| x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| Michael Le Vell NOT guilty http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20116 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | oceanicitl [ Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
I didn't believe it for a minute and I bet half the accusations flying around at the moment are simply not true. Lots of comments about it on Twitter at the moment: @Lord_Sugar: Michael Le Vell has been cleared. Compliments to the Jury who must have ignored the media coverage and concentrated on the evidence in court @SteveHuison: Mike Le Vell cleared of all charges. I hope the hang 'em and shoot 'em brigade are thoroughly ashamed. @IceIce_Maybe: I do think men accused of rape should be given anonymity until proven guilty! Michael le vell has been through mud and is not guilty! @tom_naulty: "Girl abused by Michael Le Vell has no reason to lie." None at all, other than a massive pay out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-24032449 |
|
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
Thank fully I do not read twitter. Rape is a very serious crime and it should be prosecuted if possible. Though I do suspect that some of these cases are overblown after Saville. The police and prosecutors are trying to make up for past mistakes. |
|
| Author: | Spreadie [ Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
Sadly, more people will remember the accusation and the coverage than the verdict, and He will ever be tarnished my a collective memory that he was involved in something dirty/distasteful. |
|
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:48 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty | |||||||||
There is something to be said about anonymous trials for these offences. The problem is that the police love naming people to "encourage" more "victims" to appear. |
||||||||||
| Author: | Zippy [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
Sometimes, rape victims are afraid to come forward if they think they are the only one and won't be believed. In 'non-celebrity' rape cases, the fact that someone has accused, means it's more likely that other victims are going to stand up as well. |
|
| Author: | Spreadie [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:22 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty | |||||||||
I would have thought that someone actually being convicted would carry more weight with other victims. |
||||||||||
| Author: | jonbwfc [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
I'm conflicted about this. The point about the damage to a person's reputation caused by a charge alone, even if they are later found innocent or the charge is dropped, is inarguable. It is simply true. However (as I do say quite often) I believe on principle that justice must be seen to be done. That means the court process must be open to public examination. If we have cases where neither the defendant or accuser can be named unless the defendant is found guilty, how is this possible? How do you keep a person's identity out of the press once the trial has started and it still be a trial worthy of the name in a civilised society? |
|
| Author: | l3v1ck [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty |
How about they're given anonimity until charged? There are plenty of people who are arrested but never charged? Often becuase there is no case to answer, but they're still named publically, hurting their reputations. Being charged means there is a case to answer and that should be done out in the open. On a related issue, I'm against anonimity to people released from prison. Why should they be given new names etc so they can hide from their shame? |
|
| Author: | jonbwfc [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:23 am ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty | ||||||||||||||||||
I was considering this, the best option I could come up with is they have a right to anonymity until the moment they actually appear in the dock in court. However even then, this case proves that that isn't a guarantee someone won't suffer reputational damage even if found innocent. The standard legal methodology would be to give the accused some sort of redress in the event of false accusation but I find that logic applying to rape or sexual abuse as unacceptable to be honest with you. I find the idea of someone who actually did commit abuse but wasn't convicted then being able to sue the victim for damages to be pretty abhorrent.
Yeah, it's another interesting one. The 'letter of the law' is someone who has been released from prison has served their sentence and should be considered to be as good a member of society as anyone else but the bare fact is in the cases of things like child abuse, a lot of people simply aren't going to go for that and feel they have a right to exact further/the correct form of punishment. You're right, someone shouldn't be able to hide from the record of their crimes, but equally they do have a right not to be beaten up in the street after they've 'served their time'. Unless we're going to go down the road of life sentences for a lot more crimes or people get much less prone to vigilantism, you simply can't square that circle. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:40 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: Michael Le Vell NOT guilty | |||||||||
I think that they are given anonymity until charged but that seems to be at the discretion of the police or CPS. Some have been named at arrest. |
||||||||||
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
