[stargazer61]

BBC news..Coronation Steet star Michael Le Vell arrested on child sex offences

edit..no link as yet

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by stargazer61

BBC news..Coronation Steet star Michael Le Vell arrested on child sex offences

edit..no link as yet

I just saw this. Wasn't he arrested years ago on suspicion of sexual offences and then released? Are these the same offences or new ones?

EDIT: Just seen the original charge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...e-dropped.html

So that case was dropped. Therefore, these must be new ones? I'm beginning to think this whole disgusting saga will never end. Every day it seems someone new is being arrested on suspicion of sexual offences against young children.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

I just saw this. Wasn't he arrested years ago on suspicion of sexual offences and then released? Are these the same offences or new ones?

That was quite recently wasn't it? I think it may even have happened in 2011 or 12.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by stargazer61

BBC news..Coronation Steet star Michael Le Vell arrested on child sex offences

edit..no link as yet

Charged by the way, not just arrested.

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

That was quite recently wasn't it? I think it may even have happened in 2011 or 12.

It was only last year (that the charges were dropped). It seemed like much longer ago that I read it.

[sozzled2day]

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been charged with a string of sex offences, including raping a child.

Greater Manchester Police said he is also accused of indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

The actor, who plays Kevin Webster in the ITV1 soap,
faces a total of 19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.

Mr Le Vell, 48, is due to appear before magistrates in Manchester on Wednesday 27 February.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21468687
------------------------------------------------------
He's been charged with raping a child? Is it the same child he was cleared of raping a year ago or another one?

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

It was only last year (that the charges were dropped). It seemed like much longer ago that I read it.

Arrested in September 2011 according to Wiki and charges dropped in January 2012 by the CPS owing to lack of evidence.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been charged with a string of sex offences, including raping a child.

Greater Manchester Police said he is also accused of indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

The actor, who plays Kevin Webster in the ITV1 soap,
faces a total of 19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.

Mr Le Vell, 48, is due to appear before magistrates in Manchester on Wednesday 27 February.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21468687
------------------------------------------------------
He's been charged with raping a child? Is it the same child he was cleared of raping a year ago or another one?

We simply don't know at the moment.

The time frame is certainly interesting : alleged offences against a young person spanning nine years.

[stargazer61]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been charged with a string of sex offences, including raping a child.

Greater Manchester Police said he is also accused of indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

The actor, who plays Kevin Webster in the ITV1 soap,
faces a total of 19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.

Mr Le Vell, 48, is due to appear before magistrates in Manchester on Wednesday 27 February.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21468687
------------------------------------------------------
He's been charged with raping a child? Is it the same child he was cleared of raping a year ago or another one?

Ye gods...Nineteen charges! This is appalling

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Arrested in September 2011 according to Wiki and charges dropped in January 2012 by the CPS owing to lack of evidence.

I'm assuming the child he's alleged to have raped is the same child where the CPS had originally said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges?

The charges, which were authorised by the CPS following a review of evidence,
relate to offences against a child between 2001 and 2010.

Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions said: "I have very carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Michael Robert Turner with a number of sexual offences.

“I have authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge Mr Turner with nineteen offences, including rape of a child.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-child-1711058

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

I'm assuming the child he's alleged to have raped is the same child where the CPS had originally said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges?


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-child-1711058

Yes, from that wording it seems they have the power to overturn their own decison and to press charges, even though they initially thought they hadn't enough evidence.

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by stargazer61

Ye gods...Nineteen charges! This is appalling

It's a bit strange that he was 'totally exonerated' of all charges relating to the rape of a 6-year-old child because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed further, and yet scarcely more than a year later, there are suddenly a whopping 19 charges against him - including one of the rape of a 6-year-old girl.

[stargazer61]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

It's a bit strange that he was 'totally exonerated' of all charges relating to the rape of a 6-year-old child because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed further, and yet scarcely more than a year later, there are suddenly a whopping 19 charges against him - including one of the rape of a 6-year-old girl.

It may well be that other victims have come forward leading the prosecutors to review or get additional evidence

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by stargazer61

It may well be that other victims have come forward leading the prosecutors to review or get additional evidence

Yes, that may well be the answer : further evidence may have emerged since January 2012 (perhaps even in light of the Savile revelations).

