Options

Will we be counting Bill Roaches absence as him having 'left'?

PyramidbreadPyramidbread Posts: 10,448
Forum Member
✭✭
Obviously he will be coming back, but will we be counting it as him having 'left' the show (which he never did, really) or will it just be seen as an extended break? Or does this mean soon Eileen Derbyshire will be the worlds longest continuing performer in a single role?

Comments

  • Options
    lionkingonstagelionkingonstage Posts: 3,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Obviously he will be coming back, but will we be counting it as him having 'left' the show (which he never did, really) or will it just be seen as an extended break? Or does this mean soon Eileen Derbyshire will be the worlds longest continuing performer in a single role?

    By the time Bill comes back onscreen he would have played Ken all together for 53 and a half years! Eileen has only clocked up 52 or 53 altogether if you count all the times she returned and left in the 1960's! Bill is still the longest serving actor!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    From what I've read, he never officially left, but rather was on a break whilst still serving on the show, so even though he hasn't been on screen for the last year, I wouldn't consider this a gap in his official service.
  • Options
    Pete CallanPete Callan Posts: 24,399
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Even with the year off, Bill retains his record. Eileen Derbyshire herself had a year off on maternity leave in 1966. Then there's also the six month gap after the strike of '61 too.

    He's actually only had one significant gap in appearances prior to now, a three-month absence in 2007, so it's really sad that the long timeline has been broken now.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 472
    Forum Member
    Michael Turner has not returned (as I PREDICTED last November), because like it or not the 'no smoke without fire' syndrome is a real one and I would not count any chickens yet, with regard to Roache's return.

    Being all confident, buoyed up by family around, outside a courtroom having escaped a conviction is ONE thing...but as Turner found out, some of the public are not going to be as understanding.

    I found the interview on C4 news tonight very interesting. A wonderful man who heads up a charity helping adult victims of childhood abuse made the point that however much time the state takes to select a jury, to expect them NOT to be at least in some way influenced by 'stardom' is unrealistic in the modern world.
  • Options
    xeoxeo Posts: 6,429
    Forum Member
    Michael Turner has not returned (as I PREDICTED last November), because like it or not the 'no smoke without fire' syndrome is a real one and I would not count any chickens yet, with regard to Roache's return.

    Being all confident, buoyed up by family around, outside a courtroom having escaped a conviction is ONE thing...but as Turner found out, some of the public are not going to be as understanding.

    I found the interview on C4 news tonight very interesting. A wonderful man who heads up a charity helping adult victims of childhood abuse made the point that however much time the state takes to select a jury, to expect them NOT to be at least in some way influenced by 'stardom' is unrealistic in the modern world.

    He's returning soon, it took a while for them to write him back in. Presuming you mean Michael Le Vell.
  • Options
    cris182cris182 Posts: 9,595
    Forum Member
    Michael Turner has not returned (as I PREDICTED last November), because like it or not the 'no smoke without fire' syndrome is a real one and I would not count any chickens yet, with regard to Roache's return.

    Being all confident, buoyed up by family around, outside a courtroom having escaped a conviction is ONE thing...but as Turner found out, some of the public are not going to be as understanding.

    I found the interview on C4 news tonight very interesting. A wonderful man who heads up a charity helping adult victims of childhood abuse made the point that however much time the state takes to select a jury, to expect them NOT to be at least in some way influenced by 'stardom' is unrealistic in the modern world.

    But not every celebrity or famous person accused of a crime is guilty and just too famous to be found guilty so how do you try them? No matter how innocent someone is people can always throw this excuse out there. That is wrong in my opinion
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 472
    Forum Member
    xeo wrote: »
    He's returning soon, it took a while for them to write him back in. Presuming you mean Michael Le Vell.

    No, I mean Michael Turner. That is, is it not, his REAL name?

    After his disgusting triumphalist display after being cleared last year, seen immediately swilling beer and laughing with his 'mates' in a bar just yards from the court steps, I refuse to refer to him with his 'stage' title.

    People earn respect...and stage titles come with respect...and ability.

    MT is a c**p actor, anyway, always has been. I don't know whether he did anything wrong with that young girl or not, the jury didn't have enough evidence to convict, but personally I remain open-minded.

    Please remember that, as Clive Coleman has just said on News at Ten, sometimes people escape prison because a jury could not prove to a sufficient degree to warrant a guilty verdict.

    So both of these Corrie cases are 'not proven', really, and it is perfectly reasonable to see them that way rather than simply 'not guilty'.
  • Options
    Brummie Girl Brummie Girl Posts: 22,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Michael Turner has not returned (as I PREDICTED last November), because like it or not the 'no smoke without fire' syndrome is a real one and I would not count any chickens yet, with regard to Roache's return.

    Being all confident, buoyed up by family around, outside a courtroom having escaped a conviction is ONE thing...but as Turner found out, some of the public are not going to be as understanding.

    I found the interview on C4 news tonight very interesting. A wonderful man who heads up a charity helping adult victims of childhood abuse made the point that however much time the state takes to select a jury, to expect them NOT to be at least in some way influenced by 'stardom' is unrealistic in the modern world.

    He has returned and is back filming already. I think we will see him on screen around March maybe
  • Options
    cris182cris182 Posts: 9,595
    Forum Member
    No, I mean Michael Turner. That is, is it not, his REAL name?

