Kevin Webster not a paedo

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
Craig1981 said:
Personally I think women who are found to be blatantly guilty of fabricating a crime for whatever reason, should face a severe fine or jail time.
Click to expand...

They already do. It's called perverting the course of justice and people are jailed for it all the time, but the bar for what evidence is required to prove they made it all up is pretty high.
 

nick.lidgett

nick.lidgett

nick.lidgett

Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Posts
2,545
Location
Leyland
Burnsy2023 said:
Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and if they're a minor s39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It's a level 5 fine on the standard scale IIRC.
Click to expand...

I will be keeping quiet then but if what i have been told is true, which coming from the person that told me it more than likely is, all i have to say is "wft omfg".
 

hurfdurf

hurfdurf

hurfdurf

Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,255
nick.lidgett said:
I will be keeping quiet then but if what i have been told is true, which coming from the person that told me it more than likely is, all i have to say is "wft omfg".
Click to expand...


Don%2527t%25201.%2520Talk%2520Loosely%2520to%2520Strangers%25202.%2520Spread%2520Rumors.jpg
 

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Richie said:
That's the issue I am trying to highlight though. Some people on here seem to equate "Not Guilty" with wouldn't be ssibility[/i] of guilt had the prosecution been better at proving the case i.e. the accused is not entirely innocent.

In the Rachel Manning, this is not the case i.e. Barri White IS innocent and not simply "Not Guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do it"
Click to expand...

There have also been a number of cases like this where the "victim" has eventually been sentenced for making up stories so it wouldnt be the first time an accused reversed the tables. However one word against another isn't going to cut it in that kind of case either.
 

BunnyKillBot

BunnyKillBot

BunnyKillBot

Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2010
Posts
3,251
Suarez7 said:
The problem with this is that some women who have genuinely been raped may be put off reporting it.
Click to expand...

I agree, however, there is a crucial difference between reporting and convicting. Convictions serve as a judicial revenge, reporting identifies risk. The message must be clear, report even if you won't secure a conviction, because that report may 'save' someone else down the line.
 

sven256

sven256

sven256

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,074
Location
manchester
K-2 said:
I find it difficult to understand why the girl in question would invent an allegation like this against a man such as La Vell.

If we are to assume that Le Vell is actually innocent as opposed to merely being found innocent by this jury, why did she lie? I can only assume she was after some sort of financial compensation and given the Jimmy Savile saga, the timing makes sense. However, you stick your neck on the line to go after a lowly TV character actor? Surely if you're going to take such a risk and lie to the police, courts etc, potentially have your name and reputation tarnished forever, you'd at least go for the big bucks and accuse someone with a few more quid in the bank? I won't mention any names as I wouldn't want to cast aspersions but I'm sure you can guess at the grade of celebrity to which I'm referring.

I'm not privy to ITVs salary scale, but I seriously doubt Le Vell is particularly wealthy in the grand scheme of things. Makes no sense to me...so yeah, unfortunately (assuming he IS truly innocent) his name will probably remain synonymous with paedophelia for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

Plausibility i would guess.

As you are hardly likely to see her accuse brad pitt are you, and claim he flew over every few weeks to abuse her. Le Vell was probably a local man to her, and well know around the area. So a easy target and believable at the same time.
 

estebanrey

estebanrey

estebanrey

Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
sven256 said:
Plausibility i would guess.

As you are hardly likely to see her accuse brad pitt are you, and claim he flew over every few weeks to abuse her. Le Vell was probably a local man to her, and well know around the area. So a easy target and believable at the same time.
Click to expand...

I would suggest the girl (and more crucially her mother) were known to Le Vell. If there wasn't a known relationship between him and the girl and her family it would never have got to court given he supposedly systematically abused her from the age of 9 to 16. I don't think just living in the same area as her would suffice.

So, if she was in Le Vell's circle of friends it is feasible that the mother saw the media scandals going on with other celebrities and saw an opportunity. Probably convinced her materialistic 17 year old daughter they could get a few quid by blackmailing him but he refused to bite. So to prove they were serious, they took it to the police claiming to Le Vell they'd drop the charges if he paid up, which he didn't and by then it was too late to pull out of the 'plan'.

Pure speculation granted, but I'm not saying what I think happened but rather offering a possible answer to the "why would she do it if he was innocent" question.
 

grimm

grimm

grimm

Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Posts
3,593
K-2 said:
I'm not privy to ITVs salary scale, but I seriously doubt Le Vell is particularly wealthy in the grand scheme of things. Makes no sense to me...so yeah, unfortunately (assuming he IS truly innocent) his name will probably remain synonymous with paedophelia for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

Actually he probably is quite wealthy. He has been in the show for 30 years and their typical earnings are in the six figure region, or very close to it.

I'm pretty sure that if he invested well over those 30 years, in property and such, that he's a multi millionnaire by now.
 

Sneaky Peaky

Sneaky Peaky

Sneaky Peaky

Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2003
Posts
2,499
Location
Farnborough, Hants
grimm said:
Actually he probably is quite wealthy. He has been in the show for 30 years and their typical earnings are in the six figure region, or very close to it.

I'm pretty sure that if he invested well over those 30 years, in property and such, that he's a multi millionnaire by now.
Click to expand...

£250k on his return according to the Mirror, make of that what you will.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-le-vell-new-250000-2090591

Although his recent divorce settlement no doubt has taken a toll and he reportedly sold the family home recently for around £750k

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-le-vell-corrie-kev-1926932
 

TwsT

TwsT

TwsT

Soldato
Joined
7 Feb 2011
Posts
7,693
Location
Stoke on Toast
estebanrey said:
Michael Le Vell Cleared of all charges....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24032449

So, do you reckon he'll be back on Corrie soon? Also, will the girl now face contempt of court charges given the not guilty verdict means by definition they thought she was making false claims against him?
Click to expand...

I think he's innocent 8 women and 4 men found him not guilty.

I find it unlikely that there was any concrete evidence. It's a grave loss for real rape/child assault claims and real victims if she is lying. But a conviction is hard to obtain with no tangible evidence. No hard proof of anything as the first time the girl talked about it was the day before she reported it to the police. She always supposedly lied about that so I don't know.

I haven't seen or heard the evidence but personally find it hard that 8 women didn't see enough evidence not even one of them. a fully unanimous decisions is pretty clear cut to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom