William Roache Should Never Have Been Put on Trial


Note: This release was held over while I took advice on whether it might be in contempt of court. SIG

Libertarian Alliance News Release
Thursday the 6th February 2014
Release Time: Immediate
Contact: Dr Sean Gabb, sean, 07956 472 199

William Roache
Should Never Have Been Put on Trial

The Libertarian Alliance notes the acquittal today of the actor William Roache on all charges of sexual assault against minors during the 1960s.We also note the quality of the evidence given against him, mostly by women whose identities we cannot know, and who are nearly old enough to be collecting their old age pensions.

We make no comment on the motivations of the prosecution witnesses in this case. Nor do we make any comment on any case currently in progress. However, we suggest the following reforms to the law:

1. That no accusations of sexual assault should be received by the authorities more than three years after the date of the alleged offence, or more than a year after the accuser has reached the age of eighteen, whichever is longer;

2. That the identities of all prosecution witnesses should be made public.

We further suggest that whoever in the Crown Prosecution Service authorised the charges against Mr Roache to go to trial should be named and sacked and deprived of his or her pension.

The Libertarian Alliance believes that sexual assaults, involving actual or reasonably prospective violence, should be punished. We also believe that sexual assaults against children should be punished. At the same time, we believe in fair trials. No one should be put on trial so long after the alleged offences as Mr Roache was. No one should be put on trial except when there is reasonable evidence of guilt.

We deplore that these arguments are put so rarely in the mainstream media.

Ends

End

Notes to Editors

The Libertarian Alliance was founded in 1979, and is the foremost civil liberties and free market policy institute in the United Kingdom. With over 800 publications already available, its website grows by the week.

Dr Sean Gabb is Director of the Libertarian Alliance. He has written over a dozen books and around a million words of journalism, and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programmes. His seven novels have been commercially translated into Spanish, Italian, Greek, Hungarian, Slovak and Complex Chinese. His novel, The Churchill Memorandum, can be found on Amazon

About these ads

24 responses to “William Roache Should Never Have Been Put on Trial

  1. Lynn Atkinson

    I agree wholeheartedly! This has been a scandal of epic proportions. Saville cannot defend himself. please note, I am a woman.

    • So we could say both a time limit and a life or rather death related issue. Alive can be question. Dead presumed innocent?

  2. Radical Rodent

    I agree wholeheartedly with the title, but not so fully with the suggested amendments – if there is solid evidence to support the accusation, there should be no time limit. In the cases of Roache et al, there was no independently verifiable evidence produced, they all appeared to be one person’s word against another’s, and, as we have seen, the “jury” of the media consider that all men are guilty, they just haven’t managed to pin anything on them. Savile has provided the perfect opportunity for this – no matter how many “victims” come forward, none of their accusations will be challenged; in other words, he is guilty!

    The truly sad thing is that, no matter what the result, all the accused will still be guilty in some people’s minds; apparently, La Velle (sp?) is still getting death-threats and bricks through the windows.

    Roache said that there are no winners in cases like this; he is wrong – the legal profession is winning hand over fist!

    • The brick slingers are the same cohort who used to actively bash gays. The paedo is the new homo, but even moreso. They’re the same sort of thugs looking for an excuse who wore a variety of different coloured shirts in different countries in the 1930s.

  3. I think the GramsciaNazis did have something like this sort strategic legal assault plan in their proposed armoury of anti-leberal, anti-Western weaponry. it being deployed now, they probably think they are nearing their endgame against us.

    • I hate to disagree David, but I don’t think this is anything to do with GFNs as such. It’s simply the application of the raw hatred for men that powers Core Feminism. The model is a Ku Klux Klan lynch mob, operating via the State- we could call it “Jemima Crow” perhaps. Not some subtil Gramscian plan.

      • It seems that with “personalities” it is women coming forward decades after the event and with priests it is men coming forward decades after the event. I believe unless rape and force through use of fear or blackmail or even “our special” thing is used, or if under the nations sex law age or below puberty age is concerned, then one must consider there was consent.

      • But raw hatred of men was a plank of GFNism.

  4. Why do you stop at recommending that prosecution witnesses should be named? Surely complainants should be named too, unless they’re minors. If you’re telling telling the truth, what shame can there be in claiming you were the victim of a sex crime?

  5. Radical Rodent-

    There are good reasons for time limits to bring a complaint. Firstly, the unlikelihood of there being evidence; secondly that people change over their lives. A person who at 20 was proud they had banged a celebrity might, as a more conservative 50 year old feel regretful and retroactively label it a rape.

    But thirdly, the conventions of society change over time. These sorts of crimes are heavily predicated on the particular moral hegemony in which people are operating, even though the same laws are on the books over the different time periods. What is held to be sexual in nature, or grossly indecent, or obscene, changed radically between 1940 and 1970, and has changed radically again since then. It is impossible for juries and everyone else involved to think with the minds they might have had in 1965. Such people as existed in 1965 simply do not exist any more. Even such people as existed in 1980 are getting rarer than hens’ teeth.

    A statute of limitations is, I think, vitally necessary.

    But of course, it isn’t going to happen. We have, I think, many more years to go yet before the pendulum swings back, and the politicians of that future (whenever it comes) are heard mumbling their empty apologies to the dead.

