Michael le Vell - how can the "system" be improved for alleged perpetrators and victims?

It's so hard to make a judgement about this one, it never seemed to come out just where these assaults took place and how he was connected to the victim, if she was a friend of his children, that wasn't apparent. There can't be a worse slur on a person's character than an allegation of raping a child, so if indeed he is innocent then he has been through a ghastly time and I'm glad he has been vindicated. The main evidence in his favour seemed to be that the girl, when examined, didn't show any sign of physical damage and she was only supposed to be six at the time, in contrast to the awful death of the child bride aged 8 as a result of being raped, I would have thought there would be some sort of evidence to suggest that this had happened. I do know of a girl who was at school with my son who made allegations against several male teachers, even her mother declared she was a fantasist as these allegations were unfounded. Lets hope that this is the case with this girl, because I'd hate to think that the sexual assaults had actually happened to her and now she has been proved to be a liar as well.

With no intent of making any reference to this recent case.
I agree that far too many historic child abuse cases fail to even get prosecuted for lack of sound evidence. in a court case any verdict is down to one child's word against an adults. Not a fair contest given that any child would feel very intimidated by a court setting and confrontational cross examination.

It's a relief to see such measured responses here this morning. The attrition rate for successfully prosecuting sexual abuse cases is still balanced heavily in favour of the offender, when evidence is disputed and lacking in sufficient detail. It's a shame the case was prosecuted, leaving the jury no choice but to acquit.

Le Vell's inappropriate statement that he was off to the pub, having used his alcohol problem in his defence, must have given the jury somehing to think about. People can guess who has complained about him, and he has shown by his behaviour that he isn't looking out for the impact of all this media hype on his own young family.

The CPS and police with be reviewing how they have come to bring this case to court in good faith, and looking carefully at other cases in the light of this acquittal. I really feel for the girl who was taken through this long and difficult process, being intimately examined for evidence and cross-examined under circumstances of knowing a popular soap star will have thousands of fans wishing him well. I hope she recovers from this recent ordeal.

I don't think he should have slipped quietly away but should have shown a bit more sensitivity towards the young woman who will have suffered in court. He could have stood quietly by as his solicitor read a well drafted statement and then gone home and been as triumphalistic (is that a word) as he wanted to be.

We can't know what caused the accuser to do what she did but it isn't much of a stretch of anyone's imagination to appreciate that she is vulnerable in some way.

I don't think he should have quietly slipped away if he didn't want to, that he said he would go for a drink or that he has a drink problem has nothing to do with the accusations made against him. I doubt he was in the frame of mind to think clearly, to be accused of such a vile act and have it reported daily and know if found guilty would have left that court by the back door to face a prison sentence . Plus the fact he was found innocent of all the accusations so why should he be expected to consider the feelings of the girl who accused him? Her feelings should only have been considered if the rape had taken place, unless she has a mental illness but there has been no mention of this

What is troubling is we feel concern for the girl so do we still have doubts as to the verdict ? I did have thoughts for the girl and so I was troubled I suppose

Agree too with that Kitty, then again his alcoholism was exposed to all and sundry so perhaps more understandable.

I agree Ana. There seems to be a whiff of McCarthyism around since Jimmy Saville with the authorities keen to pounce on any celebrity regardless of actual evidence. I do think the accused should be accorded the same anonymity as the accuser.

I'm with you on this merlot. Even though he has been found not guilty, the accuser has been subjected to a terrible ordeal just going to court to give evidence. I think a little discretion would have been good and his attitude on the court steps will have done his reputation no good at all.

Whatever the truth of the matter is, he's a broken man and the media couldn't wait to reveal all the sordid details of his alcoholism and history of adultery. I feel sorry for him.

Technically she's not a victim as he's been proved innocent but you know what I mean.

I always cringe when someone who has been cleared of sexual abuse stands on the steps of the court and looks jubilant, punching the air. Surely it would be better to allow a member of the legal team to give a statement on your behalf and quietly go away.

An self confessed alcoholic announcing he was going straight off to start drinking must have been awful for the victim's family to witness.

When the accuser is granted anonymity then the accused should be granted the same. There were reporting restrictions on this case to protect the accuser but we were allowed to hear details of the accused mans life. Will he now be accepted into homes where there are children? There are those who will believe he 'got off' because he is a celeb and not because he is innocent.

As you say M we don't know the facts, but how can anyone really know the truth after all this time ? All we can do is ensure that today's children know that they can and MUST tell someone if they are being abused,so that something can be done immediately.

Movedalot I agree he should the allowed to get on with his life, the point I am trying to make is that there are those who will always wonder if the jury had got it wrong. As, I assume, none of us were in court to hear the evidence then we are not in possession of all the facts so the jury's decision should be accepted.

As none of us can possibly know whether he did do this or not, I think it is right to take the verdict at face value and allow him to get on with his life as if none of this had happened.

I think the reason names are published is to let any other possible 'victims' know and come forward but I don't think that is fair on the innocent who has been accused.

I have always thought that not only victims but also the alleged perpetrator should be given anonymity. Michael le Vell has been found not guilty but for the rest of his life there will be people wondering if the jury got it wrong. If he had been given anonymity then no-one would have known about it. Obviously, if a person is found guilty then their identity could be published.

I wonder what effect it has on a child or woman involved in such a high profile case

I would not have liked to have been on that jury. They had an impossible task.