# Dave Lee Travis arrested as part of Savile investigation



## Frumious B. (Nov 15, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-as-part-of-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-probe.html


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2012)

Sales of cornflakes take a nosedive.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2012)

And a reminder: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...threads-and-naming-living-individuals.300541/

Being arrested does not signify guilt.

Here's what the Telegraph is saying: 





> There is no suggestion that any allegations of paedophilia have been made against Mr Travis, but two women have come forward in recent weeks claiming he groped them during the 1970s and 1980s.
> 
> One of the women, who was aged 17 at the time alleged that Mr Travis had invited her into his studio in 1977 and put his hand up her skirt.
> 
> Speaking last month when the allegations surfaced, Mr Travis said: “I categorically deny that there is any substance in either allegation and I’m genuinely surprised that allegations of this nature have been made. I totally refute any impropriety.”


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 15, 2012)

It could have been worse. The Telegraph says: "There is no suggestion that any allegations of paedophilia have been made against Mr Travis, but two women have come forward in recent weeks claiming he groped them during the 1970s and 1980s."


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 15, 2012)

"Let it be Edmonds" I prayed..........


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2012)

I actually called DLT on here a few times. Of course the man may be innocent of any crime but if it turns out he has wrong unned I'm deffo getting props


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2012)

Radio 1 Roadshow Calendar ----> Rogues Gallery.  All of our cultural icons fall, no more heroes - all are guilty (except the innocent).


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 15, 2012)

I heard this earlier on the news that 'a man in his 60s from Bedfordshire had been arrested' It wasn't hard to guess who it was.  I remember him at the Radio1 roadshow in Clacton.


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 15, 2012)

I saw him on the Radio 1 Roadshow - judging a Captain Sensible Lookalike competition. My mate came second.


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 15, 2012)

No real surprise about DLT - even before the Savile story broke there was an interview in the Sunday Times where the (female) interviewer relates how, in the course of their discussion she was comprehensively pawed by him and asked if she'd pose (nude) for one of his photoshoots.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 15, 2012)

Mr.QofG's hates DLT so was quite made up to read this story. Though in his exicitement he did note with some surprise that DLT appeares to be a former winner of the Nobel peace prize


----------



## sim667 (Nov 15, 2012)

I dont even know who he is.

*Goes to google.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> I dont even know who he is.
> 
> *Goes to google.


 
He is like the original Justin lee collins.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Nov 15, 2012)

My Dad won a radio alarm clock in the late 80s after winning that DLT saturday quiz several times in a row. He will probably have to get rid of it now.


----------



## Firky (Nov 15, 2012)

Wasn't he mentioned right at the beginning of this investigation?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Nov 15, 2012)

no, he was just a contestent on some quiz hosted by DLT.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 15, 2012)

seeformiles said:


> No real surprise about DLT - even before the Savile story broke there was an interview in the Sunday Times where the (female) interviewer relates how, in the course of their discussion she was comprehensively pawed by him and asked if she'd pose (nude) for one of his photoshoots.


 
Camilla Long, if anyone has local library access to ProQuest. It's quite an article.


----------



## twentythreedom (Nov 15, 2012)

Quack Quack Ooops


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 15, 2012)

Been waiting for his name to come up. I have a friend with a pretty harsh and hardcore background as a youth who had some intersting things to say about him.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 15, 2012)

Actually to save time parliament should just make being a radio 1 daytime dj an arrestable offence for crimes against music. Lock them up for each dodgy jingle and track played.


----------



## mattie (Nov 15, 2012)

Is he matey who had the power-whinge on national radio when he got sacked?


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2012)

They all seem to use the radio as their platform for power whinges. It was cringingly interminable when Tessa left Tony Blackburn, for example.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Mr.QofG's hates DLT so was quite made up to read this story. Though in his exicitement he did note with some surprise that DLT appeares to be a former winner of the Nobel peace prize


 

They also gave it to Henry Kissenger and Barrack Obama which shows it is about as worthy as a free toy in a box of shreddies


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2012)

mattie said:


> Is he matey who had the power-whinge on national radio when he got sacked?


Yes.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> They also gave it to Henry Kissenger and Barrack Obama which shows it is about as worthy as a free toy in a box of shreddies


 
Don't you insult my plastic model of Dougal from the Magic Roundabout


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2012)

Marginally unsafe for work (oh, hang on _I'm at work_ ) - 0.58 is humourous and relates to no real person  :


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 15, 2012)

Perhaps it is the establishment getting their revenge on Travis for his days as a pirate radio dj.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 15, 2012)

It's Aung San Suu Kyi I feel sorry for.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 15, 2012)

cesare said:


> They all seem to use the radio as their platform for power whinges. It was cringingly interminable when Tessa left Tony Blackburn, for example.


 
They still are, that Moyles twat had a long rant about not being paid on time.  Yup the same Moyles who crossed a picket line several times and then lied saying he was going to make reference to the cause of the strike on his show.   I was gutted for him not being paid on time, I also shed a tear for him when I learnt he had been sacked.


----------



## flypanam (Nov 15, 2012)

He's Top of the Pops.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 15, 2012)

mattie said:


> Is he matey who had the power-whinge on national radio when he got sacked?


 
No, that was Dave Nice. Mike Smash was distraught when Tessa Smash left him.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 15, 2012)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> My Dad won a radio alarm clock in the late 80s after winning that DLT saturday quiz several times in a row. He will probably have to get rid of it now.


 
that's your dad implicated in the savile case then.  and by extension you.  and probably me now i'ev quoted you.


----------



## joustmaster (Nov 15, 2012)

Partridge will be next


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 15, 2012)

DLT was cool at one time, he really was. At the time nobody was actually saying DLT & the other Radio1 DJs were totally naff, they were generally regarded as ok.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 15, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's your dad implicated in the savile case then. and by extension you. and probably me now i'ev quoted you.


 
Its the six degrees of seperation coming back to haunt us, we have to face facts that everyone is implicated in the Saville case.  We're going to need to build some bigger prisons.


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 15, 2012)

joustmaster said:


> Partridge will be next


 
AP reacting to the latest news:


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> DLT was cool at one time, he really was. At the time nobody was actually saying DLT & the other Radio1 DJs were totally naff, they were generally regarded as ok.


No he wasn't  No they weren't


----------



## youngian (Nov 15, 2012)

Remember a great Partridge moment with DLT; he'd just played Etta James's I'd rather go blind and told the listeners that while it was a nice song he disagreed with the sentiment explaining that blindness was a terrible disability.


----------



## Firky (Nov 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> DLT was cool at one time, he really was. At the time nobody was actually saying DLT & the other Radio1 DJs were totally naff, they were generally regarded as ok.



Which planet was this on.?


----------



## Firky (Nov 15, 2012)

youngian said:


> Remember a great Partridge moment with DLT; he'd just played Etta James's I'd rather go blind and told the listeners that while it was a nice song he disagreed with the sentiment explaining that blindness was a terrible disability.



One of my favourite songs that


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 15, 2012)

I feel like my childhood memories are being shattered, the first pop star I liked was Gary Glitter, also liked Jim'll fix it, Entertainment USA (Jonathan King) + DLT. Praying that Lenny Henry and the cast of Tiswas retain their reputations.


----------



## twentythreedom (Nov 15, 2012)

It's a Dave Lee Travesty is what it is...


----------



## Firky (Nov 15, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> I feel like my childhood memories are being shattered, the first pop star I liked was Gary Glitter, also liked Jim'll fix it, Entertainment USA (Jonathan King) + DLT. Praying that Lenny Henry and the cast of Tiswas retain their reputations.



Rent-a-Ghost is still shining the white light of purity


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 15, 2012)

firky said:


> Rent-a-Ghost is still shining the white light of purity


 
wish I'd stuck to watching Tom & Jerry sometimes


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 15, 2012)

firky said:


> Which planet was this on.?


That would be planet 70s.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 15, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> wish I'd stuck to watching Tom & Jerry sometimes


Back in the day the scenes of violence were considered a bad influence on kids, there was serious debate about this.


----------



## zog (Nov 15, 2012)

maybe there is a god


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Back in the day the scenes of violence were considered a bad influence on kids, there was serious debate about this.


 
I remember, I don't think there's ever been a time when some outraged of Tunbridge Wells hasn't sounded off on some cultural influence. They probably had debates between the Romans over whether kids should watch gladiators.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 15, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> wish I'd stuck to watching Tom & Jerry sometimes


 
What about the maid, Mammy Two-Shoes?  Nothing is safe!


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 15, 2012)

Another DJ twat like RT who tried to grip my sis in Alty during that time. Dirty cunts


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> DLT was cool at one time, he really was. At the time nobody was actually saying DLT & the other Radio1 DJs were totally naff, they were generally regarded as ok.


In what parallel universe was the Hairy Cuntflake cool? ,the way he whinged on air when he as sacked showed him up as a pompous humorless twat


----------



## Greebo (Nov 15, 2012)

If DLT does get charged and is subsequently found guilty it would add a whole new meaning to his R1 jingle which ended with  "... Hairy monster [heh heh hoo hah] run and tell your mummy."


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 15, 2012)

seeformiles said:


> I saw him on the Radio 1 Roadshow - judging a Captain Sensible Lookalike competition. *My mate came second*.


It wont be long until he's arrested then


----------



## nastybobby (Nov 15, 2012)

One thing is puzzling me about all these arrests, Emu is still free to walk the streets. I reckon Rod Hull was going to tell all and that bird lured him onto that roof, 'I'm a flightless bird' is the perfect alibi.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2012)

When there is risk of a flood, let some water through the dyke.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 15, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> In what parallel universe was the Hairy Cuntflake cool? ,the way he whinged on air when he as sacked showed him up as a pompous humorless twat


I think its worth pointing out that many of the Radio1 DJs now the object of such derision actually started out in pirate radio in ships & forts off the Essex coast, DLT was on the most famous pirate, Radio Caroline. Without the 60s pirates there would have been no Radio1 & probably music radio in the UK would be different from what it is now.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> When there is risk of a flood, let some water through the dyke.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2012)




----------



## Geri (Nov 15, 2012)

nastybobby said:


> One thing is puzzling me about all these arrests, Emu is still free to walk the streets. I reckon Rod Hull was going to tell all and that bird lured him onto that roof, 'I'm a flightless bird' is the perfect alibi.


 
WTF are you on about? Emu was abused by Rod, everybody knows that!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 15, 2012)

H





Jazzz said:


> When there is risk of a flood, let some water through the dyke.


HA ha you said dyke


----------



## nastybobby (Nov 15, 2012)

Geri said:


> WTF are you on about? Emu was abused by Rod, everybody knows that!


 
That's just what THEY want you to think. 

Possible satanic undertones [just what is Emu trying to tell us by appearing with a witch in what looks like a dock in the pic below?], 'Spit', 'Nookie' [I mean, come on, they aren't even attempting to conceal it!] _et al_ conspicuous by their absence.

If Newsnight don't get there first, Icke will be all over this by next week.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> ... & probably music radio in the UK would be different from what it is now.


