Oh No Here We Go Again.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421012/Two-Coronation-Street-stars-caught-bed-young-girls-hotel-room.html

I wonder how long it will be before Coronation Street is taken from our screens, due to the lack of actors?

[hc4361]

60% of all REPORTED crimes.

[DJHawkes]

i'd be mighty surprised if there was any cctv footage kept going back 5 years either. But it's the most bizarre accounts. If these girls were indeed 10 or 12 years old and were in bed with 2 corrie stars, how could they still be there at 7.30 in the morning? it's not exactly how paedophiles operate surely? working in pairs? keeping their 'victims' with them overnight? Allowing their victims to just walk away, as surely if there were 2 young girls together in such a scenario someone somewhere would have missed them. this whole story does not hold water and this witness sounds a right numpty.

[sir.prize]

Good afternoon ummmm.

My Dick, Tom and Harry says:
in·no·cent - Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offence.
in-no-cent - Noun: An innocent person, in particular.

Not convinced? OK, give a one-word answer to the opposite of guilty.

[hc4361]

The love of money is the root of all evil. I wonder how much the paper paid him?

[ummmm]

You know the difference, sirp.

[anotheoldgit]

DJHawkes

/// I thought michael la vell was cleared of all charges.
but this is what newspapers and especially the mail do, there is no suggestion michael le vell is one of the corrie actors named by this person yet the paper includes all his recent case details in with the article, which is going to give people the impression there is a link. it's just not right, but then it's a newspaper with a so far none story. ///

obviously only persons such as you, no way does this convey that Michael Le Vell is connected to this alleged incident, but seeing that two Coronation actors are again accused, any reporter worth their salt would fail to mention another Coronation Street actor who was cleared of such allegations only a few days before.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// You know the difference, sirp. ///

Yes, but do you?

[Sqad]

AOG...LOL

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the point made by ummmm, as she is suggesting that there should be in law, 3 verdicts.

1) guilty
2) not guilty
3) not guilty..but got away with it.

[pixie373]

Ummmm is right in her definition. Nobody has proven he didn't do it. We just don't have enough evidence to prove he did.

[Sqad]

Ignore my post 13.15 ..it was silly.

[rockyracoon]

If everybody who left court with a not guilty verdict was innocent, we wouldn't have had a need to overturn the double jeopardy law.

[hc4361]

Yes, Pixie, but in English law we are innocent until proven guilty - by that definition he is innocent.

[naomi24]

The sad thing is perhaps he didn't do it, but nevertheless the mud has been thrown and therefore some will always think he did. That's what happens when the accused is named before the trial. His accuser on the other hand, upon whose honesty doubt has been cast, remains with her reputation intact.

[DJHawkes]

what do you mean 'obviously only persons such as you' what does that mean? I've studied newspaper journalism at UNI i know how it works, but this article puts more detail of the le vell than anything

[pixie373]

He has been tried by a court though and although they have found him"not guilty" they have not declared him "innocent" either. So the doubt will remain.

[naomi24]

Whatever word the court used some people wouldn't accept it.

[sir.prize]

Pixie - you just don't get it. The guy has been told he is not guilty, therefore accordingly proven by law he did not do anything wrong. i.e. he is innocent of any crime.

However, the same cannot be said of his accuser. She is not innocent of telling untruths - that was proven by the court.

[DJHawkes]

'cleared of all charges' id how i read it, all charges, and there were a fair few. Not one could be proved and had any one of them been justified at least one iota of evidence would have surfaced considering how thorough the CPS and the investigators professed to be.

[pixie373]

They have not proved she lied at all. They have only proven there is not enough evidence to convict him. That may be because he is innocent. It may be because there is not enough evidence- not necessarily the same thing.

[anotheoldgit]

DJHawkes

/// what do you mean 'obviously only persons such as you' what does that mean? ///

Nothing rude just the fact that you made a statement giving a certain viewpoint, and I was simply saying that only person with a similar view point (such as you) would come to the same conclusions.

/// I've studied newspaper journalism at UNI i know how it works, ///

Ah that is interesting would you care to tell me what Uni you attended and what degree were you studying for?