John Ward February 6, 2014 Bill Roache cleared

THE BIG CELEBRITY FIT-UP: The unravelling begins

He won’t be the last.

38Comments

Add yours

1

chris Loughrey esq on February 10, 2014 at 10:10 am

Oh and if it isn’t, bravo for being very naive.

LikeLike
2

chris Loughrey esq on February 10, 2014 at 10:08 am

Is that you Leon?

LikeLike
3

Lupulco on February 8, 2014 at 7:46 pm

I suppose the answer is both side to be either named or not. At least until after the trial, that way one does not get the trial by the media

LikeLike
4

SamB on February 7, 2014 at 3:22 pm

there is no other matter in law where complainants have the right to be ‘heard’ or regarded as genuine. In all cases in law it is up to the accusers to prove the accused guilty. that was not done. he is an innocent man.

LikeLike
5

SamB on February 7, 2014 at 3:20 pm

yes let’s just convict people on their associations rather than the facts. Not Guilty- End of Story.

LikeLike
6

SamB on February 7, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Have you ever pondered that the reason they found nothing or little ifs because that was the truth of the situation ?
Why do people bang on about these inquiries and investigations when they do not confirm the endless gossip they so slavishly wish to be true ?. It’s like they would prefer to bypass all legal niceties and proceed straight to the gallows.

LikeLike
7

SamB on February 7, 2014 at 3:13 pm

If you have proof that Leon Brittan has committed a crime then go the police, that is your duty.
If not you are just repeating over-the-backyard-fence malicious gossip and you should shut your gob.

LikeLike
8

Bemused on February 7, 2014 at 3:18 am

Leon Brittan, is a gentleman who would never molest a woman.

LikeLike
9

United We Stand on February 7, 2014 at 2:29 am

Can’t exactly say it is ‘a victory for truth’ because none of us, except for those directly involved, actually know it.
An 80 odd year old male celebrity, who recently boasted to bedding over 1,000 women is found NOT GUILTY of a series of historical sexual assault allegations. He is an associate/friend of several other famous men who have also been accused of sexual assault – one of whom has just been imprisoned for offences against children. He is a former druid and his son is a director of a certain type of religious group with a raft of sexual and assault allegations against them.
All this a vignette to a wider and sinister backdrop of highly organised child abuse and murder – a lot of which involves elite groups and the security services.
As to who is innocent and who is guilty, who is being played and who is escaping scot free is yet to be fully determined.
Peace

LikeLike
10

Paul Morphy on February 7, 2014 at 1:24 am

It’s an unsatisfactory outcome on several levels.
Unfortunately those accused cannot ever be fully exonerated despite a “not guilty” verdict.
There will always be those who hold the view “there’s no smoke without fire”
And what of the accusers? Their claims have not been validated in a court of law. Were their claims truthful? If their claims weren’t truthful what remedy does the falsely accused have?

LikeLike
11

Tom on February 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm

It’s impossible for us to know – Roache wasn’t found innocent beyond reasonable doubt but not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It does seem a bit odd that several people would make up allegations about someone they had never met about events that allegedly happened decades ago. But then the jury heard what the accusers said and decided their testimony wasn’t reliable for whatever reason, so we cannot argue with that.

LikeLike
12

Angry Harry (@AngryHarrysPage) on February 6, 2014 at 8:50 pm

If just 1% of women would lie about rape, that’s 220,000 in the UK

LikeLike
13

captain custard on February 6, 2014 at 8:28 pm

what a gent

LikeLike
14

captain custard on February 6, 2014 at 8:26 pm

well said mickc ++1000

LikeLike
15

Mudplugger on February 6, 2014 at 8:15 pm

A different approach to historic cases would be to have a statute of limitation on compensation, but not on making the complaint. That way, someone could still make a complaint at any time after the event but, if it was more than say, 5 years ago, there would be no facility for compensation (and thus also eliminating the scheming no-win-no-fee bewigged parasites).

By separating the ‘cash’ from the ‘case’, it would be fascinating to see just how many such historic cases would then by raised – I suspect a substantial reduction would occur, as only genuine ‘closure’ would then be available to the long-ago ‘victim’, with no cash expectations to muddy the waters.

LikeLike
16

reddan on February 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Yes it is true that in some cases even though there is a not guilty verdict or even it is considered insufficient evidence to even get to court a complainant can apply for compo. For a rape circa £16,000 .

LikeLike
17

Scene Around the Web: more Crash2 clues | The Slog. on February 6, 2014 at 7:50 pm

[…] Earlier at The Slog: Tide begins to turn against Plod and his celebrity fitups […]

LikeLike
18

RAW on February 6, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Name the women, why should a man be dragged through the courts his name tarnished, family life nearly ruined and those gold digging women remain nameless. The law is an ass, lets have proper full equality instead of this female bias which pollutes and leaves such a sick feeling.

LikeLike
19

Gordie on February 6, 2014 at 7:18 pm

Is it true that any woman bringing a case of rape against a man ,if it goes to court,receives compensation irrespective of the verdict?

LikeLike
20

Cornelius Townedge (@seti2342) on February 6, 2014 at 7:04 pm

Now contrast Le Vell, Roache, DLT etc. with Stuart Hall. The cops obviously gave him a whiff of not spending the rest of his life in chokey (probably so he didn’t speak about his partners in crime) then bought a raft more charges ensuring he’ll never see daylight. Rolf Harris too, and of all the five mentioned, which had the establishment connections…

Just saying: Wood for the trees and all that!