 
And would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Seriously, DLT use to regularly ruin my Saturday mornings with his stupid 'Give Us a Break' snooker game. Its all coming back. Okay I could have turned it off and done something else, but I was a lazy bastard then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2012)

Hollis said:


> Okay I could have turned it off and done something else, but I was a lazy bastard then.


what's changed?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Marginally unsafe for work (oh, hang on _I'm at work_ ) - 0.58 is humourous and relates to no real person  :




Kunt and the Gang are surely the cutting edge of well dodgy iffyness!


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 15, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's your dad implicated in the savile case then. and by extension you. and probably me now i'ev quoted you.


 
Everyone involved in social media has blood on their hands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Everyone involved in social media has blood on their hands.


no they don't


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

cesare said:


> They all seem to use the radio as their platform for power whinges. It was cringingly interminable when Tessa left Tony Blackburn, for example.


 
Blackburn was one DJ I couldn't bear to listen to. Simon Bates was emolience personified, but Blackburn was like a sludgey slick of emolience engulfing you.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2012)

Steve Wright of In The Afternoon, obviously entirely irrelevant to this thread other than DJ-dislike I must add, was in the Eighties, and remains now, as ultra-annoying as fuck ....


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2012)




----------



## Karac (Nov 15, 2012)

Its sad but i would pre-emptively arrest all Top of the Pops presenters over the age of 40 from the 70s and 80s and all Radio 1 DJs from that time


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 15, 2012)

Clearly Kid Jensen thought it a good idea to change his name. Or is that how he got the job?


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 15, 2012)

I think it's a bit irresponsible by the media lumping all of these people in with Jimmy Saville. It seems to be coming out that loads of those presenters were proper dirty old men, sleazy old fuckers etc but Jimmy Saville's crimes went way beyond sleazy....
This groping and so on is 'bad crack' and it's shocking that they were allowed to get away with it, but it's not 'proper' crime like raping kids


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Clearly Kid Jensen thought it a good idea to change his name. Or is that how he got the job?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> I think it's a bit irresponsible by the media lumping all of these people in with Jimmy Saville. It seems to be coming out that loads of those presenters were proper dirty old men, sleazy old fuckers etc but Jimmy Saville's crimes went way beyond sleazy....
> This groping and so on is 'bad crack' and it's shocking that they were allowed to get away with it, but it's not 'proper' crime like raping kids


  The 'lumping in with Savile' ain't the issue - it's A) whether they carried out the assaults (and if so should get prosecuted) and B) whether the organisation/management created an environment where Saviling and 'mere groping' were carried out. The 'some sexual assaults are worse than others' argument just isn't the point.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> The 'lumping in with Savile' ain't the issue - it's A) whether they carried out the assaults (and if so should get prosecuted) and B) whether the organisation/management created an environment where Saviling and 'mere groping' were carried out. The 'some sexual assaults are worse than others' argument just isn't the point.


 
Raping a crippled child is worse than groping an intern


----------



## Wilf (Nov 16, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> Raping a crippled child is worse than groping an intern


 and using that to mimimise the groping is, well... pointless. If these people have carried out an alleged sexual assault, I'm not going to get too worried about them being mentioned in the same breath as Savile. The link is that they were (presumably) reported to the Savile team. The issue isn't whether they end up being treated as _'_guilti*er* by association', it's whether they did it. Unless the police have suddenly become hyper sensitive in light of their failure to act on Savile, to the point of idiocy, this case* - guilty or not - is unlikely to rest on a single ambiguous brushing past someone.
* Edit - _such_ cases, I suppose - I obviously know nothing about the DLT specifics.


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 16, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> What about the maid, Mammy Two-Shoes?  Nothing is safe!


 
I do now 

another memory tarnished


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 16, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I think its worth pointing out that many of the Radio1 DJs now the object of such derision actually started out in pirate radio in ships & forts off the Essex coast, DLT was on the most famous pirate, Radio Caroline. Without the 60s pirates there would have been no Radio1 & probably music radio in the UK would be different from what it is now.


 
The problem was though they lived off past glories for far too long and disappeared up their own arseholes. The next generation of inner-city based, pirate radio from the was far more influential in defining current radio and was responsible for making the Smashy & Nicey set redundant.


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 16, 2012)

cesare said:


> They all seem to use the radio as their platform for power whinges. It was cringingly interminable when Tessa left Tony Blackburn, for example.


 

Once, when the theme from MASH (Suicide is Painless) was requested, he played a crappy instrumental version (with pan pipes) since he thought the lyrics were a bit too depressing for a children's show and then he starts banging on about his bloody divorce right after..

I mean you tuned into Junior Choice on a Saturday to hear the likes of "Don't Jump off the Roof Dad" by Tommy Cooper ffs


----------



## cesare (Nov 16, 2012)

seeformiles said:


> Once, when the theme from MASH (Suicide is Painless) was requested, he played a crappy instrumental version (with pan pipes) since he thought the lyrics were a bit too depressing for a children's show and then he starts banging on about his bloody divorce right after..
> 
> I mean you tuned into Junior Choice on a Saturday to hear the likes of "Don't Jump off the Roof Dad" by Tommy Cooper ffs


But a kid wrote the lyrics to that!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I think its worth pointing out that many of the Radio1 DJs now the object of such derision actually started out in pirate radio in ships & forts off the Essex coast, DLT was on the most famous pirate, Radio Caroline. Without the 60s pirates there would have been no Radio1 & probably music radio in the UK would be different from what it is now.


Without the past the present would be different


----------



## keybored (Nov 16, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Without the 60s pirates there would have been no Radio1.



I like where this is going.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Without the past the present would be different


All I was pointing out was that these people were not always the figures of fun they are now. I suppose John Peel kept his credibility but mainly I was pointing out that people like Peel, DLT, Tony Blackburn, Johnnie Walker, Ed Stewart etc all started off playing music from small ships off the Essex coast. The '67 Marine Broadcasting Offences Act forced the pirate ships off the air & Radio1 had to be formed to replace them. There was no way that UK audiences would have heard US bands like Buffalo Springfield, The Doors, The Amboy Dukes & quite a few alternative British bands without the pirate radio ships & the DJs that got seasick playing the music. Whatever DLT might have done since, he will be respected for that.

While most of the pirate DJs went to Radio1 it should be remembered Radio1 had to be a compromise because the broadcasting establishment at the time did not want US style music radio in this country.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 16, 2012)

Rolf's still OK though, isn't he? I can still cling to that childhood idol?  I don't want to have to take a hammer to my Stylophone to stop the paedos.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 16, 2012)

I used to love Radio 1 when I was about 12 or 13.  I listened to them all - DLT, Noel Edmonds, John Peel, Johnny Walker, Mike Reed - and thought they were great.  Looking back they were a pile of cack, but at that age one isn't so discriminating.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 16, 2012)

Dogsauce said:


> Rolf's still OK though, isn't he? I can still cling to that childhood idol? I don't want to have to take a hammer to my Stylophone to stop the paedos.


 
Two Little Boys...


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 16, 2012)

You've reminded me of how Freddie Mercury used to sing: 'Look what they're done to Mike Reed'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> All I was pointing out was that these people were not always the figures of fun they are now. I suppose John Peel kept his credibility but mainly I was pointing out that people like Peel, DLT, Tony Blackburn, Johnnie Walker, Ed Stewart etc all started off playing music from small ships off the Essex coast. The '67 Marine Broadcasting Offences Act forced the pirate ships off the air & Radio1 had to be formed to replace them. There was no way that UK audiences would have heard US bands like Buffalo Springfield, The Doors, The Amboy Dukes & quite a few alternative British bands without the pirate radio ships & the DJs that got seasick playing the music. Whatever DLT might have done since, he will be respected for that.
> 
> While most of the pirate DJs went to Radio1 it should be remembered Radio1 had to be a compromise because the broadcasting establishment at the time did not want US style music radio in this country.


 
It's amazing isn't it, how many early R1 DJs, who mostly and very quickly became massively uncool, started off on the pirates.

I actually think Johnny Walker's still quite cool though


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 16, 2012)

When he got back from Japan Gary Lineker used to steal crisps from kids the horrible cunt


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 16, 2012)

Dogsauce said:


> Rolf's still OK though, isn't he? I can still cling to that childhood idol? I don't want to have to take a hammer to my Stylophone to stop the paedos.


 
Friends of mine who've met the man over the years say he's quite nice but a bit of a letch if a large pair of breasts hoves into view....


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 16, 2012)

Scary Cornflake


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2012)

Dogsauce said:
			
		

> Rolf's still OK though, isn't he? I can still cling to that childhood idol? I don't want to have to take a hammer to my Stylophone to stop the paedos


 



			
				seeformiles said:
			
		

> Friends of mine who've met the man over the years say he's quite nice but a bit of a letch if a large pair of breasts hoves into view....


 
I'm not going to judge Rolf badly for that!


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 16, 2012)

Dogsauce said:


> Rolf's still OK though, isn't he? I can still cling to that childhood idol? I don't want to have to take a hammer to my Stylophone to stop the paedos.


 
The jury is out on that one. Both Rolf and DLT have wives with novelty hairstyles.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2012)

He's made a huge mistake and done an interview with the Daily Mail, in which he says some strange things.
The Mail, being bitches, show a series of unflattering photos of him ranting at his gate and looking unhappy at the seat of his car. They deliberately picked photos of him where it looks like he is mid-breastlunge 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wrongdoing-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-arrest.html


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2012)

He also just said on the radio that he 'abhorred...anything to do with children or child molestation'
He IS Partridge.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 16, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> He's made a huge mistake and done an interview with the Daily Mail, in which he says some strange things.
> The Mail, being bitches, show a series of unflattering photos of him ranting at his gate and looking unhappy at the seat of his car. They deliberately picked photos of him where it looks like he is mid-breastlunge
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wrongdoing-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-arrest.html


Vastly different culture then of course. 'Jiggling' was pretty much equivalent to a modern day high 5.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

My Dad is late sixties and he looks at breasts a lot, going out to the shops or anywhere with my dad will inevitably involve him looking at som girls boobs. Because he has awful teeth he actually sometimes drools when he sees a really nice pair of breasts like the wolf from those old cartoons 

If I live into my late 60s I fully intend to stare at breasts and drool like a 60s man, I might even hit myself on the head with a comedy hammer.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Nov 17, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> My Dad is late sixties and he looks at breasts a lot, going out to the shops or anywhere with my dad will inevitably involve him looking at som girls boobs. Because he has awful teeth he actually sometimes drools when he sees a really nice pair of breasts like the wolf from those old cartoons
> 
> If I live into my late 60s I fully intend to stare at breasts and drool like a 60s man, I might even hit myself on the head with a comedy hammer.


Something we can all aspire to...


----------



## Maltin (Nov 17, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> All I was pointing out was that these people were not always the figures of fun they are now. I suppose John Peel kept his credibility but mainly I was pointing out that people like Peel, DLT, Tony Blackburn, Johnnie Walker, Ed Stewart etc all started off playing music from small ships off the Essex coast. The '67 Marine Broadcasting Offences Act forced the pirate ships off the air & Radio1 had to be formed to replace them. There was no way that UK audiences would have heard US bands like Buffalo Springfield, The Doors, The Amboy Dukes & quite a few alternative British bands without the pirate radio ships & the DJs that got seasick playing the music. Whatever DLT might have done since, he will be respected for that.


