|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 16, 2013 22:21:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2013 5:42:32 GMT
Willing to be proved wrong, but I reckon it will be almost impossible for him to return now, even if he's found innocent of all charges.
Mud sticks, and as this type of case is now getting so much publicity (in the light of other recent cases), I don't think the stigma is ever going to go away, especially as this second time around for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 17, 2013 6:37:50 GMT
I tend to agree, Paul. So many people in all walks of life have had their lives and career ruined despite being innocent because of the media coverage. I was appalled when this government came in and Theresa May stood there and said no anonymity.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by sootycat on Feb 17, 2013 11:57:32 GMT
It seems since the Jimmy Saville investigation started, they (the CPS) are getting more vigilent
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 17, 2013 15:59:34 GMT
Yes and oddly some arrested there have anonymity while others are splashed over the papers.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 17, 2013 18:59:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Feb 17, 2013 19:56:18 GMT
They can't get the facts right can they?..it says he has been in Corrie nearly 20 years instead of 30 years !!
It's all very odd isn't it?......is there some truth in it which caused the breakdown of his marraiige or is it some gold digger looking for compensation?
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 17, 2013 20:25:41 GMT
To protect the Corrie brand, there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in their world is there. Even if Michael is proven innocent 100%, and the woman admits she lied, it will hang over Michaels head for the rest of his life. In the Sunday papers friends have said that Michael is feeling suicidal over these allegations.  |
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 18, 2013 20:08:14 GMT
I find it so hypercritical of Granada to send Kevin to jail in a storyline involving child abduction.
Yet years ago they decided on a storyline involving Martin Platt and a barely 16 year old girl in a sexual relationship. And when the actor objected - they fired him.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 19, 2013 11:23:15 GMT
Agreed.
Getting back to anonymity, this was in the Daily Mail:
SHOULD RAPE SUSPECTS HAVE ANONYMITY?
Victims and alleged victims of rape have been granted anonymity since 1976 to spare women from humiliation and encourage more victims to report attacks.
The law originally gave the same protection to those charged with rape.
But anonymity for defendants was withdrawn in 1988 after judges protested that it prevented police from appealing for witnesses.
Judges also said that the acquittal of a man charged with rape was enough to clear his name and reputation.
Maura McGowan, a deputy High Court judge and chief of the professional body for barristers, recently called for the identities of men accused of rape and other sex crimes to be kept secret unless they are found guilty in court.
The leading lawyer said the names of those charged with sex offences should not be released because the crimes carry 'such a stigma’.
But John Cooper, a human rights barrister, disagreed with this and said anonymity for people accused of sex crimes is 'unworkable'.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So now we know who did what - Labour in 1976, Tories in 1988 and neither the previous Labour government nor this bunch of equally useless twats will change it. As for the human rights bloke - let's hope no one falsely accuses him of anything resulting in his life ruined. Although these idiots going through what they're against is the only way they'll see how wrong they are.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 19, 2013 12:10:42 GMT
Even if they changed the law today - it still won`t help Michael or anyone else in his situation. By the way Pats...thank you for this thread. Where other sites have had posts deleted for mentioning Michael, this thread stays open.  Sort of unrelated but in the same vein, I remember a year or so ago there was a story in the papers of some actors who were...shall we say....being rather naughty with women who weren`t their wives. Anyway these actors paid their lawyers lots of lolly to threaten newspapers if they dared print their names on their extra marital affairs. And one actor in particular was like a dog in heat by all accounts. I know who one of them was thanks to someone 'in the know' DMing me on Twitter last year. I`ll just say I can`t watch a certain drama that used to be on Sunday nights without thinking of the randy old goat. I don`t know if you know hugh...er....who I mean ;D |
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 19, 2013 12:39:13 GMT
Hughie Green? Real father of Paula Yates which sent her over the edge?
Maybe those threads are saying he's guilty whereas we're just discussing other things while publicly reserving judgement.
What pisses me off about anonymity is far too many false accusers keep theirs even when found guilty of lying.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 19, 2013 18:54:44 GMT
lol no Pats. *cough*from Downton Abbey*cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 19, 2013 20:59:22 GMT
Oh him! Ah yes. I heard that one too. Wasn't he injunction man?
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 19, 2013 22:05:49 GMT
What do you mean Pats?
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Feb 20, 2013 0:42:09 GMT
He got an injunction out to stop the papers writing about him. Too many are doing that when they should just keep it zipped.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Feb 20, 2013 1:04:41 GMT
Yes Pats. He was the one my pal on Twitter DM`d me about when I asked him if he knew anything about the injunction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 17:08:25 GMT
Trial starts today.
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Sept 2, 2013 22:43:12 GMT
Reading some of the testimony made me feel sick to my stomach. It`s not looking good for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Sept 2, 2013 22:53:50 GMT
I sincerely hope it isn't true because I'm with you, Wend when I read that. You have to wonder why he split up with his wife and now this latest girlfriend wants babies. PR?
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by pearly queen on Sept 5, 2013 18:05:51 GMT
Michael Le Vell is coming across as very unpleasant - an alcoholic who spends all his time in the pub, because of his 'working class mentality' ie abandoning his family on a regular basis, in order to get drunk with a load of blokes.
There's a difference between frequenting your local for a quick pint (like Kevin in the Rovers) and being in the pub all the time.
Of course that doesn't make him a nonce, but he's hardly dad/husband of the year, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Sept 5, 2013 21:51:29 GMT
It`s not showing Michael in a very good light admitting to quite a few one night stands.
Even if Michael is found not guilty, his admittance to alcohol dependency could make his departure permanent by TPTB.
Its understandable in a way that they want to protect their brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Sept 6, 2013 13:59:42 GMT
In cases like this where everyone denies guilt, they should be hypnotised and recorded on video with a member of the court as witness. He may not have done it and it's all made up. Perhaps the girl came onto him and he told her to sod off. There again, he may have done it while drunk and not remember. It's tricky and I'd hate to be on that jury having to decide.
Patsy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 14:34:49 GMT
Begs the question 'why not use Sodium Pentathol?"
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Sept 6, 2013 16:18:30 GMT
Great idea, Paul! In both victim and accused. Far too many crying rape or abuse now making it more difficult for genuine people.
Patsy
|
|