    • Radical Rodent

      All good points; however, please look at what I said – “if there is solid evidence…” As far as I am aware, none of the cases have any solid evidence; all rely upon aging memory, and, possibly, a certain vindictiveness; it is trial by hearsay, and, as such, should never have reached the courts. If any of the “victims” brought out a video, or similar, of the alleged assault, which showed them to be unwilling participants, then the situation would be very different, and the perpetrator would be guilty, no matter how long ago it was.

      • So, someone took a video of herself being raped – and then waited more than three years before producing it as the basis for a complaint. That would strike me as rather fishy.

        • Radical Rodent

          Not if the perpetrator took the video, and it was some time before the victim found it.

          • I think this is a distraction, however nobly intended. Such cases are extremely rare, if such evidence existed it would be pure dumb luck, and enabling such a case to occur years and years after the event is not worth the negative of enabling the majority of these cases, based purely on ancient testimony, to be heard. A statute of limitations is the way forward, I think.

          • Sorry – if someone raped me, my decision to complain wouldn’t depend on whether I found it on video more than three years after the event. In any event, hard cases make bad law. Where a criminal case turns on one word against another, there should be a limitation.

  6. By the way, here’s a bit of bittersweet poetic justice. Nobody is safe, from Plod, not even Plod.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10625730/Downing-Street-police-porn-arrests.html

  7. Very interesting points but if we relate the issue to Catholic priests buggering young boys who have got away with it, does the time line suggested mean such a priest will no longer feel fearful of such acts coming to light after a time? Or are we saying that there is an age of known understanding and thus in reality consent given, even if under fear or awe, and this applies to children below puberty and or below the age of giving consent to sexual acts? It seems to me to be all about the age of the person concerned and the considered time lime such acts took place.

    Even in the 1950s a 20 year old was aware of sexual acts whereas a 6 year old would not have been as aware of the situation as a six year old nowadays – however the latters innocence and comprehension of the act would still be that of a child and they would not be able to really consent as they would not understand the ramifications of it.

    • The long arm of the piggery never lets go of a collar – unless it’s of a known criminal.

      • Well, in order to keep the system going, the known-criminal has to be “left in place”. Otherwise, how will all the salaries of the judges, defending-and-prosecuting-barristers-and-other-lawyers, “court staff”, “police”, “probation officers” and the like, be able to be justified to be kept going?

        The villain needs to be “processed” multiple times in that part of his lifetime in which he is fit enough and agile enough*** to be a useful criminal, so that he can either evade the Gestapo or evade being murdered by his own colleagues. For there are otherwise not enough nastypeople to be able to prop up the crime figures so as to be able to keep socialism going.

        ***That’s why successful criminals get so much sex: it must be so because they all say so on the telly. They’re good at being the “top predators”, they are encouraged in their activities by the State, and so hominid females of all ethnicities (and also of none, which is the other kind) prostrate themselves in long and disorderly queues at the feet of these men.

        If all the villains were in prison, all the time, the British-State GFN-system would grind to a halt, and nobody would be able to justify their dudes’ “salaries”.

  8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10626095/No-porn-charges-against-Number-Ten-cops.html
    This one is fun, isn’t it. I do so very really bet you all 1p each that the fuckers were swapping pics of people being shagged etc. I would not go so far as to say “animals”, for I don’t want my front door busted down tomorrow at 5 am, even though it might be, er, ….no let’s not go there.

    This is what happens when you recruit your “policemen” from “not the most very nice people that you could”. But then the problem of “policing” arises, and you have to think about (a) what is policing for, and (b) who ought to do it…

    After all, these droids that “may have done this” are British Policemen…They are “thought to” have “access to” – and “thought to” have “created” – the largest file of “prawn” on the planet. This much is known. Many ordinary people have ended their lives voluntarily, under pressure from these “policepeople”. It’s a “horny subject”, worthy of rather later future study when all FemiNazis are dead and their “universities” have been erazed completely enough for normal earthly life to resume.

    That’ll do for now.

  9. David D-

    Part of this Plod case would come down to what counts as “Extreme” under the Act; which supposedly consists of animals, dead people and “acts likely to cause serious injury”. The Official Guidance suggests that fisting may or may not be included in this; even the people who supposedly know what the law means do not know. A considerable number of sexual acts could cause injury if done wrongly, but not if done correctly. Presumably our expert, the famous man on the Clapham Omnibus, knows the answer to this.

    A couple of days ago I was as a tangent to my puritanism research Binging around for info on the 1950s enema craze that swept the USA (clean insides are next to Godliness, and all that) and ended up purely by accident m’lud stumbling across some videos of young ladies squirting water in and out of their lady back bottoms.

    So after a couple of hours of thinking I really ought to surf onwards but, oh just one more then, I did wonder, was I breaking the law? I have no idea. An inexpertly administered enema for sexual purposes by an amateur certainly could cause serious injury; mains water pressure would be a very bad idea, for instance. Was this legally extreme? Dunno. Nobody knows until they are in front of the jury. And that’s the problem with these laws. They’re just a form of entrapment.

  10. That wanker Grayling was taking up the shout about all images of (supposed?) rape being criminalised including simulated ones. As this would make several dozen mainstream movies into “extreme porn” it may only be pre-election bullshit for the Daily Mail crowd . However –it can’t be argued that the femmis (and their NuBluLabour manginas) are in the vanguard of tyranny in this country. Yewtree, “Trafficking” (prove you are not an immigrant is a backdoor ID card) and attacks on the freedom of the Net under the cover of paedohysteria. Soon the polit pork will have lots more to worry about (massive economic collapse and their necks stretched by means of lampposts and desperate, enraged mobs) than dirty pictures.