Kevin Webster EXPOSED

iguana · 15-02-2013 02:37AM

u_c_thesecond wrote: »

this was discussed in the media months ago- it was in the paper

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046351/Michael-Le-Vell-Coronation-Streets-Kevin-Webster-battle-claims-rape-girl-6.html

Thats from 2011

I knew id heard it before

The allegations were first made 17 months ago but the charges were dropped 4 months later due to lack of evidence. As of last night/today he has been charged with 19 separate charges, including of of raping a child. It's a new (big) update on an existing story.

Ruudi_Mentari · 15-02-2013 02:37AM

orestes wrote: »

There is a set of guidelines in place for what a society considers right and wrong, based on the common values of the members of that society and the society as a whole, which does consider things on a gradient scale - it's called the law.

But that'd only atypically be after the act, they might intervene when it might not have even actually happened at all if you get my drift buf we need the law for such then so be it... religion, too tbh.

ColeTrain · 15-02-2013 02:42AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Time article.

I would find more but I don't like typing "pedophilia" into Google...

Is that you Pete Townshend?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So... you want to be the AH thread police police...?

Merely pointing out the location of a more approroaite forum does not the police maketh. And the OP might get a more appropraite respeonce (althoguh what would entail is difficult to tell with a lack of personal input from said poster) from such advice.

Police aren't meant to drink type.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-02-2013 02:44AM

ColeTrain wrote: »

Police aren't meant to drink type.

Says who (hic!)?

Anyway, I tend not to prrofread what I type in internet fora. To me that;s one step short of OCD.

BorneTobyWilde · 15-02-2013 03:01AM

I can only imagine the child turns out to be 17 years and 8 months old.
And sexual offenses are typical of a celebrity of the era, ie taking advantage of he fame ,

Now does not make it right, But I sense its being make sound more dramatic that it is

iguana · 15-02-2013 03:06AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I can only imagine the child turns out to be 17 years and 8 months old.
And sexual offenses are typical of a celebrity of the era, ie taking advantage of he fame ,

Now does not make it right, But I sense its being make sound more dramatic that it is

The offences he's been charged with happened over a 9 year period from 2001 to 2010, so no, he isn't being charged due to an affair with an older teenager. And as the age of consent in the UK is 16, an affair with a 17 year old would be no crime at all.

Busted Flat. · 15-02-2013 03:06AM

I can only assume the last few posters have a problem with their keyboards. Or am I missing something.

CrazyRabbit · 15-02-2013 03:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Charged not equal to guilty. Steady on folks, like Oscar Pistorious, he is innocent until proven guilty

Nope, it's guilty, even if proven innocent. Welcome to trial by tabloid!

I reserve all judgement until a jury delivers a verdict.

CrazyRabbit · 15-02-2013 03:11AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles*. Most don't molest and go under the radar, when they do we may or may not hear about it. But when a celebrity pedo molests you can't not hear about it.

*To put that in perspective that's between 1 in 33 and 1 in 25 of people. How many people are on your FB friends list?

So out of the 70 replies here already, who do you think are the 2 pedo's?

ringadingding · 15-02-2013 03:13AM

*avoids eye contact*

BorneTobyWilde · 15-02-2013 03:16AM

Guess the pedo
A board game the whole family can enjoy
Roll that dice

BorneTobyWilde · 15-02-2013 03:18AM

iguana wrote: »

The offences he's been charged with happened over a 9 year period from 2001 to 2010, so no, he isn't being charged due to an affair with an older teenager. And as the age of consent in the UK is 16, an affair with a 17 year old would be no crime at all.

So it happened to one person over a 9 year period
That I did not know,

Busted Flat. · 15-02-2013 03:19AM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Nope, it's guilty, even if proven innocent. Welcome to trial by tabloid!

I reserve all judgement until a jury delivers a verdict.

On Thursday, Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions 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 nineteen offences, including rape of a child.”

[URL="On Thursday, Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions 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 nineteen offences, including rape of a child.”"]On Thursday, Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions 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 nineteen offences, including rape of a child.”[/URL]

Kerplunk124 · 15-02-2013 03:20AM

But..bu..but i just saw him win showbiz darts the other night

Reganio 2 · 15-02-2013 03:21AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So it happened to one person over a 9 year period
That I did not know,

Nowhere in the article does it say it was 1 person, in fact Im guessing 19 seperate charges on 1 person would be fairly impossible? But anyway it dosn't say 1 person.

15-02-2013 03:21AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Maybe, but I'd take a wild guess a suggest they didn't charge him lightly.

I'm obviously jumping the gun but I'd take a leap and say the trial is just a formality in this case.

Even if cops feel they have a watertight case, it could all fall apart on one detail. Wait and see tbh. Some of these defense lawyers are good at tearing prosecution witnesses apart that the case could collapse easily with one word. Dont forget the burden of proof is on the prosecution

DrumSteve · 15-02-2013 03:22AM

Odd, last time I seen him he was under a 14 year old escort.