In the trailer for this film about a pirate radio ship and the things that went on, I think that the Kenneth Branagh character sums it up best when referring to the DJs "They are a sewer of no morals".  If only more people had listened to people like him at the time, we wouldn't be in this current sorry state of affairs.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> He also just said on the radio that he 'abhorred...anything to do with children or child molestation'
> He IS Partridge.


 
It doesn't help that he's got a Manchester accent, and the same speech pattern as Coogan/Patridge.. Err, I actually rather like the way he's fronting it out.  See what comes of it.


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Geri said:


> WTF are you on about? Emu was abused by Rod, everybody knows that!


Hed cop a plea and get emunity from prosecution


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 17, 2012)

mattie said:


> Is he matey who had the power-whinge on national radio when he got sacked?


 
Yes. But I think he resigned, rather than got sacked.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

isvicthere? said:


> Yes. But I think he resigned, rather than got sacked.


 
It was widely considered that he was going to be fired like most other dinosaur Radio 1 DJs under the new controller of the day, so he jumped before that happened.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2012)

as parodied in smashy and nicey


----------



## clicker (Nov 17, 2012)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if everyone had the gumption to move en masse to the metropolis in the eighties, throw your transistors into the Thames as a cleansing ritual and tune in to Capital Radio, you'd have been regaled by the likes of little Nicky Horne and even littler Graham Dene and been spared the shenanigans of shite DJ'ing.

Also glad Rolf appears to be safe....he signed my British Heart Foundation sponsored swim certificate and I'd not like to think of my achievement as tainted.


----------



## spartacus mills (Nov 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> He's made a huge mistake and done an interview with the Daily Mail, in which he says some strange things.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wrongdoing-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-arrest.html


 
"I'm a human being I'm a man. But I have never walked up to a woman and groped her without her knowing.'


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 17, 2012)

So does he think it's acceptable to grope a woman if you make your intentions known first?


----------



## toggle (Nov 17, 2012)

at least he made sure they knew it was him groping them. surely that makes it all ok to grab


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 17, 2012)

Bet he wouldn't grope Aung San Suu Kyi....or maybe he would, the rotter!


----------



## Hollis (Nov 17, 2012)

As an ex-leading 70s Medallion Man I doubt his attitudes towards women are going to fare too well under scrutiny today..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 17, 2012)

Have I got this right?

He was arrested as part of an enquiry into paedophilia for groping a woman in 1967?


e2a: Oh! Hold on. How old was this 'woman' in 1967?


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

This is a trend now isn't it. Jimmy Saville is a big deal, but this is just bandwagon shite

'David Lee Travis grabbed my bum in 1976, I deserve something'


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 17, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> This is a trend now isn't it. Jimmy Saville is a big deal, but this is just bandwagon shite
> 
> 'David Lee Travis grabbed my bum in 1976, I deserve something'


 
No. I don't think so. Reading a bit more carefully...

He was arrested as part of the Savile enquiry. His defence is simply that 'they are not children'. He apparently placed a hand up a skirt of someone who may now be much older than they were many years ago.

He's guilty IMO.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

If someone is 'attacking' people like that then they should be able to go to the boss and say that he 'attacked' them and the boss should warn them or fire them. It isn't crime


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 17, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> If someone is 'attacking' people like that then they should be able to go to the boss and say that he 'attacked' them and the boss should warn them or fire them. It isn't crime


 
Let's assume he put his hand up a young girls skirt hey? He hasn't denied he put his hand up a skirt. He is just claiming it wasn't the skirt of an underage girl (who may be a woman these days).

The police wouldn't have arrested him under this investigation if it wasn't an underage offence. Also, making his own statement to the media was the biggest mistake he could make.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

I bet lots of cool people were doing it as well as these naff people who noone gives a fuck about anymore

Bob Marley shot a sheriff and nothing happened, it was just like that in the 70s


----------



## albionism (Nov 17, 2012)

Erm, grabbing a woman's breasts, shoving your hand up a woman's skirt, is a crime.
It's called indecent assault.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Let's assume he put his hand up a young girls skirt hey? He hasn't denied he put his hand up a skirt. He is just claiming it wasn't the skirt of an underage girl (who may be a woman these days).
> 
> The police wouldn't have arrested him under this investigation if it wasn't an underage offence. Also, making his own statement to the media was the biggest mistake he could make.


 
Would you sleep with this 12 year old now that she's 21?

To me it's like now that these conservatives don't have their power they are getting their hypocrisy thrown back at them, and people who aren't conservative are acting exactly like the conservatives did scrambling to invent ethical codes to suit 'these times' 

Both sides are scum. political 'I know how people should act' scum who ruin everything for everyone. This 'important' stuff changes like the wind, people hate how tiny and absurd their life is and so they invent these battles and causes but it just makes their life even smaller and more absurd


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

albionism said:


> Erm, grabbing a woman's breasts, shoving your hand up a woman's skirt, is a crime.
> It's called indecent assault.


 
not if she wants it


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 17, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> Would you sleep with this 12 year old now that she's 21?
> 
> To me it's like now that these conservatives don't have their power they are getting their hypocrisy thrown back at them, and people who aren't conservative are acting exactly like the conservatives did scrambling to invent ethical codes to suit 'these times'
> 
> Both sides are scum. political 'I know how people should act' scum who ruin everything for everyone. This 'important' stuff changes like the wind, people hate how tiny and absurd their life is and so they invent these battles and causes but it just makes their life even smaller and more absurd


 
I think you're missing the most important point. It isn't about 'these conservatives'. It is about justice for the abused. If they choose to take limelight to see justice, then so be it. If they wish to remain silent, then so be.

I think it is pretty sick that the likes of DLT see fit to give impromptu press calls on the back of all this, but it is the life he has always known. He probably still lives in a deluded World.

I met a radio DJ of the same era about 2 years ago. Totally obsessed by his age. The way he removed his sunglasses to 'reveal' his identity made me feel so sad for him.

In some respects I give understanding to the different age they all lived in. The line between paedophilia and sexual harassment is going to be very difficult to distinguish. Both are crimes.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 17, 2012)

The difference between paedophilia and sexual harassment isn't difficult to distinguish.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> Would you sleep with this 12 year old now that she's 21?
> 
> To me it's like now that these conservatives don't have their power they are getting their hypocrisy thrown back at them, and people who aren't conservative are acting exactly like the conservatives did scrambling to invent ethical codes to suit 'these times'
> 
> Both sides are scum. political 'I know how people should act' scum who ruin everything for everyone. This 'important' stuff changes like the wind, people hate how tiny and absurd their life is and so they invent these battles and causes but it just makes their life even smaller and more absurd




They can still comfort themselves that they're not you, though.


----------



## Chook (Nov 18, 2012)

The application of the law has always been arbitrary. This will not change, although recent technological advances have altered the balance of power.

Sometimes circumstances force issues to be dealt with when otherwise they would lay dormant. The initial focus on the culture at the BBC in previous decades clearly led to Glitter, Starr and Travis being named by potential witnesses and plod would have serious PR problems if they did not act on these cases. The MET's wilful complicity in covering for NI has shown us how those in power are incapable of acting for the common good. Just as Mulcaire and Goodman were prosecuted whilst the real picture of corruption, blackmail and illegality was concealed, there is every chance that a few "scumbag celebrities" will be thrown out as chaff whilst squadrons of stealth bummers and their protectors carry on regardless.

We cannot leave this one to Nick Davies. Rather than outsourcing justice to defamation lawyers, we must crowdsource as best we can. The asocial media have no motive other than profit to guide them, so if anything is going to force the issue it will have to be us.

The Arab spring showed how the wider understanding of the corruption and hypocrisy of their ruling elite was a game changer. John Nash showed that if you want to change the outcome of a game you have to change the rules. This must be achieved, or the coverup of the coverup of the ... will continue.

I will be ordering a copy of McAlpines memoir "Once a Jolly Bagman." on the basis that Piers Morgan shot himself in the face in his book "Insiders." I expect that it will be worthy of it's own thread.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They can still comfort themselves that they're not you, though.


 
You could do a lot lot worse than being me mate. like being you for example


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2012)

Maltin said:


> In the trailer for this film about a pirate radio ship and the things that went on, I think that the Kenneth Branagh character sums it up best when referring to the DJs "They are a sewer of no morals". If only more people had listened to people like him at the time, we wouldn't be in this current sorry state of affairs.




There's an extremely dodgy scene in that film where Frost is about to have sex with a girl and he switches places with a young lad in the dark so the girl doesn't know.  It's played as a funny, but it's basically rape.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 18, 2012)

it's not rape. it's surprise sex!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 18, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> it's not rape. it's surprise sex!


 
Do you have any idea how fucking sad you are?


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 18, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> I bet lots of cool people were doing it as well as these naff people who noone gives a fuck about anymore
> 
> Bob Marley shot a sheriff seeand nothing happened, it was just like that in the 70s



Had he shot a deputy, however, it might have been more serious.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> it's not rape. it's surprise sex!


And on that note, the temp ban moves into a permanent one, Goodbye ninja.


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

Geri said:


> WTF are you on about? Emu was abused by Rod, everybody knows that!


 
I've been waiting weeks for someone to make this suggestion:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-emu-to-grope-his-fans-says-eric-bristow.html



> *LEGENDARY children’s entertainer Rod Hull was a “pervert” who used his puppet Emu to molest fans, claims Eric Bristow.*​
> The darts ace, 55, tells in his autobiography, The Crafty Cockney, how he was horrified to see Hull groping audience members.​
> Hardman Eric even threatened to knock Hull *OUT* live on television when the TV star was a guest on the 1983 Bullseye Christmas special.​​The I’m A Celebrity campmate wrote: “I didn’t like Rod Hull. He was a pervert who was getting away with something that wasn’t right.​​“He used the puppet to feel up women and stick his hand between people’s legs. It was out of order.”​


​​


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2012)

my god is no-one innocent?


----------



## Firky (Nov 18, 2012)

.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> There's an extremely dodgy scene in that film where Frost is about to have sex with a girl and he switches places with a young lad in the dark so the girl doesn't know. It's played as a funny, but it's basically rape.


 
I'm ashamed to say that we saw that film (The Boat That Rocked), about a year ago, and I simply don't remember that particular scene


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 19, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> it's not rape. it's surprise sex!


Whack whack OOPS!


----------



## Chook (Nov 19, 2012)

Australia has a sordid history of covering up child abuse, our PM has recently taken action. The main problem is Cardinal Pell from Sydney, a man with more history than my local library. Hoping that it does some good. We had a mini Leveson type inquiry which sank without a trace, but it did upset Rupert before it did, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/gillard-launches-royal-commission-into-child-abuse/4367364

A culture of chauvinism is well established in the Universities, and is extremely unlikely to change.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-tells-of-college-rape-joke-and-groping-20121116-29hj9.html

A Catholic college in Sydney demonstrates the scale of the problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/college-scandal-police-move-in-20121109-293e8.html

This is probably more relevant in another thread, and I should have posted the second link before Biggus was cut off in his prime.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 19, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> There's an extremely dodgy scene in that film where Frost is about to have sex with a girl and he switches places with a young lad in the dark so the girl doesn't know. It's played as a funny, but it's basically rape.


potential rape. the plan gets thwarted at the last minute.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 19, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Do you have any idea how fucking sad you are?