LikeLike
21

Iain on February 6, 2014 at 6:45 pm

The celebrity fish were reeled in one by one and the big fish never even had a mention. There have been a striking number of police enquiries into abuse over at least the last 30 years but the end result is far from impressive. Are all these police enquiries totally incompetant or are they turned? Also why are there always rumours of the security services queering the pitch in almost every case?
Is it pure happenstance these enquiries start with a blaze of publicity and quietly fizzle out in a conjured sea of forgetfullness?
Instead of a public enquiry headed by the great and the good perhaps a worthy, honest stalwart from the gutter could shed light.clarity, truth and justice into this dark web of deceit..

LikeLike
22

MickC on February 6, 2014 at 6:28 pm

Sorry, I withdraw the “don’t be a bloody fool” bit-entirely wrong of me to say that.

LikeLike
23

MickC on February 6, 2014 at 6:25 pm

It is not “absolute proof”-it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

There are a huge number of cases on the meaning, but essentially it is greater than “more likely than not” but very much less than “an alien spacebat did it, not me”.

Like an elephant, most people understand it-but cannot define it. And thank God that is the case, because it allows the “normal man on the street” to exercise common sense. Contrary to the view of many, that does exist- although we are too often misled by our “leaders” in elections. I do not think that happens as much in the courtroom. However, even it did, like democracy “it is the worst system-except for all the others”.

Whilst there are currently many attempts to roll back the advances of the Enlightenment (suspects, not just those found guilty of course, having their citizenship removed ffs-as fine a penalty as Charles 1 could have imagined), with a bit of luck, (and by God, we need it) they won’t succeed.

LikeLike
24

MickC on February 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm

Happily, our criminal justice system does NOT operate on the basis of “gut feeling”-but proof beyond reasonable doubt.

If you want a “gut feeling” system, then Salem, some many years ago, is the place for you.

LikeLike
25

MickC on February 6, 2014 at 6:01 pm

Don’t be a bloody fool!

The witnesses were not proved to be liars. The Crowns case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt-entirely different!

Whether the witneses lied is entirely a matter for personal judgment.

LikeLike
26

Chris Loughrey Esq on February 6, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Shame that they didn’t go after Leon Brittan, there’d have been an easy prosecution for that odious c**t. But he was obviously too juiced in.

LikeLike
27

powval on February 6, 2014 at 5:21 pm

These women have a very large cash incentive to make false allegations, from women’s magazines so called newspapers right down to Criminal Injuries Compensation.

LikeLike
28

DICK R on February 6, 2014 at 5:20 pm

The next move should be prosecution against the witnesses for perjury where they cannot hide behind anonymity !

LikeLike
29

Cornelius Townedge (@seti2342) on February 6, 2014 at 4:30 pm

The inevitable outcome has been reached. Be assured that the likes of \Roache, Le Vell, DLT were only thrown into the ointment to dissuade others from using said ointment.

This is a proper fit-up. Not pursued with the intention of securing dubious convictions; but with discrediting the notion of ‘historical abuse’, and for the benefit of the real villains still shrouded by the establishment but may yet, god-willing, end up in front of a freemason, erm… Judge…

LikeLike
30

HomeCCTV on February 6, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Its disgusting how this man and others can have their lives ruined, their reputation ransacked for no other reason than the distraction from establishment deviants and Muslim grooming gangs.

LikeLike
31

GrahamD on February 6, 2014 at 3:46 pm

I think that the problem in all these cases is twofold. The main issue here is the burden of absolute proof…which there has to be to stop everyone from accusing whoever they like, of whatever they like, whenever they like. I seriously doubt that in most of these cases there is anything more than one persons word against another….Besides, even if anything did happen, most people prefer to avoid witnesses to their sexual behavior, even when consenting. Hence I will not be surprised if other ‘celebs’ cases simply cannot be proven and therefore must quite correctly recieve a Not Guilty verdict in the eyes of the law.

The second problem is that any of us, now over 60 will no doubt recall with some fondness, the culture of the swinging sixties and seventies. While, having been in Higher Education for almost 40 years, I am all for our considerable betterment in issues concerning race and gender, there is a very serious danger from people today judging our behavior, particularly whilst working in the creative industries in our 20’s, by the very different moral culture now found in our society of 2014. Besides….from what I remember……ya can’t pin that one entirely on ‘the guys’! ;)

LikeLike
32

Paul Smyth on February 6, 2014 at 2:23 pm

Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.

LikeLike
33

janis on February 6, 2014 at 2:03 pm

Gut feeling tells me that the conclusion to this case should have been guilty. But I could be completely wrong. Aint no smoke without some fire…..those women would have to be completely insane to accuse such a prominent and well known actor of such heinous actions, something is very fishy, and it aint fish.

LikeLike
34

kfc1404 on February 6, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Coronation Street isn’t on BBC…

LikeLike
35

John Ward – The Big Celebrity Fit-Up: The Unravelling Begins – 6 February 2014 | Lucas 2012 Infos on February 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

[…] http://www.hat4uk.wordpress.com / link to original article […]

LikeLike
36

MickC on February 6, 2014 at 1:54 pm

I hope you’re right-but I have grave doubts.

And, of course, the complainants can still potentially pursue a civil action-where the burden of proof is much lower. And no jury to exercise common sense, only a judge whose career will depend on reaching the “right” result!

LikeLike
37

Paul Wildbadger on February 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm

Ooh, look over there…some more big household names. No, no, don’t look at the politicians, social workers, police or anybody like that.

LikeLike
38

dognamedblued on February 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm

not mentioned how he used to be chief druid though (I believe there is youtube evidence knocking around somewhere if I recall)

LikeLike