Former The Bill & Coronation Street actor Andrew Lancel has been found not guilty of indecent assault.
news.sky.com/story/1101740/ex-corrie-act...-of-indecent-assault

Best news I've heard in ages. Could it be that jurors are at last starting to realise that people DO lie, exaggerate, inflate and invent stories about sexual abuse? Without evidence, people should not be prosecuted. Of course, the media will hate this result. So many great stories could get spiked. I'm sure several tabloids had magnificent spreads about this Vile Pervert poised and ready to run (with large fees paid to the poor victim - or at least, to a charity of his choice, ignoring the "expenses" he'd be paid)...

I do hope the liar will be prosecuted and convicted. Doubt it, somehow.

I'm still trying to get the Police to do their job re. you last sentence.

There is hope though - this a deserved sentence locally to me: False claim

I quite agree Jonathan, the judge had already instructed the jury on two of the charges, as the accuser couldn't remember dates.

Seemed like a waste of taxpayers money and I suspect the first of many celebrities to be cleared.

And yes the accuser deserves to be charged.

8 Months for Perverting the Course of Justice? He'd have got ten years if she'd stuck to her story and police had helped her change the times and dates after hearing about the CCTV footage (which the police often do; remember that if you're ever in a position of having to tell police your defence). That was a truly dreadful aspect of my case; after hearing my cast iron alibis, witnesses changed their statements by altering dates and times (thanks a lot Surrey Police).

Officer Dribble is currently crying into his Mocca on Twitter at the moment about it.

Whatdyamean he's NOT GUILTY? He's a man, he has a Penis, he MUST BE GUILTY.

Mike Willis wrote:
I quite agree Jonathan, the judge had already instructed the jury on two of the charges, as the accuser couldn't remember dates.

Seemed like a waste of taxpayers money and I suspect the first of many celebrities to be cleared.

And yes the accuser deserves to be charged.

Had the Savile thing not happened, I doubt this would have got to court.

It certainly would be nice if proved false accusers were found guilty of perjury, perhaps?

As readers of 65 My Life So Far will know, an Asian lady juror in her thirties was so appalled by the way the jury in my case were reacting she quit without voting (my verdict was from an 11 person jury). I saw her leaving; she gave me a sympathetic look as she got into the lift, raised her eyes to the skies and shrugged.

Perhaps more jurors are becoming aware of the truth these days.

Some idiot on Twitter to Dribble has said, "Just because he's found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it".

This is the problem - the guy's career and life in ruins, whilst Dribble and his mates go and find another one in this McCarthyist bloody witch hunt against celebrities - whilst the Politicians get away with it.

Actually Steve it's not idiotic - it's true; as is the opposite (in my case) guilty doesn't mean guilty. And the frightening truth is - the system is broken.

steveimp wrote:
Mike Willis wrote:
I quite agree Jonathan, the judge had already instructed the jury on two of the charges, as the accuser couldn't remember dates.

Seemed like a waste of taxpayers money and I suspect the first of many celebrities to be cleared.

And yes the accuser deserves to be charged.

Had the Savile thing not happened, I doubt this would have got to court.

It certainly would be nice if proved false accusers were found guilty of perjury, perhaps?

I think you would have to be very careful because some accusers are mistaken but believe they are telling the truth.

I remember when we were about fifteen my friend and I were introduced to a hugely famous musician who my friend idolised. He was friendly and welcomed her with an "air" kiss but that is all.
By the time she had told the story to the entire class a few days later it had become a full on snog and grope and she really and truly believed it herself.

BBC News at 6 mentions Corrie's Bill Roache's preliminary hearing but not Corrie's Andrew Lancel's acquittal. They'll be saying Jimmy Savile was guilty next.

JK2006 wrote:
BBC News at 6 mentions Corrie's Bill Roache's preliminary hearing but not Corrie's Andrew Lancel's acquittal. They'll be saying Jimmy Savile was guilty next.

I notice that Mark Williams Thomas has not mentioned Andrew Lancel's acquittal.

The public (ie a Jury) simply do not believe these "historic" cases ... and why should they?

If there were any shred of truth in the allegations the complaint would have been made immediately - not years after.

(I note it took the Jury 29 minutes to acquit ... 12 Jury members, 2 minutes in the toilet each - that's 24 mins ... so 5 minutes actually spent to decide his innocence? Sounds about right to me !)

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
BBC News at 6 mentions Corrie's Bill Roache's preliminary hearing but not Corrie's Andrew Lancel's acquittal. They'll be saying Jimmy Savile was guilty next.

I notice that Mark Williams Thomas has not mentioned Andrew Lancel's acquittal.

He has mentioned Lancel - but used his real name, and then countered it immediately by "reporting" on Bill Roache.
Some of his brain dead followers, who may or may not actually exist in person, have suggested that "being found Not Guilty doesn't mean he isn't Guilty"
Which, using that logic, means they are hero-worshipping a Blackmailer.

Good grief what the hell sort of speech is this to be giving the accuser? Is this routine?

Judges comments quoted from The Independent........




The judge, speaking to the defendant's barrister, Andrew Menary QC, said: "The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.

"It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago."


Full article...www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/form...assault-8652745.html

Chris Retro wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
BBC News at 6 mentions Corrie's Bill Roache's preliminary hearing but not Corrie's Andrew Lancel's acquittal. They'll be saying Jimmy Savile was guilty next.

I notice that Mark Williams Thomas has not mentioned Andrew Lancel's acquittal.

He has mentioned Lancel - but used his real name, and then countered it immediately by "reporting" on Bill Roache.
Some of his brain dead followers, who may or may not actually exist in person, have suggested that "being found Not Guilty doesn't mean he isn't Guilty"
Which, using that logic, means they are hero-worshipping a Blackmailer.

Oh yes, so he did.I missed it. Thank you Chris and apologies to MWT if he is reading.
Most of his followers are unusually supportive.

JK2006 wrote:
Actually Steve it's not idiotic - it's true; as is the opposite (in my case) guilty doesn't mean guilty. And the frightening truth is - the system is broken.

Oh absolutely JK - I actually mentioned that to, as it turned out, the woman.

She then said, "Well I think he did it anyway" and that was basically the end of the 'conversation', accusing me of 'siding with paedos'.

Yes the moronic, simplistic attitude of the media and society - illustrated usually by the judicial system - only reflects that of our species.
I believe it's not inherent nastiness but an overwhelming superficiality that means we simply don't have time for any depth of thought and only want a good story to titillate us.

Damage to individuals is a by product of this shallow approach to life.

I must admit Jonathan, the BBC never once mentioned it on their broadcasts. ITV, however, on their news bulletin mentioned it.

But then it isn't news, if you're found innocent.