Praise from Caesar.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 19, 2012)

fogbat said:


> Praise from Caesar.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 19, 2012)

editor said:


> And on that note, the temp ban moves into a permanent one, Goodbye ninja.


given the film scene being discussed there, that seems a bit harsh.

That's basically how the film portrayed it, which I thought was all ninj was saying.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2012)

free spirit said:


> given the film scene being discussed there, that seems a bit harsh.
> 
> That's basically how the film portrayed it, which I thought was all ninj was saying.


He was *already banned* and shouldn't have sneaked back in the first place, so we've hardly been harsh.  And his temp ban moved to a very permanent one after he threw a load of nasty insults  my way on facebook.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 6, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The line between paedophilia and sexual harassment is going to be very difficult to distinguish. Both are crimes.


 
drink driving wasnt considered socially unacceptable back then either . Neither was smoking in the pub. Crimes today . Allegedly feeling a grown womans arse -suspposedly a BBC employee at the time - in the 1970s isnt remotely hard to distinguish from sexually abusing children, for fucks sake .


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 13, 2013)

Been arrested again


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 3, 2014)

Chuckle Brothers deny knowledge of DLT's alleged grope on 'Aladdin' pantomime stage hand.
Somehow that's just not right.


----------



## Yetman (Feb 3, 2014)

(removed - FM)


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2014)

Yetman said:


> one of them was a wife beater .


 Really?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Really?


I also would like to hear the evidence of this.

ETA : since the allegation has been removed, I will assume it was gossip and unsubstantiated.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2014)

(Don't bloody quote it and then add smileys - FM)


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2014)

serious amount of charges against him


One count of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 1976 and Dec 31, 1977
One count of indecent assault on a 15-year-old girl on Jun 17, 1978
One count of indecent assault on a woman on Jun 29, 1978
One count of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 1981 and Dec 31, 1983
One count of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 1983 and Mar 2, 1984
One count of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 1983 and Dec 31, 1984
One count of indecent assault on a woman between Nov 1, 1990 and Jan 31, 1991
Two counts of indecent assault on a woman between Nov 1, 1992 and Jan 1, 1993
Three counts of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 2000 and Dec 31, 2003
One count of indecent assault on a woman between Jan 1, 2000 and Dec 31, 2003
One count of sexual assault on a woman between Jun 1, 2008 and Nov
and one of his mates testifying for him probably caused a few people to choke to death with this gem

_Former BBC radio producer David Tate rejected suggestions Mr Travis was a "sexual predator"._...
....*He said he "strongly believed" any complaints of sexual assault at the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s would have been taken seriously.*

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26019626*

David Tate is probably the only person in the world who holds that belief at this stage .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2014)

Yetman said:


> Well I'm not saying that the Chuckle brothers


Maybe I missed some sort of memo that went round about this.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 3, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Maybe I missed some sort of memo that went round about this.


There was a _memo??? _


----------



## andysays (Feb 3, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Maybe I missed some sort of memo that went round about this.



It must have gone "to me, but not to you"...


----------



## Yetman (Feb 3, 2014)

Sorry FM. Moment of madness


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 3, 2014)

i thought hed stayed within the rules....somehow. Sorry for quoting


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2014)

He's been cleared.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 13, 2014)

editor said:


> He's been cleared.


...of _some_ but not _all_ charges.

Crown has been given a fortnight to decide on whether to go for a retrial on one count of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault on which the jury couldn't reach a verdict.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

<removed: author>

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ile-investigation.302095/page-6#post-12929581


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

edited to remove existentialist's libellous comments


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> OTHER victims? if he's been cleared then the people who accused him of those offences weren't - legally speaking - victims.


<removed: author>


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> OTHER victims? if he's been cleared then the people who accused him of those offences weren't - legally speaking - victims.



His listeners were the real victims like Aung san suu kyi, as if she hadn't suffered enough being forced to listen to the lairy cornflake for all those years under house arrest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

<deleted to remove more libellous comments from @existentialist>


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you thick or something? there are victims of sexual assaults, and then there are the people who accused dlt of the offences of which he has been cleared. in the eyes of the law the people who accused dlt of the offences of which he has been cleared are not victims unless you know something of their history which hasn't been widely reported. failing that, the two groups are, legally speaking,discrete. btw it's not for you to say whether you're making a suggestion of guilt, it may be a matter for a jury.


There's really no need to be rude, you know. I think the original statement I made is perfectly reasonable as a statement of opinion. I suggest that if you feel that it's actionable, you report the post, and the mods can decide: if they decide it is, and take the post down, I'm not going to argue. But there really isn't any point me getting into a punchup with you about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There's really no need to be rude, you know. I think the original statement I made is perfectly reasonable as a statement of opinion. I suggest that if you feel that it's actionable, you report the post, and the mods can decide: if they decide it is, and take the post down, I'm not going to argue. But there really isn't any point me getting into a punchup with you about it.


if you're going to greet someone's acquittal on 12 counts of sexual assault charges with comments about how you hope this won't deter _other_ victims from coming forwards i have to wonder whether what you feel is perfectly reasonable is really perfectly reasonable, when a court of law's determined that dave lee travis's accusers were not in fact victims in the eyes of the law.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if you're going to greet someone's acquittal on 12 counts of sexual assault charges with comments about how you hope this won't deter _other_ victims from coming forwards i have to wonder whether what you feel is perfectly reasonable is really perfectly reasonable, when a court of law's determined that dave lee travis's accusers were not in fact victims in the eyes of the law.


Report the post, then.

The court of law made no determination about any victims: it determined that Travis was not guilty of the offences he was accused of. Nothing I have said was said with anything other than that in mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Report the post, then.
> 
> The court of law made no determination about any victims: it determined that Travis was not guilty of the offences he was accused of. Nothing I have said was said with anything other than that in mind.


it's a simple point i am saddened you cannot apparently comprehend: to use an analogy if you say i smacked you and a court says i didn't and someone then says i smacked you i can sue them for libel. or, in this case, if someone says they were molested and a court finds the accused not guilty, suggesting he was guilty - no matter if it is intended - may be justification for an action. and it's not what you meant so much as whether yer man wishes to sue. at your insistence i've reported your post.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a simple point i am saddened you cannot apparently comprehend: if you say i smacked you and a court says i didn't and someone says i smacked you i can sue them for libel.


*sigh* 

Look, there's no point this thread being derailed because you insist I've crossed a line and I insist I haven't. What I had to say in that post was not so groundbreaking that it has to remain, so I shall go back and remove it, in the interest of harmony. You may wish, given your concerns, to edit your quotes.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a simple point i am saddened you cannot apparently comprehend: if you say i smacked you and a court says i didn't and someone then says i smacked you i can sue them for libel.


If you said you were smacked and existentialist did it, but the court find him not guilty, that doesn't mean they are saying you weren't smacked. Just that he wasn't the one who smacked you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> If you said you were smacked and existentialist did it, but the court find him not guilty, that doesn't mean they are saying you weren't smacked. Just that he wasn't the one who smacked you.


yes and so he would be justified in suing if people said he did it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Look, there's no point this thread being derailed because you insist I've crossed a line and I insist I haven't. What I had to say in that post was not so groundbreaking that it has to remain, so I shall go back and remove it, in the interest of harmony. You may wish, given your concerns, to edit your quotes.


your post 158, you might want to deal with that while you're about it


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> your post 158, you might want to deal with that while you're about it


If you say so...


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

*D*e*L*e*T*e


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> edited to remove existentialist's libellous comments


Gracious in victory, I see. Still, if that's how you choose to interpret my attempt at goodwill...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Gracious in victory, I see.


as ever 


> Still, if that's how you choose to interpret my attempt at goodwill...


no, it's how i interpret your original comments


----------



## Wilf (Feb 13, 2014)

So what's the score now on post-savile sleb arrests?  Couple of people who were involved with him have been convicted, along with Stuart Hall.  All the rest not-guilty, no further action or with charges still under investigation?

Suspect there will be an inquest in the cps over some of these cases - whether they felt forced into the prosecutions after the Savile failures but guessing they were almost impossible to prove/win given the age of the prosecutions.  Don't want to say anything to make ed twitchy, but let's just say I'm sure the investigating officers were convinced on the charges (as well as the obvious _general_ points about the under reporting and prosecution of abuse).  However, how all this ran through the cps and whether they felt bounced into prosecutions given their own previous inaction will be an interesting study.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So what's the score now on post-savile sleb arrests?  Couple of people who were involved with him have been convicted, along with Stuart Hall.  All the rest not-guilty, no further action or with charges still under investigation?
> 
> Suspect there will be an inquest in the cps over some of these cases - whether they felt forced into the prosecutions after the Savile failures but guessing they were almost impossible to prove/win given the age of the prosecutions.  Don't want to say anything to make ed twitchy, but let's just say I'm sure the investigating officers were convinced on the charges (as well as the obvious _general_ points about the under reporting and prosecution of abuse).  However, how all this ran through the cps and whether they felt bounced into prosecutions given their own previous inaction will be an interesting study.


when you say there'll be a cps inquest, someone's career's died anyway


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2014)

Were Jimmy still alive you'd have to imagine he'd be leaving court around now, having been cleared of 700 charges, giving the big thumbs up, cigar in gob,saying he'd appreciate being left alone right now to spend time with his mother's corpse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Were Jimmy still alive you'd have to imagine he'd be leaving court around now, having been cleared of 700 charges, giving the big thumbs up, cigar in gob,saying he'd appreciate being left alone right now to spend time with his mother's corpse.


no, you'd have to imagine he'd still be scrabbling about in his coffin


----------



## Wilf (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you'd have to imagine he'd still be scrabbling about in his coffin


I don't think he ever played Scrabble with the cadaver.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I don't think he ever played Scrabble with the cadaver.


That was jimmy. Sorry. Not funny.

edit: serious issues.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That was jimmy. Sorry. Not funny.
> 
> edit: serious issues.


Fair enough. To be honest there's an awkward moment when these judgements are announced, you've got to accept that it might have been the right result full stop, you've got to respect the integrity of the site, but you've also got things you want to say. As you can't really get into that, crass stuff comes out - but fair point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Fair enough. To be honest there's an awkward moment when these judgements are announced, you've got to accept that it might have been the right result full stop, you've got to respect the integrity of the site, but you've also got things you want to say. As you can't really get into that, crass stuff comes out - but fair point.


let the crass stuff out: this is after all urban and it's what we do


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That was jimmy. Sorry. Not funny.
> 
> edit: serious issues.



eh? it was jimmy he was joking about?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes and so he would be justified in suing if people said he did it



No, not if he actually did it. It's quite conceivable that you will get different verdicts in civil and criminal courts.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> No, not if he actually did it. It's quite conceivable that you will get different verdicts in civil and criminal courts.



WTF! Actually did what? Something he's just been legally cleared of doing?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So what's the score now on post-savile sleb arrests?  Couple of people who were involved with him have been convicted, along with Stuart Hall.  All the rest not-guilty, no further action or with charges still under investigation?
> 
> Suspect there will be an inquest in the cps over some of these cases - whether they felt forced into the prosecutions after the Savile failures but guessing they were almost impossible to prove/win given the age of the prosecutions.  Don't want to say anything to make ed twitchy, but let's just say I'm sure the investigating officers were convinced on the charges (as well as the obvious _general_ points about the under reporting and prosecution of abuse).  However, how all this ran through the cps and whether they felt bounced into prosecutions given their own previous inaction will be an interesting study.


