Innocent til proven guilty, right? Wrong

That is how it is under British Law, isn’t it?  You are innocent until proven guilty.   Well it appears you might be wrong to assume that these days.

I was shocked when Michael Le Vell was arrested a couple of years ago on suspicion of some pretty awful crimes.   And was also then surprised when he was then released because there was deemed to be insufficient evidence to bring about a prosecution.     He had been publicly named, and shamed, and then nothing came of it.   Well not publicly.

It seems though that the CPS have continued investigating and last week they decided there was sufficient evidence to charge him.

Right, let’s get this straight.  I am not defending anything he may or may not have done.   If he is found guilty then that will be evidence of good detective work and perseverance by all those concerned.   And justice will have been, quite rightly served.  And I sincerely hope his victims get all the support they deserve, and that he serves time in prison.

However, what bothers me.   And bothers me greatly is that his bosses at Coronation Street are already finding ways to write him out of story lines.   Why?

At this point he is innocent (well in the eyes of the law he is, only he and his alleged victims know if he is actually innocent).  He has been charged, yes, but he has not been found guilty.     He has been with that show since 1983, giving them some of their highest ratings.   Should they not be showing him some support?  Maybe not making him a central figure in an explosive story line, but we should at least see him working in his garage on the Street, shouldnt we?

I appreciate that when it comes to trial he might need some time off, with a cleverly written story line,  to allow him to defend his actions, and serve time in prison if he is found guilty.

But right now he has not been found guilty of anything.    Since when have employers been able to get rid of employees who are defending themselves of crimes?

Again, yes, if he is guilty, sack him, lock him up.   But right now he is not.   And I think if we allow employers to sack “innocent” people we are at the top of a very slippery slope.

What do you think?

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Absolutely understand the premise. My guess is that there will be a clause somewhere in acting contracts stipulating legalese about disrepute, etc, giving them the right to do what they’re doing.

    Since we are a nation becoming as litigious as the US, I would be surprised if he wouldn’t fight it otherwise.

    Excellent post…as always, ma’am. HMSx

  • My contract of employment states that my employer have the right to suspend me on full pay in the event of any criminal investigation that I may be involved in. Depending on the criminal investigation and whether I am charged/convicted they then also reserve the right to terminate my employment.

    Lots of contracts have that clause.

    However it depends of what the criminal activity is I guess. In my job anything like murder/fraud/theft/assault/child related offences etc a big no no.
    However if I went to court for speeding and contesting a fine and was found guilty, then I don’t think my employer would do anything.

    It’s quite a grey matter I think.

    Thankfully as I am in a union I get legal representation to help me and if my employer treats me unfairly etc, then the union will assist me.

    Hopefully I won’t be in any criminal activity or police trouble either!

    But you’re right, people should be innocent until proven otherwise.

    In this case I don’t understand why all charges were dropped and the CPS continued to investigate. If they still had concerns why did they not just continue to set bail? It almost comes across as someone didn’t do their job properly in the first instance.

  • The arrest was for questioning Becca, I expect Le Vell would have refused an interview without being arrested, but the evidence at that time didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution. That interview could have led to a confession which saves the CJS and any victims a trial, but they didn’t have enough to hold him with or without bail. Michael Le Vell annoyed me because he said his release completely exonerated him of any guilt, I suspect this annoyed the police too, but they would have continued looking for evidence anyway.