Coronation Street's 'Ken Barlow' supported by East Lancashire friends and colleagues

Lancashire Telegraph: Corrie's 'Ken Barlow' supported by East Lancashire friends and colleagues Corrie's 'Ken Barlow' supported by East Lancashire friends and colleagues

SOAP star William Roache said there were ‘no winners’ after being cleared of historic sex allegations.

Mr Roache, who had been accused of raping one woman at his former home in Haslingden 47 years ago, also said he would now be returning to the cobbles of Coronation Street following the 19-day trial.

Following the not guilty verdicts, friends and former co-stars from East Lancashire also expressed their support for the 81-year-old and said they had always believed he was not guilty.

On the steps of Preston Crown Court, he said: "I have just got one thing to say, in these situations there are no winners and I think we should all be much kinder to ourselves.

“Now if you will excuse me I would like to get back to work."

The actor, who has played Ken Barlow in the ITV soap since 1960, was said to have used his fame and popularity to exploit the ‘starstruck’ girls, aged 16 and under, between the mid-60s and early 70s.

The women told jurors they were sexually abused by the defendant either at Granada Studios in Manchester, in his car or at properties he owned in Haslingden. But Mr Roache told the court he had no knowledge of any of the women and the abuse simply did not happen.

Following the trial, in which some of Mr Roache’s Coronation Street colleagues gave evidence in his defence, the jury cleared him of two counts of rape and four indecent assaults.

Messages of support yesterday poured in for the soap legend, who appeared in the very first episode of Coronation Street.

Among them was Ribble Valley politician Kevin Horkin, who said he had been friends with Mr Roache for 28 years and was ‘absolutely thrilled’ with the result. The soap stalwart had been due to speak at his mayor making ceremony just days after he was arrested on suspicion of raping a girl in Haslingden twice in 1967.

Mr Horkin said: “Bill is one of the most gentle, genuine men I have ever met in my life. “He is an inspirational figure and I really felt for him over these past months because it has been a traumatic ordeal.

“But he has come through the whole experience with tremendous grace and dignity. “That is the nature of the man.

“He will be looking forward to going back to work. Work for him is very much his extended family.

“Bill loves the show and I would imagine he will be back very soon.”

Mr Horkin, who was one of just 22 guests at Mr Roache’s 80th birthday party, said he expected the soap stalwart to celebrate the verdict with his children, three of whom have been supporting their father at Preston Crown Court throughout the trial.

Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans added on Facebook: “I am so pleased to hear the news of Bill Roache. He is a decent man who now can get his life back.”

Former East Lancashire Coronation Street actors also offered their support.

Peter Gunn, who played teacher Brian Packham in the show, said: “My personal view is that it is a relief for Bill.

“I think what he has been through would be stressful.

“We worked together and he was very professional.

“Of course I now wish him all the best for when he returns to work.”

Vicky Entwistle, who is from Accrington and played Janice Battersby in Coronation Street, said on Twitter she and her husband Andrew Chapman were ‘very happy’ with the news.

She said: “Andy and I elated to hear the wonderful news that William Roache has been cleared of all charges!!! We have a very happy house!!”

Shortly after the verdict, Antony Cotton, who is from Turn Village, near Edenfield and played barman Sean Tully in the long-running drama, also took to the social networking site.

He wrote: “The truth will always out...” Haslingden councillor Ann Kenyon said she remembered Mr Roache from when he lived in the town. She said she was ‘not surprised’ by the result.

Coun Kenyon said: “He never used to bother anybody. He was not the type of person that imposed himself on anybody.

“I always found him to be pleasant and a perfect gentleman.

“But this will never go away for him. I think he will go back into Coronation Street, but in six months’ time, he will say he is retiring.

“Even though he has been found not guilty, people will have the allegations at the back of their minds.”

Yvonne Howarth, who works at Manning’s bakery, in Deardengate, Haslingden, said: “I used to see Bill around and he was completely normal.

“There were no rumours or gossip at the time. “It is difficult when the defendant is famous, but I am not surprised by the verdict.”