How come these cases are the exception to the usual assumptions about the police round these parts?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> No, not if he actually did it. It's quite conceivable that you will get different verdicts in civil and criminal courts.


pls engage brain before posting in future as your contribution makes no sense. yer man's just been cleared of 12 counts of sexual assault. someone saying that he in fact assaulted those women he's been cleared of attacking could indeed be sued by him. as i said above, it would be up to a jury - and, yes, i am well aware of the differing burdens of proof existing in civil and criminal courts. are you honestly saying that you think that despite the fairly clear-cut verdict today that the jury got it wrong?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault. So either Kevin Le Vell, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis are either all the victims of a statistical rarity or they're sexual predators that got off the hook. I know what I believe in my mind.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pls engage brain before posting in future as your contribution makes no sense. yer man's just been cleared of 12 counts of sexual assault. someone saying that he in fact assaulted those women he's been cleared of attacking could indeed be sued by him. as i said above, it would be up to a jury - and, yes, i am well aware of the differing burdens of proof existing in civil and criminal courts. are you honestly saying that you think that despite the fairly clear-cut verdict today that the jury got it wrong?



I was talking purely about your hypothetical example so please do engage your brain if it's not too much trouble.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault. So either Kevin Le Vell, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis are either all the victims of a statistical rarity or they're sexual predators that got off the hook. I know what I believe in my mind.


what you believe may be correct but my concern is whether there'll be an urban on which to discuss it. stupid potentially libellous comments won't ensure the site's longevity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I was talking purely about your hypothetical example so please do engage your brain if it's not too much trouble.


even on that basis your post left something to be desired.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

I agree. Which is why I've chosen to be careful with the words I choose.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> even on that basis your post left something to be desired.



No I don't think it did. You were hypothesising about an event that, with certainty, occurred. It would be very foolish to sue on that basis if you, as the plaintiff, know that.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> WTF! Actually did what? Something he's just been legally cleared of doing?



Keep up.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault.



Can you expand on this Grandma Death?.... and be specific cos I can't really tell what your point is... or where you get your statistics from.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Can you expand on this Grandma Death?.... and be specific cos I can't really tell what your point is... or where you get your statistics from.


pluckt from thin air i wouldn't be surprised


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Can you expand on this Grandma Death?.... and be specific cos I can't really tell what your point is... or where you get your statistics from.



False allegations of rape/sexual assault are statistically rare. I'm sure I've read a figure previously they've constituted around 2% of allegations made. I could be wrong and I read that years ago. In Le Vells case that was a one on one allegation. In Roaches and Travis's case there were a number of allegations made by several unconnected victims. So essentially it's a statistically rare occurrence happening several times against one individual OR the allegations were true but they were found not guilty. 

Essentially it's one persons word against another. Added to that the passage of time means the allegations may well have seemed less credible or unable to be subjected to the scrutiny of how accurate they are by a defense lawyer then the odds are the allegations wouldn't stick.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 13, 2014)

Didn't we have a huge bunfight about this a few months ago?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pluckt from thin air i wouldn't be surprised



5‰ according to this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808

Thanks for your contribution though pickmans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> 5‰ according to this :
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808
> 
> Thanks for your contribution though pickmans.


so 2.5x your not plucked out of the air 2%


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so 2.5x your not plucked out of the air 2%



The difference between 2‰.and 5‰.doesnt make it any less a statistically rarity-hate to point out the bleeding obvious like. 

Not sure what I've done to upset you but it appears to me that quite often on the the rare occasions I use urban you appear to be on my case somewhat. 

That's fine. You mean nothing to me and if you want to continue being a dick that's your perogative. I can't help you with that. So carry on... As you were. Which I'm sure you will.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> The difference between 2‰.and 5‰.doesnt make it any less a statistically rarity-hate to point out the bleeding obvious like.
> 
> Not sure what I've done to upset you but it appears to me that quite often on the the rare occasions I use urban you appear to be on my case somewhat.
> 
> That's fine. You mean nothing to me and if you want to continue being a dick that's your perogative. I can't help you with that. So carry on... As you were. Which I'm sure you will.


He had his head put up his arse on this very topic a while ago. It's a bit of a bee in his bonnet it seems.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> He had his head put up his arse on this very topic a while ago. It's a bit of a bee in his bonnet it seems.



Clearly. Splitting hairs about the difference between 2 and 5% says quite a lot actually.


----------



## Corax (Feb 13, 2014)

I've not been following this case, and I wouldn't dispute those figures. 

But as a general question, I wondered if the publicity around Yewtree, in addition to exposing a large number of rapists and abusers, might also have increased the proportion of false claims (whether 'malicious' or otherwise)? 

I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know if that would be the case or not. It was just a potential possibility I found myself pondering on.


----------



## Supine (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault. So either Kevin Le Vell, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis are either all the victims of a statistical rarity or they're sexual predators that got off the hook. I know what I believe in my mind.



You have a dangerously bad understanding of how statistics work...

Innocent until proven guilty is a very powerful concept too...


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Supine said:


> You have a dangerously bad understanding of how statistics work...
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty is a very powerful concept too...



What's there to misunderstand about the 5% figure?


----------



## Thora (Feb 13, 2014)

False allegations of rape are about the same as false allegations of other crimes, aren't they?

And yet if someone isn't convicted of burglary, the assumption doesn't seem to be that they are innocent and the "victim" is a liar in the same way as with rape cases.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Thora said:


> False allegations of rape are about the same as false allegations of other crimes, aren't they?
> 
> And yet if someone isn't convicted of burglary, the assumption doesn't seem to be that they are innocent and the "victim" is a liar in the same way as with rape cases.


I think that was what I was trying to say in my (now deleted) posts. 

Our justice system isn't infallible, so, while we must of course abide by the verdict that a court delivers, it doesn't always follow that the victim wasn't a victim.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> I've not been following this case, and I wouldn't dispute those figures.
> 
> But as a general question, I wondered if the publicity around Yewtree, in addition to exposing a large number of rapists and abusers, might also have increased the proportion of false claims (whether 'malicious' or otherwise)?
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know if that would be the case or not. It was just a potential possibility I found myself pondering on.



Of course that's a possibility. But even if it doubled from 5% to 10% then it'd still be a statistical rarity. 

I'm no psychologist either. But it's easy to see why a trickle becomes a flood. People draw strength from seeing others come forward. Conditions may make it easier for others to come forward (for example police appealing for victims to make statements)... And it's happened historically from sex abuse in children's homes, abuse within the Catholic Church etc. 

What irritates me somewhat is the underlying simmering attitude of dismissal and belittling of these allegations. 

I heard a friend of Lord Rennard on R4 last week describe one of the allegations as just a 'hand on a trousered leg some fifteen years ago'.. I mean really. On one end we have' It's just a harmless grope ' to the other end of the scale' they were drunk or asking for it'

Whenever you there's cases like this the statistical rarity of false allegations rears its head which then leads on to anonymity for the accused which sadly is now appearing to get some traction. 

There are thousands of burglaries every day in this country and a tiny minority of those will be inside insurance jobs. Yet any discussion about household burglaries never appears to be about those minority cases. 

Yet you can guarantee rape or sexual abuse debates will inevitably have some element of doubt thrown in. Look even we're debating it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> The difference between 2‰.and 5‰.doesnt make it any less a statistically rarity-hate to point out the bleeding obvious like.
> 
> Not sure what I've done to upset you but it appears to me that quite often on the the rare occasions I use urban you appear to be on my case somewhat.
> 
> That's fine. You mean nothing to me and if you want to continue being a dick that's your perogative. I can't help you with that. So carry on... As you were. Which I'm sure you will.


it seems i've quoted you about 30 times in 4 years. that doesn't make me the cyberstalker you suggest i am.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> He had his head put up his arse on this very topic a while ago. It's a bit of a bee in his bonnet it seems.


fuck me but thick as pigshit cunts are out in force today i see. which part of 'don't make potentially libellous statements about dave lee travis' don't understand you twat?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it seems i've quoted you about 30 times in 4 years. that doesn't make me the cyberstalker you suggest i am.



I never suggested you were. But the fact you appear to have counted the amount of times you quoted me speaks volumes. 

That aside. I'm not sure why you were even arguing the toss over figures. Picking holes in the difference between 2% and 5% seems somewhat ridiculous no? 

I mean you agree 5% is a statistical rarity yeah? Or was it the fact my figures weren't plucked out of thin air and you chose to pick holes in a very slight difference?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 13, 2014)

Fuchs66 said:


> How come these cases are the exception to the usual assumptions about the police round these parts?


What are you getting at?


----------



## TruXta (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck me but thick as pigshit cunts are out in force today i see. which part of 'don't make potentially libellous statements about dave lee travis' don't understand you twat?


I'm talking about LiamO, no fucking idea what you're on about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> I'm talking about LiamO, no fucking idea what you're on about.


you are thick as pigshit then if you reply to a grandma death post about me thinking it's about liam


----------



## existentialist (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Of course that's a possibility. But even if it doubled from 5% to 10% then it'd still be a statistical rarity.
> 
> I'm no psychologist either. But it's easy to see why a trickle becomes a flood. People draw strength from seeing others come forward. Conditions may make it easier for others to come forward (for example police appealing for victims to make statements)... And it's happened historically from sex abuse in children's homes, abuse within the Catholic Church etc.



[ETA: for the record, the following is general comment, and not about any particular court case, whether pending, closed, or in progress. Just to make that abundantly clear]

It takes a great deal of trust to disclose past abuse, particularly since we have societally tended not to respond very supportively to people disclosing rape, sexual assault, or child sexual abuse...but even without that, the shame and fear that often accompanies being on the receiving end of those tends not to encourage people to risk their necks.

The Savile revelations achieved two things: first, they enabled the police (and society in general) to demonstrate a different attitude towards people disclosing offences, listening instead of dismissing; secondly, it only took a trickle of the more courageous victims coming forward to enable those who are a bit more timid, hesitant, or suspicious to disclose, too, turning that trickle into a flood.

It's probably unfortunate that this phenomenon could just as easily be used to describe a "me too" catalogue of false allegations, although I would be really surprised, given what anyone making such an allegation has to go through, if very many people did this: quite apart from giving evidence in court, the whole police interview process is pretty intrusive (as it should be), and I really am not sure how many people would want to put their privacy on the line in the way anyone making an allegation such as those is risking doing. Yes, there will be the attention-seekers, and maybe even the compensation vultures, but I imagine they'd  be a tiny minority, and would in all likelihood get weeded out at the earlier stages of the investigation anyway.

The bottom line here is that - rightly - these historical allegations are very hard to prove: there's no forensic evidence to go on, and unless the police are lucky enough to have witnesses, or corroboration from other victims, it's all pretty thin. And, as the law stands, if we can't prove that someone committed the offence to an acceptable standard, we acquit them. And rightly so.

