Bill Roache Found Not Guilty of Sexual Offences

Bill Roache has been found not guilty today of string of sexual offences, bringing to an end a trial that has gripped Great Britain and Ireland. The 81 year old actor was accused of two rapes and four indecent assaults at the trial held at Preston Crown Court.

Five women had claimed the actor, famed for his portrayal of miserable Ken Barlow on popular soap Coronation Street, assaulted them when they were aged 16 or under between 1965 and 1971.

The women, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had claimed he indecently assaulted them in the toilets and dressing rooms at Granada Studios in Manchester, as well as in the actors car.

‘Claims Lack Sense and Credibility’

During the trial, the prosecution accused Mr Roache of using his fame to exploit the girls, whilst the defence said the women’s evidence “lacked sense and credibility”.

As if to back up the defence point, one woman claimed that Johnny Briggs (who played Mike Baldwin) had warned her about Mr Roache, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor.

Another defendant changed her mind during the trial over what age she was when she was allegedly attacked.

Unsurprisingly it didn’t take the jury long to chuck the allegations out, leaving Roache a free man.

On leaving court Mr Roache stated.

“In these situations there are no winners… we should be much kinder to ourselves.”

“If you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to work.”

Now here is where I get a little concerned. When it comes to sexual offences, many people believe there is ‘no smoke without fire’. Despite the evidence, many will think he has ‘got away with it’, despite, on closer inspection, the evidence looking like nonsense.

When he makes his return to the show, will people be happy that an innocent man has had his nightmare put behind him, or will they think ‘oh there is rapist Ken Barlow, what a scumbag!’? I am not sure, seriously.

Should Defendants Remain Anonymous?

This leads me on to the debate on whether people who have sexual offences hanging over their heads should be named in public or not, whilst the ones making allegations get total anonymity. Is this fair? Shouldn’t both remain anonymous, or both be named?

Now I know the argument in favour of naming. Shamed Stuart Hall only admitted his guilt when other victims came forward and corroborated the story made by the initial complainant. Yes, that was good, but in other celebrity cases, does it just encourage gold diggers to ride the crest of a financial wave and join in the fun?

Now working in the Irish sex industry, we know there are plenty of dodgy guys out there, and that is why escort security is so important to Escort Ireland. And yes, there are sexual offenders who get away with it because it is sometimes one persons word against another. When that happens it is truly awful.

Still, when these celebrity cases are finished, the judicial system will need to look at the way it deals with these cases.

Because believe me, there will be people out there who think every time a celebrity gets convicted it is ‘justice served’, and every time someone is found not guilty they have ‘beaten the system’.

That, in itself, is unacceptable.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

Martin Ward
Follow me

Martin Ward

Martin Ward is a well respected editor and writer with over five years experience in the adult industry. After stints in the Escort Advertising call centre and on the escort forum, he moved into the site editor position around three years ago.

Since then, he has specialised in articles on the battle for equal rights for sex workers, sexual health, as well as bringing the readers fun news from around the world. He also has a major interest in LGBT rights, and is an active campaigner in this field.

When he isn't fighting the good fight, he enjoys spending time with his girlfriend, and young daughter. He also enjoys reading and taking long walks.
Martin Ward
Follow me

2 thoughts on “Bill Roache Found Not Guilty of Sexual Offences”

  1. I’m glad they are investigating these claims properly to ensure the correct verdict is reached. There seem to be a lot of claims around at the moment which does make me question which are valid

  2. It was a strange case. I do wonder whether people jumped on the ‘Ken Barlow is a scumbag’ bandwagon when he made the comment about sex assault victims doing things in previous lives. Could be a good attempt to shaft him

Please log in here to leave a comment.