This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[rednoise2001]

My slight concern is that this shows the scumbags out there just how easy it is to take off with some poor kid.

[rose2008-2008]

All of these things lately about children coming to harm or being groomed or abused by people is TERRIBLE. I just cannot get over all these showbiz people coming out of the woodwork and their histories of abusing these kids. WHAT IS THE HUMAN MIND AND THE WORLD COMING TOO?.

[elliottsofyorkshire]

Cases involving show biz personalities will always make the headlines.  Sadly the "nice,  helpful person" living down your street could also be a threat to our kids and if detected isn't as newsworthy as a TV personality. So a balance must be put into the subject. If in any doubt then contact the appropriate department.

[blackburn_stevie]

The problem with all of this is "perception".

Imagine for a moment these two separate cases. I ain't suggesting that they have ever happened but you'll see what I mean as you read on. In the first case, a local chap, in his 60's, with an absolutely spotless police record is approached on the street by a 6 year old kid of either sex who is crying. The old guy, in an attempt to comfort the child, puts his hand on the kid's shoulder and asks what the problem is. The kid says that he/she is lost and can't find his way home. The guy takes the kid to a local shop and asks the shop staff if they have seen the kid before. They recognise him/her and tell the guy where the kid lives and the guy takes him/her home and explains what has happened to the parents.

Everybody is happy at the outcome.

In the second case, it's more or less the same except that the "old guy" is a famous bloke off the telly and when the kid finally gets home, using the same method as in case #1, the press get to hear about who brought the kid home. Then a lawyer smells a penny and asks the kid, "Did he ever touch you? to which the kid replies, "Yes, he put his hand on my shoulder." This is when the lawyer says to the parents, "We can sue him for assault at least and who knows what else will come out in the wash once we start digging. What's more, he may offer a lump of cash to settle out of court so you could make a load of cash."

Same scenario but with totally different outcomes for two totally innocent old blokes just trying to help.

[ronnybabes]

Celebrities are most certainly vulnerable with Rolf Harris being the latest to be publicly pilloried, before his guilt, or innocence is decided.

I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)

Michael Turner is innocent of all charges.

What now?

His name is tarnished. Many will say "There's no smoke without fire. Some will doubt his innocence.

In previous discussions on this site I have seen pre-judgements where people have said things like "they've never liked him, he always seemed creepy", or "they had met him, and thought there was something creepy about him".

Now he is vindicated, do we think public perception from these same people will change?

And what of the anonymous "Person" who brought about these maliciously false allegations surely she at least deserves to be named and shamed, just as Michael Turner was. Surely she should be appropriately punished?

I'm not a fan of Freddie Starr, but,   "Good for him"  for suing the Person who made false allegations.

Maybe Michael Turner should take that very brave step.

I hope Michael Turner can salvage some of his career.

[tommy.irene]

When i worked for the  Council in their Caravan park i wasnt allowed to put a plaster on anyone who was bleeding.. they done away with the first aid box..

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

Celebrities are most certainly vulnerable with Rolf Harris being the latest to be publicly pilloried, before his guilt, or innocence is decided.

I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)

Michael Turner is innocent of all charges.

What now?

His name is tarnished. Many will say "There's no smoke without fire. Some will doubt his innocence.

In previous discussions on this site I have seen pre-judgements where people have said things like "they've never liked him, he always seemed creepy", or "they had met him, and thought there was something creepy about him".

Now he is vindicated, do we think public perception from these same people will change?

And what of the anonymous "Person" who brought about these maliciously false allegations surely she at least deserves to be named and shamed, just as Michael Turner was. Surely she should be appropriately punished?

I'm not a fan of Freddie Starr, but,   "Good for him"  for suing the Person who made false allegations.

Maybe Michael Turner should take that very brave step.

I hope Michael Turner can salvage some of his career.

---

What an awful post!

How can you possibly say that the 'victim' in this case was lying or not.  She wasn't on trial.

The jury decided on the evidence they heard that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the offences he was charged with - so he is innocent and we should all treat him as such.

What the jury didn't decide was that the girl was lying - unless and until either the CPS brings a charge of perjury or perververting the course of justice AND she is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then she equally is innocent of any wrong doing.

No wonder so many are reluctant to report cases of sexual assault and to appear in court when such neolithic attitudes still exist

[blackburn_stevie]

So what is the alternative, creeky?

The girl said, "He raped me". The court decided, "Oh, no he didn't." 

What other option is there but to think the girl is telling porkies?

[cee-dee]

Good to see you creeky.

Now, hypothetically speaking, if you, as a totally innocent person were accused by a young lady you know well, backed up by an older lady you also know well who claimed the accuser confided in her, how would you go about proving your innocence?

The accusers will say you had the opportunity and being the honest person you are, you'd have to agree that you were alone with your accuser at the times and places stated.