But what really bothers me would be that, once we've seen a few celebrity acquittals, public sympathy for people who *have* been abused might start to reverse, and we end up returning to the situation where anyone making allegations is simply not believed, or is written off as a gold-digger or attention seeker. There's been some good progress made since Savile, and I would hate to see all that undone.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you are thick as pigshit then if you reply to a grandma death post about me thinking it's about liam


Ah I see, my bad. Cuntface.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Ah I see, my bad. Cuntface.


charmed


----------



## Wilf (Feb 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> I've not been following this case, and I wouldn't dispute those figures.
> 
> But as a general question, I wondered if the publicity around Yewtree, in addition to exposing a large number of rapists and abusers, might also have increased the proportion of false claims (whether 'malicious' or otherwise)?
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know if that would be the case or not. It was just a potential possibility I found myself pondering on.


That's where I was a page or so back really, wondering whether the cps is bouncing from long term inaction to going for cases that are never going to ever get there ('historical'), as a reaction to Savile.  Don't mean they shouldn't and I don't know the details of the cases, just wondering whether these are essentially defensive prosecutions, defensive that is in terms of _defending the cps_ against charges of inaction.   Goes without saying I accept the overall picture in terms of the under reporting and prosecution of abuse and rape.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> charmed


No you're not. You're a terrible liar.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> [ETA: for the record, the following is general comment, and not about any particular court case, whether pending, closed, or in progress. Just to make that abundantly clear]
> 
> It takes a great deal of trust to disclose past abuse, particularly since we have societally tended not to respond very supportively to people disclosing rape, sexual assault, or child sexual abuse...but even without that, the shame and fear that often accompanies being on the receiving end of those tends not to encourage people to risk their necks.
> 
> ...



I think that's an interesting point. I've been having the very same debate with a family member who herself was the victim of an attempted rape that was seen through to a successful prosecution. 

It's difficult isn't it. The police and cps are faced with a large body of evidence albeit historical witness statements and if no action was taken then they'd be no doubt criticised for that as well. 

I guess if the downside of these cases are future cases may be not taken as seriously then maybe that's the price that has to be paid. It's not acceptable and it's a very high price to be paid. But also allowing alleged perpetrators to allegedly evade the justice system and worse case scenario go on to commit further crimes is also a scenario most wouldn't want to see. It's a fine line I guess and I'm not paid to make that decision thankfully. That's left to others.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> 5‰ according to this :
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808
> 
> Thanks for your contribution though pickmans.



isnt that 5 per cent determined by people actually prosecuted and convicted for making one ?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> isnt that 5 per cent determined by people actually prosecuted and convicted for making one ?



5% of all rape allegations reported according to that piece.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 13, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> 5% of all rape allegations reported according to that piece.



well there must be a legal mechanism for proving they were false,which is a serious criminal offence, how else would they know ?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 13, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> well there must be a legal mechanism for proving they were false,which is a serious criminal offence, how else would they know ?



I can't qualify whether that figure is for false allegations taken through the judicial system or its also made up official police warnings against perpetrators that don't end out in the courts. You're asking the wrong person sorry.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault. So either Kevin Le Vell, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis are either all the victims of a statistical rarity or they're sexual predators that got off the hook. I know what I believe in my mind.



Louis Walsh was the victim of a statistical rarity too. He was fortunate to have CCTV evidence backing him up, thereby avoiding a courtcase . Playing the statistics game with well known celebrities is a different kettle of fish than with joe soaps like me and you . They, male and female,  attract the attentions of weirdos,stalkers  the disturbed, the fame hungry and the money hungry  as a matter of course. People who would wish to do them harm for weird reasons we would find difficult to understand . Therefore statistically an attempt to do them harm in this manner by unrelated people is a lot more likely than for the likes of me and you .
Personally I thought all 3 were guilty initially. I find Roache in particular well creepy . But thats not evidence and evidence is essential, no matter what the crime. Anything your making your mind up on is just personal prejudice and nothing else .


----------



## Sirena (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> But thats not evidence and evidence is essential, no matter what the crime. Anything your making your mind up on is just personal prejudice and nothing else .


 
I agree.  Cases like this are prone to moral panic, wild accusations and agendas.  You just have to allow the case to be heard in court and let the jury decide.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> [ETA: for the record, the following is general comment, and not about any particular court case, whether pending, closed, or in progress. Just to make that abundantly clear]
> The bottom line here is that - rightly - these historical allegations are very hard to prove: there's no forensic evidence to go on, and unless the police are lucky enough to have witnesses, or corroboration from other victims, it's all pretty thin. And, as the law stands, if we can't prove that someone committed the offence to an acceptable standard, we acquit them. And rightly so.



It seems reasonable to guess that the CPS decided that such weaknesses in prosecutable evidence could be somewhat compensated for if a large enough number of alleged victims came forward and a pattern of behaviour could be demonstrated. But recent case verdicts suggest that if each claim considered individually still don't offer the jury enough confidence in the prosecution case, the whole pattern thing doesn't necessary bolster the case sufficiently either.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> Louis Walsh was the victim of a statistical rarity too. He was fortunate to have CCTV evidence backing him up, thereby avoiding a courtcase . Playing the statistics game with well known celebrities is a different kettle of fish than with joe soaps like me and you . They, male and female,  attract the attentions of weirdos,stalkers  the disturbed, the fame hungry and the money hungry  as a matter of course. People who would wish to do them harm for weird reasons we would find difficult to understand . Therefore statistically an attempt to do them harm in this manner by unrelated people is a lot more likely than for the likes of me and you .
> Personally I thought all 3 were guilty initially. I find Roache in particular well creepy . But thats not evidence and evidence is essential, no matter what the crime. Anything your making your mind up on is just personal prejudice and nothing else .



The fame factor cannot be dismissed I agree. I remember reading similar suggestions and editorials at the start of the Savile case. Then the trickle turned into a flood. 

However in these cases one cannot ignore the context. That is one of the most prolific serial pedophiles in UK history opened up the doors for many people stepping forward coupled with a judiciary willing to sit up and take notice. 

Sure there may well be false allegations and quite possibly higher than the quoted average but we shouldn't really be discussing this as the issue it really isn't. 

I say that because in the scheme of things we cannot forget the Crown prosecution service will have given these cases great consideration before taken these cases as far as they did. They will have considered all legal avenues and the pitfalls if they weren't successful. 

On the basis of the evidence they decided there was a case to answer. 

Sure the cps aren't perfect but their legal take on it indicates far more worth and credibility to me than you and I discussing speculation about whether these cases were or without substance. 

Along with the trickle to flood of reporting of previous widespread abuse cases then for me it indicates a great deal of legitimacy and credibility to the victims in some cases.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 14, 2014)

well in fairness that case against Le Vell was a complete load of insane shit that should never have gotten to court in the first place imho. I havent paid as much attention to these 2 but Ive seen at least one instance were an accusation against Travis was refuted by a female eyewitness who pointed out Travis wife was there as well as her .
This is the same system that let filth like saville and others walk free, and send kids to jail for making jokes on the internet  . Theyre careerists with fuck all credibility covering their backs for previous inaction in my view .


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> well in fairness that case against Le Vell was a complete load of insane shit that should never have gotten to court in the first place imho. I havent paid as much attention to these 2 but Ive seen at least one instance were an accusation against Travis was refuted by a female eyewitness who pointed out Travis wife was there as well as her .
> This is the same system that let filth like saville and others walk free, and send kids to jail for making jokes on the internet  . Theyre careerists with fuck all credibility covering their backs for previous inaction in my view .



Well some of those cases irritated me too. But generally on the whole... They've put a lot of bad people away. That can't be ignored either. Without picking through the bones of Travis's case his wife being there may make it less likely he'd behave inappropriately but it doesn't make it impossible.


----------



## toggle (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> isnt that 5 per cent determined by people actually prosecuted and convicted for making one ?



no. Last thread about false allegations I posted up the cps report on their prosecutions for that crime. Can't recall the exact figure, but it was under 100 per year, with the comment that most false allegations were made by people who were young and vulnerable in some way. reading between the lines of that report, there seemed to be suggestion that a lot of the false rape claims that were passed onto them
were made by aggrieved relatives of lasses who didn't like who their lass was sleeping with. 



Casually Red said:


> well there must be a legal mechanism for proving they were false,which is a serious criminal offence, how else would they know ?



the problem is that how do you determine which allegations are deliberately/maliciously false. there have been numerous examples of police recording rape as 'no crime' when the victim dosen't fit their opinion of what a proper victim should act like, retraction as a guide is very unreliable because complainants often retract for other reasons, like their mental health, or pressure from someone.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> What are you getting at?


Nothing behind it, just that in the majority of cases, discussions here tend to go in favour of the defendants rather than the police. I'm just curious as to why Urbs believe that the team investigating these particular cases are so much more competent/less corrupt etc


----------



## LiamO (Feb 14, 2014)

Fuchs66 said:


> Nothing behind it, just that in the majority of cases, discussions here tend to go in favour of the defendants rather than the police. I'm just curious as to why Urbs believe that the team investigating these particular cases are so much more competent/less corrupt etc



Because the uncomfortable truth is that far too many people on here decide the guilt/innocence of (particularly celebrity) defendants based mostly on their own personal & political prejudice






... just like all those Daily Mail readers they 'hate' so much are are soooooooo different from


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Clearly. Splitting hairs about the difference between 2 and 5% says quite a lot actually.


you have a very strange attitude to evidence.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> your allegation that 0.01% is common says even more



Oh please do go away. You are getting rather tiresome now.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Because the uncomfortable truth is that far too many people on here decide the guilt/innocence of (particularly celebrity) defendants based mostly on their own personal & political prejudice
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Deciding guilt based on prejudices isn't acceptable but weighing up the balance of evidence then making a judgement that may not concur with the jury isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Oh please do go away. You are getting rather tiresome now.


right. so it's quite alright for you to say what you like, to makeallegations about me. but when i show you're talking shit it gets tiresome to you.  what a dishonest cunt you are.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> right. so it's quite alright for you to say what you like, to makeallegations about me. but when i show you're talking shit it gets tiresome to you.  what a dishonest cunt you are.



Happy valentines day Pickman's. I hope you got some cards mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Happy valentines day Pickman's. I hope you got some cards mate.


where talking shit is shown up similarly unfounded digs about my love life might succeed?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> where talking shit is shown up similarly unfounded digs about my love life might succeed?



Not sure that was a dig. I think he may genuinely hope you receive something that cheers you up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Not sure that was a dig. I think he may genuinely hope you receive something that cheers you up.


an apology, you mean?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> an apology, you mean?



DLT is available for warm hugs and shoulder massages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> DLT is available for warm hugs and shoulder massages, which he never appears to take too far.


yes. but i would prefer an apology from grandma death to a hug of any description from dave lee travis


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Statistically speaking false allegations of rape and sexual assault are incredibly rare. In fact I think they're rarer than actual convictions for rape/assault. So either Kevin Le Vell, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis are either all the victims of a statistical rarity or they're sexual predators that got off the hook. I know what I believe in my mind.



Also, purely speaking statistically, sexual assault cases of all gradients of severity tend to have a lower chance of securing a "guilty" verdict than most other "crimes against the person".  Taking the lack of a conviction to indicate guilt or not may be "proper behaviour", but let's not forget who benefits.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but i would prefer an apology from grandma death to a hug of any description from dave lee travis



I'll hug you if you let me touch your willy


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> I'll hug you if you let me touch your willy


i think i'd prefer a hug from dave lee travis to a hug from you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

Supine said:


> You have a dangerously bad understanding of how statistics work...
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty is a very powerful concept too...



