Matthew Kelly cleared

[Robbie]

I hope those who were so quick to condemn the man will be equally quick to apologise for their comments, particularly Wonkyfox for his post.


"Kelly 'delighted' as child abuse inquiry halted
Police say Matthew Kelly will not face charges over allegations of sexual abuse against young boys.

But the TV presenter has been cautioned after officers found a small quantity of Class A drugs during a search of his London home.

The 52-year-old, from Chiswick, was arrested last month by officers from Surrey Police investigating claims of abuse dating back to the 1970s.

He had been due to answer bail at Guildford police station next month, but was brought back early to Staines police station in west London where police told him there was no evidence to proceed against him.

He said: "I was always confident my name would be cleared in due course."

He said he was "deeply appreciative" for the support he's received from the public.

Mr Kelly said: "After an extensive and thorough police investigation, which included inquiries abroad, it is clear there is no truth in the single allegation that was made against me.

"I strenuously denied the allegation when interviewed by the police and have given them all possible assistance with the investigation they were under a duty to carry out.

"However, it's been a very anxious and upsetting time for me and my family not least because of press coverage at the time of my arrest."

He said the class A drug was for his own personal use. He said this was "illegal and foolish" and apologised to his family.

In a statement Granada and ITV said: "Now that this matter has been resolved, we look forward to him returning in the forthcoming series of Stars in Their Eyes and the live final."

[diablos]

still a beast in my eyes.

[Cam]

In a statement Granada and ITV said: "Now that this matter has been resolved, we look forward to him returning in the forthcoming series of Stars in Their Eyes and the live final."

but not the kids edtion?!

wasnt he arrested cos his name was on a list from the US wot they get the from mathew kelly?!

im not saying he is nor am i saying he isnt but they must of had a reason to supect him

and fool for gettin caught with the drugs!

[MajorFU]

so robbie would u let him babysit your 6 year old girl?

[stimpy]

Having just seen him on the news giving a press release about the dropped charges, either the camera lens was unforgiving or he is aging rapidly. He looked like a mass murderer!

[Robbie]

Originally posted by MajorFU
so robbie would u let him babysit your 6 year old girl?

I'd have no problem with that.

You can be sure the police dug deep and they found nothing, otherwise he would still be in limbo.

[Robbie]

Originally posted by Cam
but not the kids edtion?!

wasnt he arrested cos his name was on a list from the US wot they get the from mathew kelly?!

This is Matthew Kelly, Cam.

[Cam]

oppps i ment wrong mathew kelly

my bad

[Snak3]

Originally posted by stimpy
Having just seen him on the news giving a press release about the dropped charges, either the camera lens was unforgiving or he is aging rapidly. He looked like a mass murderer!

Yes - wouldn't you be if you had just undergone 'trial by media'? Luckily this particular trial faded into the baseless allegations they were orriginally.

[ABCMan]

to be honest he'd probably be a safer babysitter than almost anyone, not only will the police have gone very thoroughly through any allegations against him without finding any evidence but given the ordeal he was put through by the media i would imagine that he'd probably refuse for the sake of his own sanity.

Sadly what he has been through is something that many people who have to deal with children dread facing, and sadly its something that is happening more frequently, its a poor reflection on our society that just because someone says something we automaticly believe in their guilt.

the question you should ask yourselves is what would you do if such things were said about you even when you knew you were innocent?

the charges were dropped, he is innocent therfore he's not a "beast" or a "nonce" end of story.

[procode]

Originally posted by ABCMan
the question you should ask yourselves is what would you do if such things were said about you even when you knew you were innocent?

For one thing, I'd get rid of the home in one of the biggest child sex capitols of the World.

Why does he have it, given that he neither condons these activities nor takes part in them ?