Nazir Afzal, chief crown prosecutor for CPS North West, said the case had been treated like any other despite the defendant’s fame.

He said: “When serious allegations are made and the evidence in a case passes the prosecution test it is right that a jury considers the evidence.

“That is the way our legal system works. When a jury delivers a verdict, no matter what it is, that is justice being done.

“We have a duty to those who make complaints of serious offences to listen to the allegations, and assess the evidence against the same evidential standards we use for all criminal cases, no matter who makes the complaint, or who the complaint is against.”

A spokesman for Lancashire Police said the force ‘entirely respected’ the jury’s verdict.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:42am Fri 7 Feb 14

frank says...

who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?
who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow? frank

9:20am Fri 7 Feb 14

adamdesk says...

Why did the woman who accused Mr Roche of abuse and rapes didn't complaint to the police at that very time and waited 80 years??

Is it because he has plenty of money now?

Some ladies wants money nothing else they don't care about anyone suffering, his family and respect.

THE LAW should have timescale in reporting any crimes.

The woman who accused Mr Roche should now stand trial for wasting polices time and thousands of pounds of tax payers money
Why did the woman who accused Mr Roche of abuse and rapes didn't complaint to the police at that very time and waited 80 years?? Is it because he has plenty of money now? Some ladies wants money nothing else they don't care about anyone suffering, his family and respect. THE LAW should have timescale in reporting any crimes. The woman who accused Mr Roche should now stand trial for wasting polices time and thousands of pounds of tax payers money adamdesk

9:38am Fri 7 Feb 14

TONY WALES says...

When one of the girls states she cannot remember if he did rape her, or she may have being dreaming about it.
You have to treat the CPS as a bit of a joke.
This has been a complete waste of taxpayers money, the winners are all the legal teams who will now be laughing all the way to the bank.
When one of the girls states she cannot remember if he did rape her, or she may have being dreaming about it. You have to treat the CPS as a bit of a joke. This has been a complete waste of taxpayers money, the winners are all the legal teams who will now be laughing all the way to the bank. TONY WALES

9:57am Fri 7 Feb 14

yyy's1 says...

William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying.
These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury?
I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting
months they could be over in an hour.
The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.
William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery. yyy's1

9:57am Fri 7 Feb 14

Lancs - pensioner says...

frank wrote:
who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?
Which ever it appears he is an innocent man, the people who lied should be brought to trial now for perjury.
Still the money grabbing lawyers who must have been able to see through this scam have made there own fortune out of this!!
Putting his so called fame to one side he is an 80 year old pensioner who has been put through hell along with his family.
[quote][p][bold]frank[/bold] wrote: who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?[/p][/quote]Which ever it appears he is an innocent man, the people who lied should be brought to trial now for perjury. Still the money grabbing lawyers who must have been able to see through this scam have made there own fortune out of this!! Putting his so called fame to one side he is an 80 year old pensioner who has been put through hell along with his family. Lancs - pensioner

11:13am Fri 7 Feb 14

midas says...

yyy's1 wrote:
William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.
The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference.
[quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.[/p][/quote]The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference. midas

11:37am Fri 7 Feb 14

frank says...

midas wrote:
yyy's1 wrote:
William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.
The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference.
fully agree, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.[/p][/quote]The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference.[/p][/quote]fully agree, not guilty doesn't mean innocent. frank

1:06pm Fri 7 Feb 14

yyy's1 says...

Fair comment Midas, does that mean there is still a cloud hanging over him?
Fair comment Midas, does that mean there is still a cloud hanging over him? yyy's1

1:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

midas says...

Peter Adamson never worked again after his not guilty verdict. Whether there is a cloud hanging over him will be judged by the "Court of Public Opinion"!
Peter Adamson never worked again after his not guilty verdict. Whether there is a cloud hanging over him will be judged by the "Court of Public Opinion"! midas

2:48pm Fri 7 Feb 14

woolywords says...

You watch, I'll bet that the screenwriters include this in the plot storylines..former teacher Ken, is accused of child abuse..Corrie fans will lap it up.