It's a *great* concept in terms of supposedly ensuring the neutrality of a criminal justice system with regard to how a defendant is treated until a conviction is secured or not, but let's not kid ourselves that it goes beyond that.  I'm sure we all know (unless you move in rarified circles) at least one person who's an example of "guilty, but found innocent by a court of law" to counterbalance "innocent until proven guilty".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think i'd prefer a hug from dave lee travis to a hug from you.



Didn't he hug you at one of his radio One Roadshow appearances?


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think i'd prefer a hug from dave lee travis to a hug from you.



Not even sure what you're inferring but dave lee travis is an innocent man. You're inference could potentially bring you into libellous territory and jeopardise the future of urban.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2014)

Corax said:


> I've not been following this case, and I wouldn't dispute those figures.
> 
> But as a general question, I wondered if the publicity around Yewtree, in addition to exposing a large number of rapists and abusers, might also have increased the proportion of false claims (whether 'malicious' or otherwise)?
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know if that would be the case or not. It was just a potential possibility I found myself pondering on.



The problem for all of these "investigations of historic abuse" is a lack of non-circumstantial and non-anecdotal evidence.
In some cases (Cyril "Orca" Smith, for example), what evidence there was, was "lost" or otherwise destroyed.  In others, it could reasonably be posited that victims suffered the fairly common post-assault problem of disassociation, or were prey to the prevailing normative behaviour of the time (which even now is often "don't go to the police, they can't do anything").
In answer to your "general question", publicity *can* promote false claims, *but*, in many cases where this has happened and been studied, the claimants are usually people with a history of making false claims/living a Walter Mitty lifestyle, rather than being bandwagon-jumpers with no prior history of making false allegations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Not even sure what you're inferring but dave lee travis is an innocent man. You're inference could potentially bring you into libellous territory and jeopardise the future of urban.


 it's plain that a hug from you involves some sexual contact. it is not plain that the same is true of a hug from dave lee travis.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 14, 2014)

Fuchs66 said:


> Nothing behind it, just that in the majority of cases, discussions here tend to go in favour of the defendants rather than the police. I'm just curious as to why Urbs believe that the team investigating these particular cases are so much more competent/less corrupt etc


 The reasons many posters might favour defendants are the obvious ones about class, power, control and the criminal justice system.  The difference is, in these cases - and lets speak generally, so in these _kind of_ cases, those factors line up differently.  Most of these have had working class and/or non-powerful complainants - people who have historically been ignored.  That was dramatically the case with Savile and Smith - and their cases revealed the ongoing failure of several state agencies to even give a shit about them.

As always, it's pointless making claims as to whether these specific defendants 'got away with it' and I'm not doing (not just because it opens urban up to all kinds of shit).  My musings have been more about the police/cps and whether they have felt bounced into action becasue of their own previous feelings, whether they have prosecuted pretty much knowing they would fail. If that is the case, their increased action now would, ironically, itself be an extension of their prior inaction.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Well some of those cases irritated me too. But generally on the whole... They've put a lot of bad people away. That can't be ignored either. Without picking through the bones of Travis's case his wife being there may make it less likely he'd behave inappropriately but it doesn't make it impossible.



there wasnt just his wife, there was a female eyewitness who pointed out his wife was there as well as herself .

this is waste of fucking time, your just going to carry on with the insidious and insinuating stuff ad nauseum with zero to back it up . As well asserting the ridiculous belief that if the CPS takes a case against an individual it means theyre guilty pretty much .
Couldnt be arsed discussing this with a mindset . At the end of the day the jury heard the evidence , you didnt. The jury found the evidence to be unbelievable .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The reasons many posters might favour defendants are the obvious ones about class, power, control and the criminal justice system.  The difference is, in these cases - and lets speak generally, so in these _kind of_ cases, those factors line up differently.  Most of these have had working class and/or non-powerful complainants - people who have historically been ignored.  That was dramatically the case with Savile and Smith - and their cases revealed the ongoing failure of several state agencies to even give a shit about them.
> 
> As always, it's pointless making claims as to whether these specific defendants 'got away with it' and I'm not doing (not just because it opens urban up to all kinds of shit).  My musings have been more about the police/cps and whether they have felt bounced into action becasue of their own previous feelings, whether they have prosecuted pretty much knowing they would fail. If that is the case, their increased action now would, ironically, itself be an extension of their prior inaction.



Working class people tell lies too . Shannon Matthews lowlife mum and others were working class people jumping on the madeliene McCann bandwagon in order to enrich themselves, playing the sympathy card from the public . Same with Mick Philpott . Anyone even contemplating basing someones guilt on the social class of their accuser is a grade A dipshit . AN absolute fucking moron whos an embarassment to the intellectual , logical evolved concept of socialism . Sadly such embarrassing cartoonesque specimens do exist .

As regards the CPS my belief is this is a system covering its own back, having covered for others in the past . Now theyre bringing cases to court that should never be allowed there, just to take the pressure of public scrutiny off themselves for their previous collusion in rape and pedophilia by the well got . Its in ways a continuance of the same cover up . More deception of the gullible public by trying to take the spotlight off themselves, who bear responsibility for official collusion .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> The jury found the evidence to be unbelievable .


They found it unproven. It was unreliable. Witnesses got dates wrong, got people there wrong. But in a case where you were groped by someone decades ago, your memory of it is likely to be vague if it didn't have a devastating effect on your life. The case should not have been brought. Cases of groping from 40 years ago should never be brought. It is way too late, and this crappy outcome - an acquittal that still tarnishes the defendant - is what I thought would happen. 

In case this gets taken the wrong way, I'm not trying to trivialise being groped as if it didn't matter. It does matter. But I am questioning the idea that a court can produce justice for people who were groped so long after the event. Four years after the event is probably too late. Forty years certainly is. And if that means that some people are let down, because back then there was no possibility of them taking it to someone and being heard, well that's a bad thing. But the fault for that lies in the past, not in now. Some bad things from the past cannot be righted. It's too late.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 14, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> As well asserting the ridiculous belief that if the CPS takes a case against an individual it means theyre guilty pretty much .
> Couldnt be arsed discussing this with a mindset . At the end of the day the jury heard the evidence , you didnt. The jury found the evidence to be unbelievable .





The fact is the cps get it right more times than they get it wrong. That doesn't make every decision they take is right.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 15, 2014)

I thought Travis was guilty, you can see a few pages back my posts were pretty much anticipating his conviction . But reading on his acquital that a long line of former female PAs, TOTP backing dancers...the very women youd assume would be prime targets for a serial groper, women often employed by the BBC as obligatory eye candy in the 1970s, women he had a position of authority over and could and would presumably have targetted had he been a predator . All lining up decades later to testify as regards the mans character and painting a  very different picture. That he was a decent bloke who always treated women with respect . That willingness by so many people, women in particular...and the specific roles those women had, to testify on his behalf many years later goes a long way to convince me of his innocence .
What would conceivably be in it for them to lie about that ? Hes not rich, hes not powerful . Therefore those women and others can only conceivably  think highly of him to a point theyd testify in court  because of their experience in dealing and working with him over the years .
Im actually sorry for the guy now .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> Working class people tell lies too . Shannon Matthews lowlife mum and others were working class people jumping on the madeliene McCann bandwagon in order to enrich themselves, playing the sympathy card from the public . Same with Mick Philpott . Anyone even contemplating basing someones guilt on the social class of their accuser is a grade A dipshit . AN absolute fucking moron whos an embarassment to the intellectual , logical evolved concept of socialism . Sadly such embarrassing cartoonesque specimens do exist .



Not that the above was the point being made at all, but glad you got that irrelevant rant off your chest nonetheless.



> As regards the CPS my belief is this is a system covering its own back, having covered for others in the past . Now theyre bringing cases to court that should never be allowed there, just to take the pressure of public scrutiny off themselves for their previous collusion in rape and pedophilia by the well got . Its in ways a continuance of the same cover up . More deception of the gullible public by trying to take the spotlight off themselves, who bear responsibility for official collusion .



Except that for many of these historic sexual assault cases, the CPS didn't exist at the time, and it was the police themselves who were responsible for prosecutions.
But apart from that...


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 16, 2014)

[quote="ViolentPanda, post: 12934065, member:


> Not that the above was the point being made at all, but glad you got that irrelevant rant off your chest nonetheless.



i was replying to precisely that issue alluded to in the opening line of wilfs post,otherwise i wold never have mentioned it, now fuck off with your _irrelevant rant_...self righteous po faced so and so



> Except that for many of these historic sexual assault cases, the CPS didn't exist at the time, and it was the police themselves who were responsible for prosecutions.
> But apart from that..



like i said....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> i was replying to precisely that issue alluded to in the opening line of wilfs post,otherwise i wold never have mentioned it, now fuck off with your _irrelevant rant_...self righteous po faced so and so



And *you* get to decide what's relevant or not, obviously. 

Not one for reflexivity, are you?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 16, 2014)

The issue was raised in Wilfs post, the one  I was responding to therefore relevant in the context of a reply. If you deem it irrelevant take it up with the chap who raised the issue in the first place . Otherwise it looks like you think you can decide whos posts I ought to be responding to .

As regards reflexivity Im culturally aware enough to appreciate the ducking stool was once a central principle in English civil law. And hence try and make some allowances for that when encountering the _once accused, fucked either way_ verdict of the assembled court of village idiots . It can be a tad exasperating though I admit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2014)

^^^Blah blah anti-English sentiment blah blah you're all cunts blah blah.

Your usual output, basically.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> As regards reflexivity Im culturally aware enough to appreciate the ducking stool was once a central principle in English civil law. And hence try and make some allowances for that when encountering the *once accused, fucked either way* verdict of the assembled court of village idiots . It can be a tad exasperating though I admit.


This is true of sexual charges the world over. Indeed, Foucault, speaking of French law, spoke of the state of being accused as effectively already having been found partially guilty. There is nothing peculiarly English about it.


----------



## toggle (Feb 17, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> .
> What would conceivably be in it for them to lie about that ? Hes not rich, hes not powerful . Therefore those women and others can only conceivably  think highly of him to a point theyd testify in court  because of their experience in dealing and working with him over the years .



it is possible for different people to have entirely different experiences of a bloke. or for a bloke to be decent to some women and a git to others. Friend of mine knew fairly well someone who was done for multiple rapes a while back, they had spent loads of time alone with the rapist and didn't have an inkling until his photo was in the news. Maybee that isn't relevant to this particular case, but just making a point that one person's positive experience of someone's behavior does not mean they were like that to everyone. 



Casually Red said:


> As regards the CPS my belief is this is a system covering its own back, having covered for others in the past . Now theyre bringing cases to court that should never be allowed there, just to take the pressure of public scrutiny off themselves for their previous collusion in rape and pedophilia by the well got . Its in ways a continuance of the same cover up . More deception of the gullible public by trying to take the spotlight off themselves, who bear responsibility for official collusion .



I'd suspect there is an element of arse covering and trying to change the perception people have of them refusing to try sexual allegations. but somewhere along the lines, the victims of sexual assaults/rapes are going to be hurt by this either way, either cases aren't being brought to court so they feel that no one cares, or don't bother reporting because they believe it is futile, or poor cases are being brought to court which fail, thereby increasing the public perception that women lie about this stuff for attention or to get at blokes. it's shit either way.