Having charges dropped owing to insufficient evidence doesn't mean you're off the hook. If new evidence emerges, the police can re-arrest you immediately and start questioning you all over again, and if necessary, charge you.

[gulliverfoyle]

as with all of these cases

it will be interesting to see the actual evidence in a real court of law not in the media kangaroo court

just hope they are not using others as a proxy for savile

[Silent No More]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

It's a bit strange that he was 'totally exonerated' of all charges relating to the rape of a 6-year-old child because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed further, and yet scarcely more than a year later, there are suddenly a whopping 19 charges against him - including one of the rape of a 6-year-old girl.

I may be wrong here, but weren't the charges dropped due to "insufficient evidence"?

If so, insufficient evidence may not have meant no evidence.

It would appear that the CPS were too hasty in charging him last time round, but have carried on in the background looking for sufficient evidence (which they clearly now believe they have).

[Keyser Soze]

I thought Le Vell had been cleared, too. Perhaps there's new evidence. The CPS don't do these things randomly, so they must have enough reason to justify these charges.

[InMyArms]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

It's a bit strange that he was 'totally exonerated' of all charges relating to the rape of a 6-year-old child because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed further, and yet scarcely more than a year later, there are suddenly a whopping 19 charges against him - including one of the rape of a 6-year-old girl.

A year is a long time period.. if he is guilty and if they've spent it finding new evidence then it's unsurprising that they've found something.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

It's a bit strange that he was 'totally exonerated' of all charges relating to the rape of a 6-year-old child because there wasn't enough evidence to proceed further, and yet scarcely more than a year later, there are suddenly a whopping 19 charges against him - including one of the rape of a 6-year-old girl.

Alison Levitt, QC, principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, had reviewed a file of evidence in relation to allegations of sexual offences and looked again at a decision previously made not to prosecute.

It was Alison who recently decided a former colleague was wrong not to bring charges against Jimmy Savile in 2009.

In light of the Savile case did she decide to review the previous decision announced by Nazir Aszal, Chief Prosecutor for the North West,* and came to a different conclusion following the publicity about Savile?

In a court course the lawyers may be more interested in winning their arguement rather than seeking the truth?

(Haven't provided a link for legal reasons & to protect the thread)

[dodrade]

It seems almost certain had it not been for Savile this case would never have been re-opened.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by dodrade

It seems almost certain had it not been for Savile this case would never have been re-opened.

It could be she sees enough to warrant a prosecution, or it could even be that the decsion to drop was compaliend about and i nthe current climate its ahs been said " sod it we will be accused of covering up or going lightly so lets charge him and ;let a jury decide" , you never know.

Something I would like to mention is something that happened last night and actually quite disturbed me as it is on the subject of accusations

I run a hotel company, last night one of the hotels was very busy and had a school group in from the Midlands area (probably aged between 13 and 15) , one of the receptionists was taken ill so I popped over to that one to be around to help if the other receptionist got too busy

The group checked in and were a bit noisy so we asked the teachers to have a word and make sure they didn’t disturb other guests.

All was well, the teachers took the kids out for the evening and they returned about 10pm. The teachers said to us that we should not let the kids leave the hotel as they all had to go to bed, we said we would do our best but in all honesty if its busy and someone sneaks past (it's a large busy reception) we cannot take complete responsibility for the group on that level we can only try our best . Anyway half an hour later we saw a few of the group hanging around and it was so obvious they were going to try and leave so I called one of the teachers , he came and spoke to them and then I was surprised as he left and left them in the lobby.

A few minutes later a few more of the group appeared and were standing near the door, I walked round a different way and was near to them but they didn’t actually see me, one of the group asked one of the lads "can we go" , the lad replied "course we can he won’t do anything", the one that asked said "what did you say to him" meaning the teacher and the lad replied " I told him if he tries to tell me what I can and can’t do I will report that he touched me up, who will they believe me or him and I told him they will all think he is a paedophile, he’s shi**ing himself"

Shortly after this lad did go outside despite us telling them they should not do so a couple of others did go with him but the rest went back to their rooms, we di call another teacher but no one came

I must say I was shocked, I was also shocked that teachers expected staff to monitor their group on that level whilst not doing so themselves and at the same time felt very sorry for the teacher who was on the receiving end of this and it made me think how vulnerable they actually are.

[chloeb]

Originally Posted by skp20040

It could be she sees enough to warrant a prosecution, or it could even be that the decsion to drop was compaliend about and i nthe current climate its ahs been said " sod it we will be accused of covering up or going lightly so lets charge him and ;let a jury decide" , you never know.

Something I would like to mention is something that happened last night and actually quite disturbed me as it is on the subject of accusations

I run a hotel company, last night one of the hotels was very busy and had a school group in from the Midlands area (probably aged between 13 and 15) , one of the receptionists was taken ill so I popped over to that one to be around to help if the other receptionist got too busy

The group checked in and were a bit noisy so we asked the teachers to have a word and make sure they didn’t disturb other guests.

All was well, the teachers took the kids out for the evening and they returned about 10pm. The teachers said to us that we should not let the kids leave the hotel as they all had to go to bed, we said we would do our best but in all honesty if its busy and someone sneaks past (it's a large busy reception) we cannot take complete responsibility for the group on that level we can only try our best . Anyway half an hour later we saw a few of the group hanging around and it was so obvious they were going to try and leave so I called one of the teachers , he came and spoke to them and then I was surprised as he left and left them in the lobby.

A few minutes later a few more of the group appeared and were standing near the door, I walked round a different way and was near to them but they didn’t actually see me, one of the group asked one of the lads "can we go" , the lad replied "course we can he won’t do anything", the one that asked said "what did you say to him" meaning the teacher and the lad replied " I told him if he tries to tell me what I can and can’t do I will report that he touched me up, who will they believe me or him and I told him they will all think he is a paedophile, he’s shi**ing himself"

Shortly after this lad did go outside despite us telling them they should not do so a couple of others did go with him but the rest went back to their rooms, we di call another teacher but no one came

I must say I was shocked, I was also shocked that teachers expected staff to monitor their group on that level whilst not doing so themselves and at the same time felt very sorry for the teacher who was on the receiving end of this and it made me think how vulnerable they actually are.

I'm glad u posted your observations

Some children are very 'wise' nowadays, sadly this doesnt help the genuine cases

[andyrich666]

If this guy was a not a celeb, trust me their would be a mob wanting to do him some harm.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by andyrich666

If this guy was a not a celeb, trust me their would be a mob wanting to do him some harm.

Which really worries me about people, firstly mobs who have nothing to do with a victim, would they really kill someone if they got their hands on them, and worse would they killsomeone who has not even stood trial yet ? And how do they think that would make them any better than the person they have in their legal living room decided is guilty and have attacked ?

Many things anger me , but I do get really pi**ed off with people with vigilante attitudes when they have no actual proof a person did something. I wish they could remember that as much as a complainant should be supported and belived that so should the accused , presumption of innocence just as they would want until such time as they are found guilty, and even then we have had our fair share of incorrect guilty verdicts in this country ( and probably many incorrect not guilty ones as well)

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by skp20040

Which really worries me about people, firstly mobs who have nothing to do with a victim, would they really kill someone if they got their hands on them, and worse would they killsomeone who has not even stood trial yet ? And how do they think that would make them any better than the person they have in their legal living room decided is guilty and have attacked ?

Many things anger me , but I do get really pi**ed off with people with vigilante attitudes when they have no actual proof a person did something. I wish they could remember that as much as a complainant should be supported and belived that so should the accused , presumption of innocence just as they would want until such time as they are found guilty, and even then we have had our fair share of incorrect guilty verdicts in this country ( and probably many incorrect not guilty ones as well)

Well said. I have such mixed feelings about this. I'd rather not even know about this case (or any of the others. come to that) until it's gone thought the courts and a verdict has been reached. I can't even begin to imagine what it must feel like to be accused of something like this and be innocent. Until and if he's found guilty, he's deserving, at the very least, in a civilised society, of the benefit of the doubt. The suggestion of mob justice is just abhorrent.