@Midas, in those days, people were more inclined to think that, although they were found not guilty, they just 'got off with it' and had the opinion that, clever lawyers had got them off. Not that there was any evidence to categorically prove their guilt, apart from the complainant. The mere fact that Peter Adamson had been accused, tried and found not guilty, made him 'tainted'.
Mix with the current perceptions of the Police and Crown Prosecutions Service not always taking things to court that the public think should be, we have a potent mix of conspiracy, cover-ups and whatever else that you can think of..
How many in this age, think that, people are making these allegations, in the vain-glorious hope of achieving some money? The idea that we now live in a compensation culture has even pervaded the jury systems sense of right and wrong. So that one can never be absolutely sure what swayed the jury, one way or t'other.
I'd personally like to see the Scottish jury options used in our courts. Where they are allowed to return a verdict of, not proven. Which is a bit between guilt or not, just that the prosecution lacked enough evidence to tip the balance of probability to be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt.
You watch, I'll bet that the screenwriters include this in the plot storylines..former teacher Ken, is accused of child abuse..Corrie fans will lap it up. @Midas, in those days, people were more inclined to think that, although they were found not guilty, they just 'got off with it' and had the opinion that, clever lawyers had got them off. Not that there was any evidence to categorically prove their guilt, apart from the complainant. The mere fact that Peter Adamson had been accused, tried and found not guilty, made him 'tainted'. Mix with the current perceptions of the Police and Crown Prosecutions Service not always taking things to court that the public think should be, we have a potent mix of conspiracy, cover-ups and whatever else that you can think of.. How many in this age, think that, people are making these allegations, in the vain-glorious hope of achieving some money? The idea that we now live in a compensation culture has even pervaded the jury systems sense of right and wrong. So that one can never be absolutely sure what swayed the jury, one way or t'other. I'd personally like to see the Scottish jury options used in our courts. Where they are allowed to return a verdict of, not proven. Which is a bit between guilt or not, just that the prosecution lacked enough evidence to tip the balance of probability to be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. woolywords

2:48pm Fri 7 Feb 14

adamdesk says...

TONY WALES wrote:
When one of the girls states she cannot remember if he did rape her, or she may have being dreaming about it.
You have to treat the CPS as a bit of a joke.
This has been a complete waste of taxpayers money, the winners are all the legal teams who will now be laughing all the way to the bank.
its tax payers money you know not CPS own funds so they decided to give it ago
[quote][p][bold]TONY WALES[/bold] wrote: When one of the girls states she cannot remember if he did rape her, or she may have being dreaming about it. You have to treat the CPS as a bit of a joke. This has been a complete waste of taxpayers money, the winners are all the legal teams who will now be laughing all the way to the bank.[/p][/quote]its tax payers money you know not CPS own funds so they decided to give it ago adamdesk

2:53pm Fri 7 Feb 14

adamdesk says...

people get charged for benefit fraud why do UK government not take any action of false accusers which leads to millions in loss

In relation to not finding guilty the case is based on evidence and there is not a slight evidence that any woman is this case suffered abuse or even rapes

Law in reporting crimes must be improved
people get charged for benefit fraud why do UK government not take any action of false accusers which leads to millions in loss In relation to not finding guilty the case is based on evidence and there is not a slight evidence that any woman is this case suffered abuse or even rapes Law in reporting crimes must be improved adamdesk

5:01pm Fri 7 Feb 14

shanbrurik says...

what an arrogant person.giving a thank you speech.You didn't win an oscar Roach,or did you?.His own barrister said 'a leopard doesn't change it's spots'.Today's nationals report, he'd tried it on with the(then)14 year old actress who played Lucille Hewitt.The jury should have been shown the interview where he BRAGGED about his sexual conquests.Innocent my arse.
what an arrogant person.giving a thank you speech.You didn't win an oscar Roach,or did you?.His own barrister said 'a leopard doesn't change it's spots'.Today's nationals report, he'd tried it on with the(then)14 year old actress who played Lucille Hewitt.The jury should have been shown the interview where he BRAGGED about his sexual conquests.Innocent my arse. shanbrurik

