Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Dimwit Flanagan strikes again


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-03-2013, 17:12
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
She's hardly likely to say "Ewwww, yeah he's a dirty paedo, I hate him. Never liked him"
Of course she doesn't, but on the other hand she shouldn't be making insinuations that the accuser isn't telling the truth as it could prejudice the trial.

As *Cadhla* said ^ if she wants to support him, she should do it in private.
Saltydog1955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-03-2013, 21:54
Tweacle Tart II
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,292
I doubt that, and it really doesn't sound like it if you read the article. I think Helen was just speaking from the heart and said a little more than is wise under the circumstances since she's more or less said she believes the charges are bogus.

No probs whatsoever with her supporting him, she's known him forever, is obviously very upset over it and has every right to express that.

(I really hope these charges turn out to be false. I'm honestly more shocked at this than anything on the JS thread.)
She's going to look an even bigger dick than usual though if he's found guilty and she's effectively been supporting a paedophile.

She needs to keep her stupid mouth shut for a good few months. I mean Christ, she's more irritating than thrush.
Tweacle Tart II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:05
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 34,847
Of course she doesn't, but on the other hand she shouldn't be making insinuations that the accuser isn't telling the truth as it could prejudice the trial.

As *Cadhla* said ^ if she wants to support him, she should do it in private.
As I have said before and some may disagree , she didnt just go to The People and make that statement , she was asked a question, now its debatable what she should have replied, if it were a friend of yours would you say "sorry I cannot comment" or " I dont believe it for a minute" ?

And as much as some may also disagree I can just see certain tabloids, if when asked the question she had said "no comment" the next days headline would have been "Corrie Star refuses to back LeVell" now a no comment does not mean that as we all know but tabloids dont care.

Sally Dynevor originally spoke out for him when interviewed on Loose Women.

if someone is to have such information bandied about in the press before a trial then to my mind they also have the right to the public support of their friends. Personally I dont think names should be made public until either a trial is underway or a guilty verdict unless a Judge feels it is in the public interest to make the name public.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:10
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
As I have said before and some may disagree , she didnt just go to The People and make that statement , she was asked a question, now its debatable what she should have replied, if it were a friend of yours would you say "sorry I cannot comment" or " I dont believe it for a minute" ?

And as much as some may also disagree I can just see certain tabloids, if when asked the question she had said "no comment" the next days headline would have been "Corrie Star refuses to back LeVell" now a no comment does not mean that as we all know but tabloids dont care.

Sally Dynevor originally spoke out for him when interviewed on Loose Women.

if someone is to have such information bandied about in the press before a trial then to my mind they also have the right to the public support of their friends. Personally I dont think names should be made public until either a trial is underway or a guilty verdict unless a Judge feels it is in the public interest to make the name public.
Totally, all your last paragraph.

PS. I wasn't disputing earlier that tabloids aren't perfectly capable of what you're describing (we know they are), I just didn't think, from the 'evidence', it applied to HF in this case.
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:11
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
As I have said before and some may disagree , she didnt just go to The People and make that statement , she was asked a question, now its debatable what she should have replied, if it were a friend of yours would you say "sorry I cannot comment" or " I dont believe it for a minute" ?

And as much as some may also disagree I can just see certain tabloids, if when asked the question she had said "no comment" the next days headline would have been "Corrie Star refuses to back LeVell" now a no comment does not mean that as we all know but tabloids dont care.

Sally Dynevor originally spoke out for him when interviewed on Loose Women.

if someone is to have such information bandied about in the press before a trial then to my mind they also have the right to the public support of their friends. Personally I dont think names should be made public until either a trial is underway or a guilty verdict unless a Judge feels it is in the public interest to make the name public.
If it had been a friend of mine I would have said that as there was a court case in the offing, I couldn't comment. This is the point - there's a court case looming. If someone started a thread on here debating the innocence or guilt of LeVell, it'd be closed PDQ.
Saltydog1955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:19
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 34,847
If it had been a friend of mine I would have said that as there was a court case in the offing, I couldn't comment. This is the point - there's a court case looming. If someone started a thread on here debating the innocence or guilt of LeVell, it'd be closed PDQ.
Then the tabloid should be the one being kicked in to touch for asking the question and printing the answer , which goes back to my point of tabloid behaviour.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2013, 23:36
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
Then the tabloid should be the one being kicked in to touch for asking the question and printing the answer , which goes back to my point of tabloid behaviour.
I'm not talking about tabloids, so where you got that from I've no idea.....
Saltydog1955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 00:27
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
You've got to admit Helen isn't looking so bad when we see what Bill Roache is coming out with.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 00:48
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 34,847
I'm not talking about tabloids, so where you got that from I've no idea.....
Yes but I was in my post.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 08:28
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
Yes but I was in my post.
In that case, what I was talking about has gone over your head. .
Saltydog1955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2013, 16:43
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 34,847
In that case, what I was talking about has gone over your head. .
It hasn't gone over my head at all, I was talking about a tabloiid and asked you a hypothetical question about a friend, you said you wouldn't comment , each person may react differently , you rightly said a thread discussing it would be pulled.

Therefore my point was a tabloid asked her a question, a question they more than anyone should have known not to really , they then having asked the question printed her reply which they shouldn't have done. She merely said what she thought, the tabloid asked the question and even if they asked they should not have printed , its their responsibility to know the law not for her to say "no comment"
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08.