Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Michael Le Vell charged with 19 child sex offences

66 replies

EmmaDale · 15/02/2013 00:11

If I remember correctly, he was questioned last year but I thought he wasn't going to be charged with any offences at all - clearly not.

OP posts:
thunksheadontable · 15/02/2013 21:31

Tepid, people have televisions, not just men!

I am pretty shocked too, even though I haven't watched Corrie regularly in years.

TepidCoffee · 15/02/2013 21:34

I wasn't referring to telly owners, I was referring to pumpkinsweetie's comment about being surprised about what people we least expect being capable of. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. I take wewherehere's point, but still - overwhelmingly male.

NotADragonOfSoup · 16/02/2013 08:32

You're wrong. "People" is correct. "overwhelmingly" is not the same as "all".

It's your kind of comment that makes people think MN hate men.

jesiii · 16/02/2013 14:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dotnet · 17/02/2013 18:01

Every person convicted of interfering with children sexually, needs in depth psychiatric treatment, as well as punishment. It's an odd, odd and frightening compulsion - VERY frightening for parents to know that kiddy fiddlers are out there, but it's probably frightening for a lot of the offenders themselves to know that they are so deviant.

I think a lot of sex offenders just go to prison and don't get any treatment at all - do any MNers know if this is the case?

LadyDamerel · 17/02/2013 19:12

Dotnet, I have a friend who is a criminal psychologist and she works with sex offenders who are in prison. Some of them are rapists, some are paedophiles but yes, they do get help in prison.

Animation · 17/02/2013 19:40

'I mean that some make no comment at all, or make a denial in straightforward language, rather than vigorously.'

Yes I thought the same. Why the 'vigorously' word??

ClareisMee · 18/02/2013 01:02

The thought of such a familiar character, indeed one who our DC recognise and would certanly choose to be with is very unsettling.

ComposHat · 18/02/2013 01:13

The perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. I take wewherehere's point, but still - overwhelmingly male

From my time working for social services I can give you examples of children sexually abused by their own mothers, children involved in voodoo rituals by their mothers, children used to courier knives and drugs by their mothers, children pimped out by their mothers in exchange for booze.

So please put your soapbox away and stick to the matter in hand.

PootlePosyPerkin · 18/02/2013 01:15

It is 19 charges relating to 1 potential victim is it not? I may be entirely naive but I am still hoping beyond hope that this is a case of false accusation.

If not, I will be the first to apologise to the lady & throw stones at the evil bastard. Still hope it's not true though :-(

ComposHat · 18/02/2013 01:35

Just goes to show, the people we would least expect are capable of such horrid things

The world seems awash with sociopaths and child abusers, don't know which one has shocked me more, this one or the guy from lost prophets

No one has been convicted of anything.

We haven't heard one piece of evidence.

It is in extremely poor taste to assume they are guilty or to speculate about what they did or didn't do based on NO information. It is the same 'no smoke without fire mentality' and lack of critical thought - oh it is in the papers it must be true - that leads to vigilante mobs.

I hope in the interests of justice, that neither of you are ever called up for jury service.

BelindaCarlisle · 18/02/2013 02:25

Sex offenders on short sentences get nothing

EldritchCleavage · 18/02/2013 10:29

I agree, ComposHat.

These charges relate to the same allegations that came up against this actor before. The CPS decided then not to prosecute, that decision was reviewed and has now been reversed.

Why not reserve judgment until there has been a trial?

thezebrawearspurple · 18/02/2013 20:21

No judgement should be made until the trial. It will be awful if it turns out that this man is innocent, there are few worse allegations to suffer. Even if he is innocent there will always people who believe that 'he got away with it', it's so wrong that a reputation can be forever publicly destroyed on the basis of yet unproven allegations. There should be anonymity for the accused as there is for the accuser.

ImperialBlether · 20/02/2013 12:42

Oh god, who said "kiddy fiddlers"?

That is the most awful term.

I agree that no judgement should be made until the trial. A false accusation is dreadful. If he's guilty, it will come out.

howardhughes1972 · 09/03/2013 15:48

"No one has been convicted of anything.

We haven't heard one piece of evidence.

It is in extremely poor taste to assume they are guilty or to speculate about what they did or didn't do based on NO information."

Not only poor taste, it's actually illegal to speculate on a sub judice matter.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page