5:52pm Fri 7 Feb 14

noddy57 says...

frank wrote:
who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?
both of them,,he was found not guilty but the stain of suspicion will always be there,,
[quote][p][bold]frank[/bold] wrote: who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?[/p][/quote]both of them,,he was found not guilty but the stain of suspicion will always be there,, noddy57

5:53pm Fri 7 Feb 14

noddy57 says...

frank wrote:
who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?
both of them,,he was found not guilty but the stain of suspicion will always be there,,
[quote][p][bold]frank[/bold] wrote: who was on trial here William Roache or ken barlow?[/p][/quote]both of them,,he was found not guilty but the stain of suspicion will always be there,, noddy57

5:55pm Fri 7 Feb 14

vicn1956 says...

Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out.
Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met.
Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers.
Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out. Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met. Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers. vicn1956

6:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

noddy57 says...

vicn1956 wrote:
Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out.
Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met.
Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers.
l fully agree,, why should people be able to accuse someone of a crime ,,Perticularly a sex crime and not be answerable when the accused is cleared,there has to be some repercussions or the system is at fault,
[quote][p][bold]vicn1956[/bold] wrote: Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out. Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met. Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers.[/p][/quote]l fully agree,, why should people be able to accuse someone of a crime ,,Perticularly a sex crime and not be answerable when the accused is cleared,there has to be some repercussions or the system is at fault, noddy57

6:35pm Fri 7 Feb 14

adamdesk says...

if I was a judge I would throw the case away on basis that the accusers made accusation 40 years later FULL STOP
if I was a judge I would throw the case away on basis that the accusers made accusation 40 years later FULL STOP adamdesk

7:07pm Fri 7 Feb 14

glossopkid says...

vicn1956 wrote:
Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out.
Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met.
Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers.
Totally agree!!!! The CPS/POLICE/ACCUSERS SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY ALL THE COSTS TOWARDS THIS CASE.

I sometimes wonder that some cases just get taken to court on the merit that the police officer working on the case has used so much resources/time to get a charge. In this time and age its not about if you have done the crime its about how personal the police officer feels about what he/she has heard. The CPS THEN JUST GET PERSUADED BY THE POLICE OFFICER TO TAKE IT ON. In my opinion its a waste of tax payers money.
[quote][p][bold]vicn1956[/bold] wrote: Anyone could be in his position if the CPS can use such flimsy evidence to bring it to court. Any police officer with an ounce of common sense who should have examined the evidence should have thrown it out. Imagine in 30 years the police turning up at your door and being accused by someone you have never met. Someone should pay for slander-the CPS/police/accusers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree!!!! The CPS/POLICE/ACCUSERS SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY ALL THE COSTS TOWARDS THIS CASE. I sometimes wonder that some cases just get taken to court on the merit that the police officer working on the case has used so much resources/time to get a charge. In this time and age its not about if you have done the crime its about how personal the police officer feels about what he/she has heard. The CPS THEN JUST GET PERSUADED BY THE POLICE OFFICER TO TAKE IT ON. In my opinion its a waste of tax payers money. glossopkid

12:45pm Sat 8 Feb 14

pdb951 says...

frank wrote:
midas wrote:
yyy's1 wrote:
William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.
The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference.
fully agree, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Then by this rule guilty does not then mean guilty? Or does it?
[quote][p][bold]frank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: William Roche is innocent according to a jury, in which case his accusers are lying. These people will have taken an oath , why are they not charged with perjury? I personally think this outdated jury system should be replaced with polygraph test, it's time the legal gravy train came to a halt, instead of trials lasting months they could be over in an hour. The money saved could build more prisons, as for the out of work solicitors, well there's always pizza delivery.[/p][/quote]The Jury said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that he was innocent. There is a sutble difference.[/p][/quote]fully agree, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.[/p][/quote]Then by this rule guilty does not then mean guilty? Or does it? pdb951

1:57pm Sat 8 Feb 14

vicn1956 says...

Perversely this case could make it harder for genuine cases to be heard/taken to court.
Perversely this case could make it harder for genuine cases to be heard/taken to court. vicn1956

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree