There was a mention of Tommy Duckworth last night. Jason Grimshaw said that he had photographs of Carl Munroe not being in The Bistro on the night of the fire. I thought that there was probably a scene where he told Jason about the photographs that has been removed.
The scenes where he showed Jason the photos were in Monday's episodes, although I did spot his name in last night's credits.
There was a mention of Tommy Duckworth last night. Jason Grimshaw said that he had photographs of Carl Munroe not being in The Bistro on the night of the fire. I thought that there was probably a scene where he told Jason about the photographs that has been removed.
The scenes where he showed Jason the photos were in Monday's episodes, although I did spot his name in last night's credits.
There was a mention of Tommy Duckworth last night. Jason Grimshaw said that he had photographs of Carl Munroe not being in The Bistro on the night of the fire. I thought that there was probably a scene where he told Jason about the photographs that has been removed.
The scenes where he showed Jason the photos were in Monday's episodes, although I did spot his name in last night's credits.
I'm sure he was in the background in the bistro.
No tommy Duckworth scenes have been edited out he's been appearing as normal until his 'exit'. And I highly doubt any scenes featuring Michael Le Vell or William Roache will be filmed at this point, it's month since they were edited out. And Michael Le Vell scenes can now air anyways.
Kevin won't be back until February because the scripts have already been written. I hear they offered Michael Le Vell a place on I'm A Celebrity in the meantime, for a six figure payment which will cover his legal costs (which isn't right IMHO - the prosecution should pay for those, they lost the case!)
Kevin won't be back until February because the scripts have already been written. I hear they offered Michael Le Vell a place on I'm A Celebrity in the meantime, for a six figure payment which will cover his legal costs (which isn't right IMHO - the prosecution should pay for those, they lost the case!)
So the CPS should foot the huge bill for someone who didn't need legal aid?
Isn't the accuser part of the prosecution too? Point is, if you're guilty, you pay both side's costs. It should be the same the other way around. The accuser should pay if they're found to have a false accusation, which is the case here.
Kevin won't be back until February because the scripts have already been written. I hear they offered Michael Le Vell a place on I'm A Celebrity in the meantime, for a six figure payment which will cover his legal costs (which isn't right IMHO - the prosecution should pay for those, they lost the case!)
So the CPS should foot the huge bill for someone who didn't need legal aid?
Umm. Yes. He did not ask to be prosecuted and therefore should not incur any personal hardship as a result of a wrongful prosecution.
I know you don't believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty but you really think someone should be out of pocket for the fact they were prosecuted for a crime they did not commit?
I hope I'm a Celeb is just tabloid talk, as it could probably do more harm than good.
At the moment he is likely to walk back into Corrie like nothing has happened. Camp mates discussing the issue around the fire could lead to stuff being said out of turn and could turn the public against him.
Kevin won't be back until February because the scripts have already been written. I hear they offered Michael Le Vell a place on I'm A Celebrity in the meantime, for a six figure payment which will cover his legal costs (which isn't right IMHO - the prosecution should pay for those, they lost the case!)
So the CPS should foot the huge bill for someone who didn't need legal aid?
Umm. Yes. He did not ask to be prosecuted and therefore should not incur any personal hardship as a result of a wrongful prosecution.
I know you don't believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty
but you really think someone should be out of pocket for the fact they were prosecuted for a crime they did not commit
?
Yes, I find it bewildering that you cannot see what would happen if they had to pay for everyone who got off.
Kevin won't be back until February because the scripts have already been written. I hear they offered Michael Le Vell a place on I'm A Celebrity in the meantime, for a six figure payment which will cover his legal costs (which isn't right IMHO - the prosecution should pay for those, they lost the case!)
So the CPS should foot the huge bill for someone who didn't need legal aid?
Umm. Yes. He did not ask to be prosecuted and therefore should not incur any personal hardship as a result of a wrongful prosecution.
I know you don't believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty but you really think someone should be out of pocket for the fact they were prosecuted for a crime they did not commit?
Excuse me? Where did I say I don't believe that the prosecution should have the burden of proof, which is the definition of innocent until proven guilty?
And since when was this a case of malicious prosecution? There is no serious suggestion that the CPS were wrong to prosecute.
A person who cannot afford a solicitor is given access to legal aid (the budget of which is £2bn, the largest per capita anywhere in the world). Michael Le Vell clearly could afford his legal team.
I hope I'm a Celeb is just tabloid talk, as it could probably do more harm than good.
At the moment he is likely to walk back into Corrie like nothing has happened. Camp mates discussing the issue around the fire could lead to stuff being said out of turn and could turn the public against him.
The programme is edited, and I dare say any such conversation would have to be heavily edited for compliance.
