A minor detail, and this is the problem with all trials,

He has not been found innocent, rather there isn’t enough evidence to say he was guilty.

How you intepretate this depends on who you are, innocent, no smoke with out fire etc etc.

TBH no one really wins a court case, the accusers are either liars or victims who haven’t

That is trial by jury – if you not like it by all means it need @proof beyond all reasonable doubt

Innocent until proven guilty in the UK – not the other way round
The suggestion from this case is that the accusers have made it up …

A minor detail, and this is the problem with all trials,

He has not been found innocent, rather there isn’t enough evidence to say he was guilty.

How you intepretate this depends on who you are, innocent, no smoke with out fire etc etc.

TBH no one really wins a court case, the accusers are either liars or victims who haven’t
That is trial by jury – if you not do not like it then blame the accusing barrister for an unconvincing case “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”

Innocent until proven guilty in the UK – not the other way round
The suggestion from this case is that the accusers have made it up …

Hairy cornflake cleared:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/13/dave-lee-travis-not-guilty-indecent-assault

Bill Roache cleared

Can I just say ‘who’? When I first heard this and 90% of the others I didn’t have a clue who they were/are.

Can I just say ‘who’?
I think you might find some information on “the Internet”

Of course he was cleared. There’s no evidence at all in any of these cases. I’d be worried about the implications for our legal system if it was possible to secure a conviction on the strength of any of this

Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along:
“Police and the authorities missed Jimmy Savile,” Travis’s barrister, Stephen Vullo, told jurors in his closing speech last week.

“In any society when something goes wrong, a harvest fails, there is a reaction, an understandable reaction.

“Nobody wants sexual predators to get away with their crimes. Everybody wants them to be brought to justice, but there is no justice whatsoever in overreaction, bringing a 68-year-old man of impeccable character to this court and muddying his name to make us feel better about Jimmy Savile. It wouldn’t right that wrong.”

I’d be worried about the implications for our legal system if it was possible to secure a conviction on the strength of any of this

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbdg7m8vCdc[/video]

Dezb I saw it on the news. I don’t have any interest in Corrie or any of the other soaps/dramas etc.

Now if you said BBCs’ Andy Peters was running a vice ring and selling Klashnikovs 😯

I don’t have any interest in Corrie or any of the other soaps/dramas etc.

Me neither, but any news report will tell you who he is.

Dezb I saw it on the news

Can I just say ‘who’? When I first heard this and 90% of the others I didn’t have a clue who they were/are.

I don’t have any interest in Corrie or any of the other soaps/dramas etc

Hmm…

I know you’re trying to make a really interesting point, but just because people know who he is, it doesn’t mean they are avid watchers of soap operas..

When I first heard

BOOM!