Horrible, isn't it. He was arrested in September, but CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence.

inasent til proven giulty but he probably is giulty. dont think he wil be in corrie much longer

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been charged with a string of sex offences, including raping a child.

Greater Manchester Police said he is also accused of indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

The actor, who plays Kevin Webster in the ITV1 soap, faces a total of 19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.

 

Good GOD! What IS the world coming to?

The actor who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street has been charged with child sex offences, police have said.

Michael Le Vell, who plays the garage boss in the television soap opera, is accused of 19 sex offences including raping a child, indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

Le Vell, 47, whose real name is Michael Turner, will appear in court in two weeks' time, according to Greater Manchester Police.

He was first arrested and questioned over the alleged child offences in September 2011, however, the matter was later dropped.

Police said that Le Vell had been charged with the sex offences after a review of the evidence by lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service.

A Greater Manchester Police spokeswoman said: "A man has been charged with 19 child sex offences.

"Michael Turner, of Byrom Street, Hale, has been charged with 19 offences including raping a child, indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.

"He is due to appear at Manchester Magistrates on Wednesday February 27.

"The charges, which were authorised by the CPS following a review of evidence, relate to offences against a child between 2001 and 2010."

Alison Levitt, QC, principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, had reviewed a file of evidence in relation to allegations of sexual offences and looked again at a decision previously made not to prosecute.

Ms Levitt said: "I have very carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Michael Robert Turner with a number of sexual offences.

"I have authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge Mr Turner with 19 offences, including rape of a child.

"Mr Turner has now been charged with criminal offences and has a right to a fair trial.

"As proceedings are now active, it would be inappropriate to say anything further at this stage."

Le Vell first appeared as Kevin Webster in Coronation Street on October 19, 1983. His is one of the soap's most enduring characters.

cant beleeve theyv sed wer he lives lol. av just checked it out on google its not luxury considrin he probly gets paid well

We would never have know without Savile.

Very true!

I've just said words to that effect to my husband.

Apparently I'm too structuralist. Mrs Jer has just asked me to show more sympathy rather than wonder how they'll deal with it on the tellybox.

oh I know who he is! That's shocking, It's an awful lot of charges

 makes you wonder who will be next 

You ladies here are so blessed to have such genial and polite gentlemen in your company

Coronation street have confirmed he will not be in any future episodes until the matter is sorted 

So - is this a new case or the same with new evidence?

same one i think

It's the same and apparently there's no new evidence - just a review of what they already have, but now the CPA's lawyers have decided it IS sufficient to press charges.

i wonder if he abused anyone after they released him the first time

oh, has he been found guilty already then?

I had wondered that too Jen, but that then would constitute 'NEW' stuff though, wouldn't it? But there's not supposed to be any new stuff. Also it talks of'19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.'

 

Guess it'll all come out eventually.

No he hasn't. i wasn't very clear. If they thought there wasn't enough evidence and let him go before... then reviewed it (no new evidence as fluffy said) and decided there was grounds to charge him. If he is guilty that whole practice is only putting people at further risk.... It was more a comment about how it was handled than saying is defiantly guilty. Hope that makes sense.

We hear alot in cases that its "in the public interest or not in the public interest" to charge people with offences. What prey is the meaning of "public interest" ?

According to a story in one of the tabloid newspapers, a relative of the alleged victim demanded the CPS review their original decision not to prosecute. The review resulted in these charges.

I didn't know that relatives could demand anything of the CPS, and I am confused as to why he has been charged after the review, when there was no new evidence.

As far as I am concerned, he is innocent until proven guilty, and hope he won't be subjected to trial by media/forums.

No it wasn't clear, it did sound like he'd been found guilty already

 

Sadly in order to live in the democracy that we do we can't go locking people up on a suspicion in case they do it again..  but if they have been interviewed about some things and not charged at least it gives people a chance to choose to risk putting themselves or others in danger or not ..ie they can convict in their heads in this case and keep their kids away from him. 

I am finding it all very sad.....

Just talking to the Boss over dinner about this and we think that he is the third street actor to be accused of sexual offences involving children. What is it about ITV and Coronation street in particular that attracts this type of offender?

knowing what dirty b@stards to keep away from the kids?

mind you having said that in the case of 'kev' we dont know whats happened but theyve pulled the case up twice so i suppose they must have solid evidence to do that,

i mean

he cant be trusted

he cheated with molly dobbs

Aint living anywhere flash - is he?

Exactly...

we would

cos i did a thread about 'kev' waaaaay back before savile

 

so there

Hale? Not flash? I doubt many if us could afford a garden shed there.

 Did you?  

Me too Baz

He was arrested way before the Saville stuff broke through, so we would we did know about it before all that controversy.

 

But if I remember isn't this story about some girl who said she was of age, but it turned out she wasn't or something? Not that that's any better, but it's slightly different to the sexual predator type.

 

That is, of course, if I'm remembering it correctly, but I think to avoid gaga being sued for defamation, we possibly should wait for the trial verdict before getting all Maud Flanders?

I did jury service about 18 months ago & apparently these kinds of cases hardly ever get into court due to lack of evidence.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, ok, fair enough, but dare I say: no smoke without fire.

 

 

 

I wondered that too, Temps but the offences were over a nine year period so it can't have been one girl - and one of the counts is rape in any case.  That said,  he's still to come to trial, so he's not guilty yet.   I'm shocked tbh (I didn't see the original story) 

offender?  aren't people innocent until proven otherwise?

Indeed! It's four of 'em isn't it? We could remember Len Fairclough, That chubby old bloke who used to be on the Marty Feldman show, way back when, and this one. But there was a gadje called Frank Foster too.

Guilty or not, to have one charged is misfortune, to have four is plain carelessness.

Careless? Or perhaps  ... unfortunate?

No! He definitely said carelessness.