I'm finding the coverage of the Michael Le Vell case really biased against the alleged victim

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

I'm really shocked. This poor girl, who can't currently be more than 13, is not only having her case all over the media, but the headlines seem terribly pro LeVell before the verdict is even being considered.

Despite the paediatric expert saying that there was no evidence EITHER WAY two years after the last alleged attack ( i.e it neither confirmed NOR negated abuse), the Sun and other gutter press are headlining that she never had sex at all.

Sexual abuse cases are notoriously hard to prove due to the quintessentially secretive nature of the act. This coverage will surely discourage victims to come forward?

IMO, people are mistaking LeVell for the affable character he plays and demonising the victim, who is still only a 13 year old girl.

[Lazyjaney]

If one countersues for perjury, does anonymity go away?

[EldritchCleavage]

You can't usually 'counter sue' for perjury. You can try and bring a private prosecution but the Attorney-General can stop it if it is thought not to be in the public interest.

I don't know how people think criminal trials are going to work if the minute you are acquitted you try and prosecute or sue all the witnesses for perjury. Who on earth would ever give evidence (truthfully or not) in those circumstances?

But if there were a perjury trial the court would impose reporting restrictions to maintain victim anonymity., Ditto a civil case.

[Havea0]

Counter suing may be a good idea in this case.

That would be ironic wouldnt it.
Presumably then, he becomes automatically innocent, and the girl becomes automatically guilty in some peoples' eyes

[EldritchCleavage]

I think I know, Enjoy-pm me?

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

I don't know anything, but have gleaned enough from various sources to be pretty sure what's gone on here. I don't want to say any more publicly or privately, but I feel desperately sorry for them.

[Lazyjaney]

I don't know who was involved in this case, but it does seem to me in general that one should be able to sue for damages in some way or other if your name is wrongly dragged through the mud.

I read today about 9 other people now freed, but who were imprisoned on obviously false testimony.

[EldritchCleavage]

I understand, that's fine.

[confuddledDOTcom]

Because of this thread I put ages and dates together, I hope I got it wrong because that's really sad (either way around) if I'm right, not that it isn't enough.

[Ponders]

yes, that's what I did, confuddled

I don't think we're wrong, I'm afraid

it does explain a lot, & I hope to god they can all get back to some kind of normality after the dust has settled

[Clawdy]

I am sure you're not wrong,which is why I found the celebrating and drinking outside the courtroom so sickening.

[Ponders]

I suspect that left to his own devices he would just have quietly gone home, Clawdy

the celebrations were mostly from his siblings, & you can understand why they felt like that...

[UseHerName]

oh my god Enjoy who else is involved?!? i'm agog!

[Skybore]

Those uncertain of whether the accused should be named or not in these situations really just need to visit Mumsnet Talk for help in making their mind up! And those campaigning for not naming should just print off this thread, and a similar one in AIBU, as they really do make compelling evidence of the need for anonymity for the accused as well as the alleged victim IMO.

So many posts of "he was found Not Guilty that doesn't mean he is innocent" and "she might have been telling the truth but the jury just couldn't be sure beyond all reasonable doubt" have changed my mind on this issue. There's something sad and revealing about seeing hundreds of posts more or less confirming that Mud Sticks. I think I knew that some people might think this way, but in my personal life and work life I don't know anyone who would say so. Seeing so many on here doing just that has made it more real for me.

And as if this wasn't enough, the fact that the alleged victim has been identified by many on here as a result of knowing his identity, has done it for me.

[Animation]

Not sure what to think - truth be known.

I don't know how you can prove historical rape.

[MikeLitoris]

Why on earth did they delete your post and not the one quoting it?

I actually can't see why it was deleted at all tbh.

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

Me neither. If the quoted bit is the entire post, there's nothing explicit in it.

[Havea0]

Havent a clue what people are talking about in the last few posts.

Seems like he is going to now counter sue. Good [though as I said, I dont know exactly what has gone on.]

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

"Counter sue"? That's not what it says here:

"Michael Le Vell has told how he forgives the teenage girl who falsely accused him of rape.

The cleared Corrie star revealed: “I was angry in the beginning. But I am not a vindictive person and don’t hold grudges.”

In emotional talks with his ­family, Michael, 48, said: “I think I am strong enough to forgive.”

The actor spelt out his amazing message of compassion after a jury found him not guilty last week of rape and indecent assault.

He has revealed how he believes the mother of the teenage girl who falsely accused him of rape was “hell-bent on destroying me”.

The star told his family he fell victim to a vindictive campaign that only ended when a jury dramatically cleared him five days ago.

But amazingly, despite his hellish two-year ordeal facing terrible accusations, Michael says he is determined to forgive."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-le-vell-forgive-girl-2275400

[Havea0]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420841/Michael-Le-Vell-sue-CPS-years-hell-legal-battle-cost-200-000.html

Having had a reread of this article, he is looking to sue the CPS