Ben Freeman charged with rape

There are varying degrees of falling from grace, and whether Ben Freeman is found guilty or not the very fact he has been charged is enough to alter people's perceptions of him.

And while the spliff incident is obviously not comparable to a rape charge, he has clearly shown himself capable of attracting embarassing publicity. The Sunday papers should always be taken with a pinch of salt but when photographic evidence is published (as it was here), that speaks for itself.

It shouldn't alter yours or anyone else's perception.

"No smoke without fire" isn't admissable in a court of law. You would be dismissed from a jury if you were to say such a thing during selection.

One could speculate wildly about the alledged meeting of this actor and the female. I could easily suggest that she took drinks off a famous British actor and saw the potential for a singificant windfall by accusing him of a dreadful attack.

Of course I would be wrong to suggest such a thing, just as it is wrong to assume his guilt from nothing more than a charge.

Police are required to arrest anyone accused of this type of crime, regardless of the apparent veracity of the victim's statement.



There's nothing particularly wrong with having the odd spliff. I'm quite a master at making them myself. I know your feelings on that matter, but I'm illustrating the point that there are some things you need to worry about, and others that are less important - in the grand scheme of things.

Allowing pictures to make it into the public domain is ill-advised, but hardly the end of the world.

It certainly shouldn't be used as an example to illustrate that he has a propensity for acts of violation.

The two matters are entirely unrelated.

Yes. Why do you feel the need to add to that process? Or indeed comment on the matter at all. What matters is the verdict of a court. Unless or until such a verdict is delivered, why indulge in smear and innuendo?

So what? Why are you doing the Daily Mail's job for them?

(I have no particular interest in the case, I've never heard of this actor and I don't watch any soaps.)

I'm surprised that the mods haven't pulled this thread.

There's always rolla-cola

Not really - the media perhaps, but not the general public.


Due to similar events in the past generally resulting in no charges and being nothing more than an opportune allegation, I think most peoples instant reactions are not "rapist" but "victim".

That's not a smear but a statement of the inevitable. Some people will make judgements, not that it makes it right.

I didn't realise I was - just pointing out this isn't the first time he's caught the red-tops' eye.

I'm guessing by your writing (with all the subtly of Mein Kampf/Daily Mail), you have never liked this actor and this is a great excuse for you to revel in his troubles. Am I right?

Whether we believe "there's nothing particularly wrong with having the odd spliff" or not, we mustn't forget that smoking spliffs is still a criminal offence-- of course "smoking the odd spliff" is nowhere near as bad as rape though.

However I'm sure Emmerdale wasn't pleased that one of its stars was photographed taking (some might say glorifying) illegal drugs. It was enough to get Craig Charles sacked, and earned Jimmy Harkishin a near-sacking (unrelated incidents of course).

i would imagine simon had more in common with roland browning

That was, in essence, my point. I'm fully aware of the current classification of cannabis, and the ongoing debate about its re-classification.

It shouldn't be assumed that a person who may decide to commit "wrong-doing" in the case of smoking cannabis has a questionable moral compass or is more likely to commit another crime.

I would tend to agree with the sentiment that this type of thread shouldn't be here, however there may be some (questionable) public interest in this type of story involving a celebrity

I think the best approach would be for people to try not to editorialise their posts when reporting matters like this.

What is it they say? Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody's got one.

44% of 16 to 29 year-olds have tried cannabis at some point in their lives. Half of them have used it in the last year.

I've got nothing against the guy and I'm certainly not revelling in his troubles. It's up to individuals how to live their lives, but when that someone is in the public eye and I've followed their career for a number of years I can't help but feel disappointment when they screw up.

The "darling of Grange Hill" line isn't a venemous act of sarcasm on my part - that's how it was. In 1996 Ben was the show's hottest property and accordingly got all the magazine coverage/TV slots. It's not unreasonable to speculate his popularity might have played a part in the move to Emmerdale.

I'm not going to enter the cannabis debate. I quoted that to illustrate a previous occasion where Ben Freeman had probably embarrassed his bosses.