Now, again hypothetically speaking, how would you go about proving you didn't do anything that was in any way unlawful?

In our hypothetical scenario, you'd had an acrimonious "falling out" with the older lady and your claims that she'd "put the younger one up to it" just to be vindictive and as a lever to claim "damages" from you would be dismissed and ignored as they were "not relevant", "not evidence", were just "a matter of your opinion" and "you would say that wouldn't you?"

In the light of the above, the only way you could defend yourself would be to calmly and vigorously deny it but you'd face "It's your word against hers", "there's no smoke without fire" and/or "methinks he doth protest too much".

At trial, you had an excellent defence facing an equally excellent prosecution case ending in you being found GUILTY.

Where would you go from there (apart from jail of course)?

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

Celebrities are most certainly vulnerable with Rolf Harris being the latest to be publicly pilloried, before his guilt, or innocence is decided.

I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)

Michael Turner is innocent of all charges.

What now?

His name is tarnished. Many will say "There's no smoke without fire. Some will doubt his innocence.

In previous discussions on this site I have seen pre-judgements where people have said things like "they've never liked him, he always seemed creepy", or "they had met him, and thought there was something creepy about him".

Now he is vindicated, do we think public perception from these same people will change?

And what of the anonymous "Person" who brought about these maliciously false allegations surely she at least deserves to be named and shamed, just as Michael Turner was. Surely she should be appropriately punished?

I'm not a fan of Freddie Starr, but,   "Good for him"  for suing the Person who made false allegations.

Maybe Michael Turner should take that very brave step.

I hope Michael Turner can salvage some of his career.

---

What an awful post!

How can you possibly say that the 'victim' in this case was lying or not.  She wasn't on trial.

The jury decided on the evidence they heard that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the offences he was charged with - so he is innocent and we should all treat him as such.

What the jury didn't decide was that the girl was lying - unless and until either the CPS brings a charge of perjury or perververting the course of justice AND she is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then she equally is innocent of any wrong doing.

No wonder so many are reluctant to report cases of sexual assault and to appear in court when such neolithic attitudes still exist

---

But ... they are not reluctant.

It was not an awful Post.

And my attitude is by no means neolithic.

Anyone accused of a crime of this nature, has to fight to prove their innocence, (Innocent until guilty does not apply in cases of a sexual nature) and once the Police start to investigate, they are out to prove guilt, rather then innocence,

They contact all, and sundry, and the Compensation word is used by them far to freely so it almost constitutes a bribe.

In Germany where Compensation has been abolished for sexual crimes over 15 years old, allegations of that ilk fell by an astounding 95% 

Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, but even now, by not recognising this fact, you are doing him an injustice.

The Accuser  lied, and protected by the cloak of anonymity can live her life with very little stigma.

Not so, for Michael Turner -  people will never treat him the same again.

The accuser gambled with Michael Turner's life, for a high pay day, and lost, but,  with no repercussions whatsoever.

This is not right. This is not justice. This stinks. -  ask Michael Turner

[blackburn_stevie]

If I remember correctly, when this case first came to the public eye, the TV company bosses that run Coronation Street said something along the lines of ..... " Michael Turner has been written out of current story lines until the case is over."

Let's see what happens now.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@blackburn_stevie wrote:

So what is the alternative, creeky?

The girl said, "He raped me". The court decided, "Oh, no he didn't." 

What other option is there but to think the girl is telling porkies?

---

What the jurors decided was that the prosecution hadn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Levell had committed the offences he was charged with - therefore he is not guilty and innocent of the charges.

They did NOT say that the defence had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that te girl had lied.

The girl was NOT on trial

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Good to see you creeky.

Now, hypothetically speaking, if you, as a totally innocent person were accused by a young lady you know well, backed up by an older lady you also know well who claimed the accuser confided in her, how would you go about proving your innocence?

You don't have to - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt

The accusers will say you had the opportunity and being the honest person you are, you'd have to agree that you were alone with your accuser at the times and places stated.

Now, again hypothetically speaking, how would you go about proving you didn't do anything that was in any way unlawful?

You don't have to - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt

In our hypothetical scenario, you'd had an acrimonious "falling out" with the older lady and your claims that she'd "put the younger one up to it" just to be vindictive and as a lever to claim "damages" from you would be dismissed and ignored as they were "not relevant", "not evidence", were just "a matter of your opinion" and "you would say that wouldn't you?"

Such claims will place a 'doubt' in the minds of the jury

In the light of the above, the only way you could defend yourself would be to calmly and vigorously deny it but you'd face "It's your word against hers", "there's no smoke without fire" and/or "methinks he doth protest too much".

The prosecution have the same problem and in this case could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

At trial, you had an excellent defence facing an equally excellent prosecution case ending in you being found GUILTY.

