All of this does tie in with what ST was saying though. The Jones case was pre Saville - I know it's not a good idea to speculate but something tells me had he been on those charges now it would have gone to trial
Not necessarily. If he was found to have had child porn on his PC that would have had nothing to do with this case and his defence would have argued that to be tried for both at the same time would have prejudiced his trial on the Child Abuse allegations. Unless the compalinant was among the images that is.
Well not like that then . At the end of the day all those mentioned are innocent until proved otherwise . The more people who testify against the accused the better chance of conviction . It's a sad day when people would accuse someone of abuse and not be telling the truth . It happens though I suppose . What happened to the people who admitted lying ?
This is what's called "Debate" You stick to sniping from the wings, because when you give opinions - on matters where you are wholly ignorant - (Which covers a vast array of topics) you usually end up looking rather foolish.
The debate surrounds a point that you are consistently failing to put across. Are you too stupid to see that it is indeed you who is the utter spastic?
His defence would have had no say on when he was to be charged with an offence though . Being caught with child porrography is a serious offence do you honestly think the CPS or police are going to put off charging someone with that offence because it would be an inconvenience in another matter . If anything Iike that was found during the police investigation into the alleged rape then he would have been charged with that offence at the same time as the rape . I would think the CPS would have insisted on it as it only strenghens their case .
Nothing happened to them as far as I am aware. Sadly there are too many people now who will do anything to get in the spotlight and make a few quick bob and the latest way of doing it seems to be to make false accusations against famous people.
Could they not just add charges as they discover them though Dev? It's ok - this isn't a trick question but i genuinely thought they could do that and, in fact, i'm sure i recall cases where people are charged with a number of accounts of assualt and also of keeping indecent material.
They probably just went back to their old life.Dole-Wallahing interspersed with bouts of robbing cars.
You can tell he's dodgy because he changed his name. Elton John, Cliff Richards, Lenin, Michael LeVell. All monsters. Plus it's no coincidence that LeVell sort of rhymes with devil.
Equity,If you have a name the same as another actor you have to change it.As his name is Michael Turner there is sure to be another.Come to think of it we have one who plays a Centre Half.
You can tell he's dodgy cos he looks ****in dodgy. I think Not606 should start a campaign on behalf of the wee lassie he raped, shagged, and abused. We could start by getting the lassie her own tv show.
It depends Dan. As I said, IF he had child porn then his Barrister (If he's worth his salt) could argue to have him tried for that separately. I don't recall any cases offhand where that's happened tbh, but that's not to say it couldn't. Just speculating.
