Advanced search

Michael Le Vell

(6 Posts)
QOD Sun 09-Oct-11 08:54:31

SOrry, can't find any other threads.

Regardless of his eventual trial/guilt/innocence - seems very wrong yet again that the accusations are made public.

What's the reasoning behind this? Is it so others would come forward if he had done anything to them?
Just seems to make a mockery of innocent til proven guilty

I always feel this regardless of the accused's fame, but it seems worse when they are in the public eye.

I just wondered if I am alone in feeling initial sympathy for people when this happens

scaevola Sun 09-Oct-11 08:59:44

There is no earlier thread, because it was deleted.

It stuck to the terms of the BBC report (so cannot have been either libellous or using material in the public domain), and asked if the actor would have to be suspended (and the official Granada press release about that added).

A poster noted that, precisely because premature comment was unwise (thrust of OP here) the thread should be deleted, and it was.

It'll be interesting to see if MNHQ take a consistent view and delete this one too.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 09-Oct-11 09:06:38

The reasoning is the same as why we know that Rooney's father is in trouble. It's totally legal & normal to print the name of someone that is being questioned or arrested for a crime. Names are printed all the time but, because we usually don't know the people concerned, they don't register on our consciousness unless it's something very dramatic like the nurse accused of poisoning patients. Once the suspect has been charged, reporting has to stop until it comes to trial.

AyeBelieveInTheHumanityOfMen Sun 09-Oct-11 09:17:21

It doesn't make a mockery of innocent until proven guilty. That is a legal term which means that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused and the accused is innocent until the prosecution has done that beyond reasonable doubt.

If I think someone is guilty of something before their trial it doesn't change their legal status of innocence.

QOD Sun 09-Oct-11 09:18:07

Oh hadn't thought of it that way COgito. You're right, anyone would be reported, I just noticed HIM due to his fame.
Hmmmm, just seems unfair across the board really.

Mind you, I feel the same about a lot of things in the papers - and on the news, I swear if they hadn't gone on and on about the recession and people not shopping like they used to that people WOULD have carried on shopping etc...
My inlaws react to the news, they weren't hit by the recession at ALL and yet curtailed their spending, thus affecting those that were .....

MN feel free to delete, I had missed the original thread then. I guess my post should have said "why is insert Joe Public's name accused publicly when he/she could be innocent.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 09-Oct-11 10:08:05

You can't shoot the messenger. Newspapers and other media report what's going on and how we react is entirely up to us. They tried to blame Robert Peston for the run on Northern Rock, I seem to remember. Daft. in the last 30-40 years we've swung from a culture of thrift to a culture of excess and back to a culture of thrift. Your in-laws are behaving entirely responsibly and rationally.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: