Just my feeling as a casual observer. With all due respect, I don't believe I need to justify my statement to anyone. Do you? If I was involved with the case e.g as an employee of the CPS or in some other capacity, then I would be needed to justify my opinion.
You're right, of course, but it may help you not look as bad if you do justify it
Although the actor has not filmed any scenes for the ITV soap since he was charged earlier this year, he has not been officially suspended as bosses were reportedly waiting on the outcome of the trial.
Le Vell pledged to carry on playing Kevin Webster because he still viewed it as 'the best job on television'.
It was reported that he would be offered a new £250,000 contract to stay with the ITV soap if he was cleared.
Sorry, but shouldn't this thread be more appropriate for the Soaps or Showbiz forum? Since when was Michael Le Vell a broadcaster per se?
As he has acted in a soap for 31 years I think he could be safely classed as a ''broadcaster''.In any case the issues raised by his case go well beyond Soaps or Showbiz. The jury accepted that his accuser was a fantasist and that could affect anyone who appears in the medium.
As he has acted in a soap for 31 years I think he could be safely classed as a ''broadcaster''.In any case the issues raised by his case go well beyond Soaps or Showbiz. The jury accepted that his accuser was a fantasist and that could affect anyone who appears in the medium.
See, this right here is dangerous stuff. How do you know that they just didn't accept there was enough evidence?
This is what stops people coming forward. You have absolutely no idea what is going on and have no basis to make this claim.
I'm not saying I think he's guilty at all, just saying that people have to not make any indications without evidence to back it up.
Guiser, I understand that Corrie chiefs are busy arranging his return as we speak. I read some weeks ago that they had stated that he would return if acquitted.
Yes I saw that.
I was kind of musing that after an experience like that, with every detail of his (not very savoury) private life pored over and picked apart by millions, he might prefer to just go and live halfway up a mountain in Outer Mongolia where nobody knows who he is.
As he has acted in a soap for 31 years I think he could be safely classed as a ''broadcaster''.In any case the issues raised by his case go well beyond Soaps or Showbiz. The jury accepted that his accuser was a fantasist and that could affect anyone who appears in the medium.
for accuracy:
Broadcaster may refer to:
A broadcasting organization, one responsible for the production of radio and television programs and/or their transmission.
A program presenter of any television or radio.
A sports commentator on television or radio.
Even ignoring the concept that the term as used for this forum would be more likely to be covered by the first definition, he was none of those
I think the matter will fade from people's minds as time goes on. I can think of one other comedy actor acquitted of rape some years ago, whose career seems to have flourished since.
He's also in Corrie, if we're thinking of the same actor?
Although the actor has not filmed any scenes for the ITV soap since he was charged earlier this year, he has not been officially suspended as bosses were reportedly waiting on the outcome of the trial.
Le Vell pledged to carry on playing Kevin Webster because he still viewed it as 'the best job on television'.
It was reported that he would be offered a new £250,000 contract to stay with the ITV soap if he was cleared.
He will see out his contract but mud sticks, I said it on another thread but google Len Adamson to find out what will happen to him in my opinion. There will be no new contract.
He will see out his contract but mud sticks, I said it on another thread but google Len Adamson to find out what will happen to him in my opinion. There will be no new contract.
So why did ITV issue a statement yesterday saying he would be returning to Corrie and when he was suspended they said he would return if he was found not guilty ? Peter Adamson - another self-confessed alcoholic who played Len Fairclough - was an entirely different case.He was cleared of indecent assault (although later admitted it in a newspaper interview) but was sacked by Granada in 1983 for selling behind-the-scenes revelations about Corrie to newspapers in breach of his contract. He died in 2002 aged 71.
Michael Le Vell was tried and found not guilty, and will apparently be supported by itv and reinstated on Coronation Street, this is the same itv who sacked John Leslie despite him never been charged, go figure.