    After his disgusting triumphalist display after being cleared last year, seen immediately swilling beer and laughing with his 'mates' in a bar just yards from the court steps, I refuse to refer to him with his 'stage' title.

    People earn respect...and stage titles come with respect...and ability.

    MT is a c**p actor, anyway, always has been. I don't know whether he did anything wrong with that young girl or not, the jury didn't have enough evidence to convict, but personally I remain open-minded.

    Please remember that, as Clive Coleman has just said on News at Ten, sometimes people escape prison because a jury could not prove to a sufficient degree to warrant a guilty verdict.

    So both of these Corrie cases are 'not proven', really, and it is perfectly reasonable to see them that way rather than simply 'not guilty'.

    So if tomorrow i go to the police and accuse you of something, And it is my word against yours, You are happy some people will assume you did it because you may not be able to prove you didn't 100%?
  • Options
    MissWalfordMissWalford Posts: 728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No, I mean Michael Turner. That is, is it not, his REAL name?

    After his disgusting triumphalist display after being cleared last year, seen immediately swilling beer and laughing with his 'mates' in a bar just yards from the court steps, I refuse to refer to him with his 'stage' title.

    Yes absolutely disgusting that a cleared man went out to celebrate. >:(>:(:p
  • Options
    Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He only has the stage name for the purposes of equity, as most actors do if someone with the same name is already registered.

    It's not as simple as him walking back into the studios and starting back work on the show, it's written so far in a advance so would have had to wait a couple of months for his character to be written back in as Roach will no doubt return later in the year.

    Why shouldn't he celebrate? If I went through a year of court proceedings and having the world look at me as a pedophile or rapist and then was finally found not guilty and acquitted I'd be bloody celebrating too.

    How ridiculous that you suggest a jury is blinded by their celebrity status as though you yourself, who wasn't present to see all evidence, here all testimonies has an opinion more worthy? As you don't know him, your opinion is gathered entirely from what you see and read of him in the media, so how is that more valid than the juries decision?

    Just because guilty people can sometimes get away their crime because there wasn't sufficient evidence against them how do you know with any certainty it applies in this particular case?

    You're talking shit.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,324
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, I mean Michael Turner. That is, is it not, his REAL name?

    After his disgusting triumphalist display after being cleared last year, seen immediately swilling beer and laughing with his 'mates' in a bar just yards from the court steps, I refuse to refer to him with his 'stage' title.

    People earn respect...and stage titles come with respect...and ability.

    MT is a c**p actor, anyway, always has been. I don't know whether he did anything wrong with that young girl or not, the jury didn't have enough evidence to convict, but personally I remain open-minded.

    Please remember that, as Clive Coleman has just said on News at Ten, sometimes people escape prison because a jury could not prove to a sufficient degree to warrant a guilty verdict.

    So both of these Corrie cases are 'not proven', really, and it is perfectly reasonable to see them that way rather than simply 'not guilty'.

    There have been 3 Corrie court cases bungled by the prosecution since June last year all with sex charges.
  • Options
    rumpleteazerrumpleteazer Posts: 5,746
    Forum Member
    In answer to the op I think it should just be classed as a break. He didn't resign and he wasn't axed, tptb just decided to put him on hiatus until the court case was over. Now he's welcome back, had it gone the other way he obviously would have been axed
  • Options
    norbitonitenorbitonite Posts: 8,678
    Forum Member
    Joe_Zel wrote: »
    He only has the stage name for the purposes of equity, as most actors do if someone with the same name is already registered.

    It's not as simple as him walking back into the studios and starting back work on the show, it's written so far in a advance so would have had to wait a couple of months for his character to be written back in as Roach will no doubt return later in the year.

    Why shouldn't he celebrate? If I went through a year of court proceedings and having the world look at me as a pedophile or rapist and then was finally found not guilty and acquitted I'd be bloody celebrating too.

    How ridiculous that you suggest a jury is blinded by their celebrity status as though you yourself, who wasn't present to see all evidence, here all testimonies has an opinion more worthy? As you don't know him, your opinion is gathered entirely from what you see and read of him in the media, so how is that more valid than the juries decision?

    Just because guilty people can sometimes get away their crime because there wasn't sufficient evidence against them how do you know with any certainty it applies in this particular case?

    You're talking shit.

    This. And if I might add, they seem to be approaching this with anything but their professed 'open mind'.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 24
    Forum Member
    No, I mean Michael Turner. That is, is it not, his REAL name?

    After his disgusting triumphalist display after being cleared last year, seen immediately swilling beer and laughing with his 'mates' in a bar just yards from the court steps, I refuse to refer to him with his 'stage' title.

    People earn respect...and stage titles come with respect...and ability.

    MT is a c**p actor, anyway, always has been. I don't know whether he did anything wrong with that young girl or not, the jury didn't have enough evidence to convict, but personally I remain open-minded.

    Please remember that, as Clive Coleman has just said on News at Ten, sometimes people escape prison because a jury could not prove to a sufficient degree to warrant a guilty verdict.

    So both of these Corrie cases are 'not proven', really, and it is perfectly reasonable to see them that way rather than simply 'not guilty'.


    You really have a major chip on your shoulder don't you? Perhaps you need to get out more and concentrate on your own life instead of soap opera actors!!
Sign In or Register to comment.