Seachmall · 15-02-2013 03:23AM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So out of the 70 replies here already, who do you think are the 2 pedo's?

This is the internet, I'm just hoping I'm not the only normal one here.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

Nowhere in the article does it say it was 1 person, in fact Im guessing 19 seperate charges on 1 person would be fairly impossible? But anyway it dosn't say 1 person.

There are numerous laws to protect children which would be relevant to a case like this. If the alleged rape occurred more than once that would cause multiple counts of the same charge to be added (which are addressed in court as separate charges).

Busted Flat. · 15-02-2013 03:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if cops feel they have a watertight case, it could all fall apart on one detail. Wait and see tbh. Some of these defense lawyers are good at tearing prosecution witnesses apart that the case could collapse easily with one word. Dont forget the burden of proof is on the prosecution

Maybe the jury will take into consideration this case.

Brewer, a former National Youth Choir music director, and his ex-wife were found guilty on five counts of indecently assaulting the former music student more than 30 years ago.

The 68-year-old was convicted of sexually abusing her in his office at Chetham's School of Music in Manchester when she was aged 14 and 15.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2F1049487%2Fchoirmaster-michael-brewer-guilty-of-sex-abuse&ei=oJwdUaC9MorntQapoIG4DA&usg=AFQjCNHuL2m0Lbf7ZdT9edyzqyTmHFlUew&sig2=OrD-twUWVC3Di-Uaef5_7Q

BorneTobyWilde · 15-02-2013 03:29AM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Odd, last time I seen him he was under a 14 year old escort.

No way GEEZ
I saw him with 12 year old Carina other day
Not looking good with evidence like this coming out of woodwork

Doc Ruby · 15-02-2013 03:39AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles

Oh fuck off.

DrumSteve · 15-02-2013 03:40AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh fuck off.

I think he meant in prison?

Seachmall · 15-02-2013 03:41AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh fuck off.

It's true.

Doc Ruby · 15-02-2013 03:44AM

Seachmall wrote: »

It's true.

The back of me bollocks it is. One person in twenty five is a paedophile? Leaving aside the obvious nonsense of "being" a paedophile as opposed to being mentally ill, this is a particularly Orwellian comment, and not in the good way.

Seachmall · 15-02-2013 03:45AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The back of me bollocks it is. One person in twenty five is a paedophile? Leaving aside the obvious nonsense of "being" a paedophile as opposed to being mentally ill, this is a particularly Orwellian comment, and not in the good way.

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

The statement that "Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles" is factually and verifiably true.

And referring to someone who exhibits pedophiliac behavior as a pedophile is hardly nonsense.

Doc Ruby · 15-02-2013 03:49AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

The statement that "Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles" is factually and verifiably true.

And which chapter of the daily fail did you haul this out of? I'd be quite interested to see the peer reviewed journal with verifiable research statistics on the matter. What, doesn't exist? Colour me shocked. Once again fuck off you failed hysteria riser.

mod: banned

Busted Flat. · 15-02-2013 03:53AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

The statement that "Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles" is factually and verifiably true.

So a couple of well healed clowns talk to one hundred people and find that three are interested in kids, they do not ask them did they ever grow up, like Michael Jackson, and they came to the conclusion they were pedos. Sicience.

Seachmall · 15-02-2013 04:08AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And which chapter of the daily fail did you haul this out of? I'd be quite interested to see the peer reviewed journal with verifiable research statistics on the matter. What, doesn't exist? Colour me shocked. Once again fuck off you failed hysteria riser.

I don't have a study, then again I'm not asserting the 4% to be true. I'm asserting it to be an estimate.

In the Time article above it references the originator,

Dr. John Bradford, a University of Ottawa psychiatrist who has spent 23 years studying pedophilia--which is listed as an illness in the manual psychiatrists use to make diagnoses--estimates its prevalence at maybe 4% of the population.

- Source

There you go. Now pull that stick out of your arse.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-02-2013 04:13AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

The statement that "Its estimated about 3% or 4% of the general population are pedophiles" is factually and verifiably true.

And referring to someone who exhibits pedophiliac behavior as a pedophile is hardly nonsense.

Ah now come on, if Doc Ruby says **** Off, the off thou must ****. The Doc is never wrong.

Doc Ruby · 15-02-2013 04:14AM

Seachmall wrote: »

It's true.

Seachmall wrote: »

then again I'm not asserting the 4% to be true

I daresay Dr Bradford could find a few things wrong here.

Seachmall wrote: »

There you go. Now pull that stick out of your arse.

No, it's bollocks, and the exact same brand of bollocks used by every politician and every demagogue ever to excuse any number of excesses, so forgive me if I turn a sceptical eye on it.

Kevin Webster EXPOSED

Comments