[dingle_666]

i never thought bad of him at all during the investigations, hes still a good bloke

[cosmicma]

i have mixed feelings about this because i allways believe there's no smoke without fire but if whoever accused him in the first place is known for these or simmilar allegations then there's probably no grounds to it all but something in the back of my mind allways leaves a bit of doubt but i would not condemn him outright without knowing more about the situation

my 2p worth anyway

[procode]

As I understand it, the CPP have said that there is 'insufficient evidence' to guarantee a conviction, due to the alleged offence being over 30yrs old.

Does that mean the same as '100% innocent', or, 'totally vindicated' ?
I'm not a lawer so I don't know.

Is it possible that the police may have made such a 'public' arrest in order to encourage other possible victims to come forward. ?

If that is so, I would assume it did not happen ?
What that means, I don't think we should speculate.

[Robbie]

It means totally vindicated.

His arrest was in connection with Jonathan King, and the police were trawling to try to get evidence. Nearly all of these allegations, relating to offences committed 30 years ago, are to do with the alleged victims obtaining compensation.

It's notable that Merseyside Police have discontinued their enquiries into alleged offences in care homes in the Merseyside area. There has been a great deal of criticism about their methods, and disquiet about people being jailed who are regarded as innocent. David Jones, the former manager of Souithampton was put on trial. Probably due to his position none of his accusers gave evidence.

Unfortunately, the Police are not objective, and one has only to see the many cases of wrongful convictions to realise that there are grave problems with the system.

[procode]

My personal opion ?
I never suspected that he had abused any young girls !
Am I correct in assuming the enquiry was about young boys ?

[sanjuro]

I think that people who accuse other people of child abuse and are found to be lying should get the same sentence what the accused would have got if they were found guilty.
Kelly like anyone else accused faces stigma and ridicule for life.

sanjuro

[ABCMan]

Originally posted by sanjuro
I think that people who accuse other people of child abuse and are found to be lying should get the same sentence what the accused would have got if they were found guilty.
Kelly like anyone else accused faces stigma and ridicule for life.

sanjuro

i wholeheartedly agree, as somone who has to deal with children it only takes one to decide to get back at me for something i've done to them (like grounding or refusing pocket money) and sadly this kind of thing is happening more and more often, sadly these days it only takes one person to make a totaly baseless accusation for all hell to break loose, after people such as kelly are found to be innocent there are still those saying "no smoke without fire" how can they say that? are you realy saying that any social worker or foster carer of teacher or youth group leader or anyone else who in the course of their job has to deal with children must be a kiddie fiddler because 1 child decides to make a false accusation.

for all you know the next person in the papers could be me or it could be you, would that suddenly make you or me a ped0? no, of course it wouldnt, but untill some balence is brought to the law such accusations will continue to be made by those who have nothing to lose and plenty to gain by way of financial settlement from an lea or famous person personal finances. Sadly thats the way things work and in some ways even more sadly is the fact that an abused child may not be believed in the future because of all the false accusations that have been made and that would be a real tragedy.

[procode]

I totally agree with sanjuro and ABCman 100%.
Obviously the same should apply to rapist accusations, including the publication of the 'false' accuser's name.

But only in cases where the accusations are proved beyond any doubt could this step be taken, as ABCman said, 'Mud Sticks', (what has been said cannot be un-said).
So, should 'beyond any doubt' include 'reasonable doubt'?

The unfortunate backlash of all this would be, more people would be tempted to deny offences they would previously have admitted to.
The 'long term' effect of this would that less victims would come forward, fearing that, besides the stigma, they would not be believed and their suffering would then be increased.

[Yazmon]

Originally posted by procode
I totally agree with sanjuro and ABCman 100%.
Obviously the same should apply to rapist accusations, including the publication of the 'false' accuser's name.

Not sure about the publication of an accusers name, but surly there should be no publication regardless of the offence. (Just like there is for under-18 convictions (IIRC..?))

The British press is way too savage. Its strange I have not seen this sort of need to find the dirt on public people in any other country, mostly the news is actual 'news', ie what effects you and me, not what some polititian gets up to at night in the provacy of his own home...

Arent they trying to clamp down on the press right now? (Theres a committee looking at it right now...)