Can I raise another issue here - the policy of immediately suspending someone when allegations are made (or in some cases rumours are circulating). The claims against Mr Le Vell have been shown to be totally false. ITV say they will welcome him back but they were quick to suspend him (and Bill Roache). What a pity they didn't wait until the outcome of the trial, talk about being presumed innocent until found guilty.
One would hope this means an end to the witch hunts . It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of the remaining cases gets dropped.
Many of them , specially the William Roache trial are not going to be able to present any real evidence so hopefully the CPS will stop wasting public money trying to make up for the fact they can't do anything about Savile - not that there was any actual tangible evidence against him either
With all these cases lined up based on "offences" that are mostly several decades old it might be wise for the CPS to stop gambling with peoples lives just to make a point .
Someones head will roll if they all get cleared and if they do I hope at least one makes a point and sues
Can I raise another issue here - the policy of immediately suspending someone when allegations are made (or in some cases rumours are circulating). The claims against Mr Le Vell have been shown to be totally false. ITV say they will welcome him back but they were quick to suspend him (and Bill Roache). What a pity they didn't wait until the outcome of the trial, talk about being presumed innocent until found guilty.
They would be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Had they not suspended him yet he was found guilty, how would that look ?? a million times worse than not having him on screen whilst awaiting trial.
Comments
You're right, of course, but it may help you not look as bad if you do justify it
Le Vell pledged to carry on playing Kevin Webster because he still viewed it as 'the best job on television'.
It was reported that he would be offered a new £250,000 contract to stay with the ITV soap if he was cleared.
As he has acted in a soap for 31 years I think he could be safely classed as a ''broadcaster''.In any case the issues raised by his case go well beyond Soaps or Showbiz. The jury accepted that his accuser was a fantasist and that could affect anyone who appears in the medium.
See, this right here is dangerous stuff. How do you know that they just didn't accept there was enough evidence?
This is what stops people coming forward. You have absolutely no idea what is going on and have no basis to make this claim.
I'm not saying I think he's guilty at all, just saying that people have to not make any indications without evidence to back it up.
It's all about the vulnerability of 'stars' when the media turns against them
Yes I saw that.
I was kind of musing that after an experience like that, with every detail of his (not very savoury) private life pored over and picked apart by millions, he might prefer to just go and live halfway up a mountain in Outer Mongolia where nobody knows who he is.
Even ignoring the concept that the term as used for this forum would be more likely to be covered by the first definition, he was none of those
"So what was the difference between 2011 and 2013? I believe the answer lies in two words: ‘Jimmy’. And ‘Savile’."
I don't really want to stir it up again.
He will see out his contract but mud sticks, I said it on another thread but google Len Adamson to find out what will happen to him in my opinion. There will be no new contract.
So why did ITV issue a statement yesterday saying he would be returning to Corrie and when he was suspended they said he would return if he was found not guilty ? Peter Adamson - another self-confessed alcoholic who played Len Fairclough - was an entirely different case.He was cleared of indecent assault (although later admitted it in a newspaper interview) but was sacked by Granada in 1983 for selling behind-the-scenes revelations about Corrie to newspapers in breach of his contract. He died in 2002 aged 71.
THE mum who got Michael Le Vell charged with raping her six-year-old is obsessed with Satan.
Friends revealed her fixation with the paranormal and the Devil yesterday amid uproar at the cleared Corrie star, 48, being put on trial.
They branded her a “self-centred attention-seeker” prone to over-dramatising events.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2409662/Michael-Le-Vell-trial-alleged-victim-repeatedly-raped-Coronation-Street-asked-mother-Am-I-safe-now.html
Many of them , specially the William Roache trial are not going to be able to present any real evidence so hopefully the CPS will stop wasting public money trying to make up for the fact they can't do anything about Savile - not that there was any actual tangible evidence against him either
With all these cases lined up based on "offences" that are mostly several decades old it might be wise for the CPS to stop gambling with peoples lives just to make a point .
Someones head will roll if they all get cleared and if they do I hope at least one makes a point and sues
They would be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Had they not suspended him yet he was found guilty, how would that look ?? a million times worse than not having him on screen whilst awaiting trial.