of the finest legal minds in the country doing a shoplifting charge? Do me a favour.

This is what the judge who sentenced Jonathan King said:

Judge David Paget, QC, said "You used your fame and success to attract adolescent and impressionable boys. You then abused the trust they and their parents placed in you."


I take your point but in that quote Judge Paget is stating King used his "fame" to enable his crimes not to get off - if he tried to he failed spectacularly.

As for George Carmen well Richard Madely is entitled to employ whatever advocate he can afford.

If you point is that WEALTH distorts the access to justice then I would agree- thats no reason for HMGovt to cut legal aid and deny it to the poor though - as for getting off on loopholes - that is how the law works I suppose - precedent - establish one by convincing judge and / or jury of your argument. That can be done by the defence or the prosecution

 

[Blue Punter]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

I certainly am, but thanks for reminding me. I'm also aware of the fact that Michael LeVell was also acquitted by a jury of his peers, despite being found guilty by the Royal Courts of BlueMoon justice. Are any/all of them innocent or guilty of the charges they faced? Fucked if I know; I wasn't there so it's impossible for me to judge without seeing all the evidence. I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) of that old adage; innocent until proven guilty.

Are you acknowledging that they were acquitted or that Joe Bloggs would be doing stir?

Not acknowledging (or denying for that matter)any such thing. I was simply saying that it's dangerous to be passing judgement on anyone (famous or not) based on speculation. Nothing more or less than that. Sorry if my post(s) caused confusion.

Aside from posting a photo of him with 2 convicted sex offenders, I don't think I've passed judgement on William Roache. I know as much (or as little) as you do. As I put in the text, "draw your own conclusions".

My only inference is that the aura of celebrity might sway a jury. I also added that it happened a long, long time ago, which clouds the water even further.

 

[jimharri]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

Aside from posting a photo of him with 2 convicted sex offenders, I don't think I've passed judgement on William Roache. I know as much (or as little) as you do. As I put in the text, "draw your own conclusions".

My only inference is that the aura of celebrity might sway a jury. I also added that it happened a long, long time ago, which clouds the water even further.

I wasn't just accusing you BP (apologies if you think I was) of passing judgement. I did say something like ''the BM way'' (or something similar) earlier in the thread.