He wasn't found guilty - in the case you outline the lack of corroborative evidence and the defence put forward would end likewise with a not guilty verdict

Where would you go from there (apart from jail of course)?

NA

---

[upthecreekyetagain]

Ronny - it was an awful post - compounded by your reply that doesn't address the assertion you made in your earlier post and the reason why I said it was anawful post.

You posted, and I quote - "I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)"

You have not one iota of evidence to backup either the statement that her allegations were false nor if they were what her motives were.

Further you now claim, "Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, but even now, by not recognising this fact, you are doing him an injustice" - again without any justification!

I have never said nor implied that I believe him to be guilty - in fact the reverse - he has been found not guilty of all the charges and is therefore innocent - in exactly the same way that the girl has not been found guilty of lying and is therefore also innocent until proven guilty - something you seem unable to accept.

As hypotheticals seem to be the order of the day let me put one forward - the girl made the same complaints but the police decided she was lying and charged her with attempting to pervert the course of justice - in court she made the allegations and Michael LeVell denied them - one persons word against another - the jury decide that it hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had lied and she was therefore found not guilty - would you extrapolate from that the guilt of Michael LeVell? - If you did then you would be making the same mistake as you are in this case by saying categorically that the girl lied!

[cee-dee]

Some flawed argument there.

Sadly, with cases such as that, the old way has been turned on it's head, the attitude is that you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The Law of the Land is one thing, the perception of those (including the jury) is quite another.

As to doubt, that's what the prosecution do, place doubt about the honesty of the person in the dock in the mind of the jury.

I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if it were possible to have heard that case before several independent juries at once, some would find for GUILT.

In questionable cases, it's purely a gamble as to whether a jury will convict or not.

The reasoning today is "The child must be believed" which is quite wrong because it's placed a presumption in the mind of those listening.

[auntieannie44]

Whilst I understand the argument that the accused is not guilty until the prosecution gives the jury enough evidence to convict, and if they don't, then a not guilty verdict has to be given.  In many cases there are serious difficulties with either of these scenarios and, in that case I feel the Scottish verdict of Not Proven is invaluable.  This simply states that the prosecution has not made a good enough case to acquit but there are serious problems with a not guilty verdict.  This way everyone leaves court without being branded a liar or a pervert. Each side can (within reason) hold their heads up.

[blackburn_stevie]

Creeky ..... Please note. I did not say, nor did I imply, that the young girl had told an untruth. What I actually wrote was "What other option is there but to think the girl is telling porkies?"

I stand by that comment and nothing posted on this thread so far has made me consider a change of opinion on that score.

Maybe she lied on purpose with an eye on compensation. Maybe she expanded what she thought had happened on the days in question. I don't know the answer. All that I know for sure is that Michael Levell (sp) will come out of all this a lot worse off than the young girl will and just who do we blame for that? 

Lastly, where is the fairness in that?

[cee-dee]

I've always thought that's a bad idea. It leaves the thought that "He's guilty but there just wasn't enough evidence to nail him."

Uncorroborated evidence should only be considered as a lead to other, more substantial evidence. Relying completely on uncorroborated evidence from witnesses who had clearly conspired together is dangerous.

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Ronny - it was an awful post - compounded by your reply that doesn't address the assertion you made in your earlier post and the reason why I said it was anawful post.

I believe that it does.

You posted, and I quote - "I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)"

You have not one iota of evidence to backup either the statement that her allegations were false nor if they were what her motives were.

The 2 key words there are: "I suspect". Of course I have no evidence, just as you do not have any either. We are in a debate and form opinions on what we have heard, what we surmise, and how we think.

Further you now claim, "Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, but even now, by not recognising this fact, you are doing him an injustice" - again without any justification!

Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, and therefore someone lied. It's hardly rocket science.

I have never said nor implied that I believe him to be guilty - in fact the reverse - he has been found not guilty of all the charges and is therefore innocent - in exactly the same way that the girl has not been found guilty of lying and is therefore also innocent until proven guilty - something you seem unable to accept.

You are completely correct.

I do not accept that concept. Michael Turner is innocent, therefore the girl lied. Simples.

As hypotheticals seem to be the order of the day let me put one forward - the girl made the same complaints but the police decided she was lying and charged her with attempting to pervert the course of justice - in court she made the allegations and Michael LeVell denied them - one persons word against another - the jury decide that it hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had lied and she was therefore found not guilty - would you extrapolate from that the guilt of Michael LeVell? - If you did then you would be making the same mistake as you are in this case by saying categorically that the girl lied!

Exactly same case with a twist, but you are putting a different verdict in your hypothesis.

Exactly same case with a twist, the Jury would find her guilty.

Or else what on earth is the point of a Trial by Jury.

---