----------



## toggle (Feb 17, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> As regards reflexivity Im culturally aware enough to appreciate the ducking stool was once a central principle in English civil law. And hence try and make some allowances for that when encountering the _once accused, fucked either way_ verdict of the assembled court of village idiots . It can be a tad exasperating though I admit.



yes, accusation can result in conviction in the court of public opinion, but on the other hand, conviction in court might not lead to that result.there are a fair few celebs who have been convicted of sexual assault/rape who still have a huge following, successful career and high income.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> I'd suspect there is an element of arse covering and trying to change the perception people have of them refusing to try sexual allegations. but somewhere along the lines, the victims of sexual assaults/rapes are going to be hurt by this either way, either cases aren't being brought to court so they feel that no one cares, or don't bother reporting because they believe it is futile, or poor cases are being brought to court which fail, thereby increasing the public perception that women lie about this stuff for attention or to get at blokes. it's shit either way.



I totally agree with this. It seems to be undermining the credibility of the entire Yewtree operation . And its highly likely that will impact directly on victims.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 24, 2014)

Travis is going to have a retrial for the two charges that were unresolved.
The CPS obviously think that there is sufficient evidence.
He won't be a happy boy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 24, 2014)

Oh what a shame.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 24, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26322552

He will probably need/apply for legal aid


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2014)

Full text: 





> Dave Lee Travis to face retrial on sex offence charges
> 
> Former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis will face a retrial on charges of indecent and sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.
> 
> ...


I've always loathed the man.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 24, 2014)

A guilty verdict would create a turmoil re the previous not guilty verdicts on other charges.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2014)

editor said:


> Full text: I've always loathed the man.


why did you loathe him - that is, why before these allegations were made?


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why did you loathe him - that is, why before these allegations were made?


Just hated all that 'hairy cornflake' bullshit on his awful radio show as well as his "larger than life" personality. He always appeared as a bit of a bully to me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2014)

retrail on two charges, trial on a fresh charge


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 28, 2014)

If nothing else at least this is bankrupting the cunt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2014)

Makes me pretty uneasy, that. If a jury cannot agree a verdict, that ought to be indication of reasonable doubt, I would have thought. Whatever you think of him, being tried again and again is a strange idea of fairness.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2014)

I want him to have an absolutely fair trial. I'll still hate the fucker though, guilty or not.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> If nothing else at least this is bankrupting the cunt.


 Does the Crown cover court costs if you are found not guilty?


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 28, 2014)

He's going to be let off, the cost and distress of the trials and retrials are the only justice here.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 28, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Does the Crown cover court costs if you are found not guilty?



No, but unlike most of us he had the funds to hire his own defence, from what he has been crying about recently it sounds like those funds are drained.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

It was all taxpayer money anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> He's going to be let off, the cost and distress of the trials and retrials are the only justice here.


But the indication of the power the state has over the individual to take them repeatedly to court is worrying for me. It shows me that we are inadequately protected against it.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was all taxpayer money anyway.



You sure.  Last time he came out of court he declared he was now having to take out loans etc?  I assumed he was covering a the cost of his defence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> You sure.  Last time he came out of court he declared he was now having to take out loans etc?  I assumed he was covering a the cost of his defence.


He wasn't on minimum wage at Radio 1 all those years.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> You sure.  Last time he came out of court he declared he was now having to take out loans etc?  I assumed he was covering a the cost of his defence.


I mean his money was BBC money, taxpayer money.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But the indication of the power the state has over the individual to take them repeatedly to court is worrying for me. It shows me that we are inadequately protected against it.



You're probably right but currently I'm more concerned about all these 'celebs' walking away with innocent verdicts which I find very difficult to stomach let alone accept.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> You're probably right but currently I'm more concerned about all these 'celebs' walking away with innocent verdicts which I find very difficult to stomach let alone accept.


With regards this, I've just asked on fb what people think about all these show biz types and the number of not guilty verdicts.

The Law of Averages?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Makes me pretty uneasy, that. If a jury cannot agree a verdict, that ought to be indication of reasonable doubt, I would have thought. Whatever you think of him, being tried again and again is a strange idea of fairness.



Hmmm, what does it indicate reasonable doubt of, though?  Guilt/innocence, or the narratives of guilt or innocence presented by the prosecution and defence?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmmm, what does it indicate reasonable doubt of, though?  Guilt/innocence, or the narratives of guilt or innocence presented by the prosecution and defence?


I don't think it matters. Prosecution for a crime needs to be a one-off - the state should get just one chance to convince a jury of a person's guilt in court. If they fail to do so, they shouldn't, imo, get another chance. That protects individuals against undue persecution by state power. This wasn't a mis-trial, and I do not like at all the fact that the state gets another go, however odious the person who they failed to convict might be.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think it matters. Prosecution for a crime needs to be a one-off - the state should get just one chance to convince a jury of a person's guilt in court. If they fail to do so, they shouldn't, imo, get another chance. That protects individuals against undue persecution by state power. This wasn't a mis-trial, and I do not like at all the fact that the state gets another go, however odious the person who they failed to convict might be.


he wasnt found not guuilty in those trials. its not like he's been cleared and that has been ignored. The jury being unable to agree to a verdict is the very definition of a mistrial, btw.


----------



## andysays (Mar 29, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> he wasnt found not guuilty in those trials. its not like he's been cleared and that has been ignored. The jury being unable to agree to a verdict is the very definition of a mistrial, btw.



I thought a mistrial was something else, but you're right



> *mistrial,* in law, a trial that has been terminated and declared void before the tribunal can hand down a decision or render a verdict. The termination of a trial prematurely nullifies the preceding proceedings as if they had not taken place. Therefore, should another trial on the same charges, with the same defendants, be ordered, that trial would start from the beginning, with the previous testimony or other findings not necessarily relevant in the new court proceedings.





> There are several factors that can result in a mistrial, including the death of an attorney or juror (if the latter is not replaceable by an alternate); a remark that would be highly prejudicial to a party and that the judge may feel cannot, in spite of instructions, be ignored by the jury; or the discovery that members of the jury had discussed the case contrary to court instructions or that a sequestered jury was able to read or hear newspaper or other media reports of the trial. *Most often, a mistrial may be declared if the jury itself cannot arrive at a verdict after repeated attempts (i.e., if it is a hung jury).*


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Mar 30, 2014)

You do occasionally get incompetent juries - Vicky Pryce is the obvious example - and apparently demented jurors. Despite overwhelming forensic evidence and highly incriminating comments made by Delroy Grant (the 'Nightstalker') at the time of his arrest, his trial ended with a majority verdict of 10-2 to convict. Without the option of a retrial, one of the most prolific sex offenders alive would have walked from court a free man if those two idiots had convinced one more juror that they shouldn't convict. That's an extreme example but the jury system will malfunction from time to time and some allowance needs to be made for that inevitable eventuality.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Just hated all that 'hairy cornflake' bullshit on his awful radio show as well as his "larger than life" personality. He always appeared as a bit of a bully to me.


Came across as one of those guys who cultivated a wacky 'Im mad me' image despite coming across as a humorless dick in real life......


----------



## yardbird (Apr 15, 2014)

DLT has now been charged with further offence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407


----------



## kenny g (Apr 15, 2014)

I trust the jury will be carefully selected to arrive at a correct verdict.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 15, 2014)

kenny g said:


> I trust the jury will be carefully selected to arrive at a correct verdict.


I hope they don't need to be!


----------



## diond (Sep 23, 2014)

So, he's been found guilty of indecent assault of a former T.V. researcher on the Mrs. Merton show, who is now a known personality.
http://podbay.fm/show/453503238/e/1344374100?autostart=1
39:37 minutes. Seems strange that the press haven't released the name.


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 23, 2014)

I thought that they weren't allowed to, unless the researcher waived their right to anonymity


----------



## diond (Sep 23, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> I thought that they weren't allowed to, unless the researcher waived their right to anonymity


Have you actually listened to the podcast?


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 23, 2014)

Clearly not (sorry,,posting from a headphoneless phone)


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 23, 2014)

Good good, its just a shame that he got away with all the other stuff.  Still his reputation is in tatters and these all these court appearances have no doubt drained his finances.


----------



## elbows (Sep 23, 2014)

diond said:


> 39:37 minutes. Seems strange that the press haven't released the name.



Well court proceedings, the rights of victims and how the media is allowed to report such stuff is not as straightforward as what has been in the public domain in the past. Just because there is google-able evidence of her recounting this stuff at various points including 2007, 2012 and 2013, doesn't mean the press can name her now. If she wants to say anything to the public at large, perhaps after sentencing, then things will change, but if not I don't know. If she didn't officially waive her right to anonymity in this case then its unsurprising that the press haven't mentioned her name.


----------



## diond (Sep 23, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well court proceedings, the rights of victims and how the media is allowed to report such stuff is not as straightforward as what has been in the public domain in the past. Just because there is google-able evidence of her recounting this stuff at various points including 2007, 2012 and 2013, doesn't mean the press can name her now. If she wants to say anything to the public at large, perhaps after sentencing, then things will change, but if not I don't know. If she didn't officially waive her right to anonymity in this case then its unsurprising that the press haven't mentioned her name.


I guess they've (the press) been quite cute with this though. They needn't have mentioned that she was a former researcher on the Mrs Merton show and is now a known personality. A simple check on IMDB gives the name and a simple Internet search provides the rest. Give the public the pieces and watch them make the picture for themselves without running the risk of being sued for naming.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 23, 2014)

Isn't it just sticking to the general principles of these cases - whether the person names themselves or not, the media can't?

(Says someone who has no idea of the actual truths of the law in these cases)


----------



## elbows (Sep 23, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> Isn't it just sticking to the general principles of these cases - whether the person names themselves or not, the media can't?
> 
> (Says someone who has no idea of the actual truths of the law in these cases)



I've just been looking into this. Courts can lift the anonymity orders for several reasons, including the victim making it clear formally that they are waiving that right. I don't think this is terribly common, although I believe it did happen quite clearly with one of the people who gave evidence in the Rolf Harris trial.

What seems slightly more common is that some victims waive the lifelong right to anonymity that such legal proceedings offer. But they waive it after the case, and usually sentencing, is done. If they put this waiving in writing so that the media entity or entities have proof of it, then thats enough for the media to proceed without much legal fear.  This is less hassle than doing it at the start of or during a trial since its less formal and doesn't require court backing, plus the media that want to print really sensational stories (or people that want to be paid for them) will tend to include other details that it might be very unwise to publish during a trial or before sentencing anyway.


----------



## kittyP (Sep 23, 2014)

Maybe it is someone else..?


----------



## elbows (Sep 23, 2014)

I got a lot of my info from this article:

http://thesexualoffenceshandbook.co...anonymity-are-the-press-in-constant-contempt/


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 23, 2014)

diond said:


> I guess they've (the press) been quite cute with this though. They needn't have mentioned that she was a former researcher on the Mrs Merton show and is now a known personality. A simple check on IMDB gives the name and a simple Internet search provides the rest. Give the public the pieces and watch them make the picture for themselves without running the risk of being sued for naming.



The name comes up with 2 minutes searching hardly anonymous anymore.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 23, 2014)

Well I can't find it. I'll have to ask my friend.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 23, 2014)

elbows said:


> I got a lot of my info from this article:
> 
> http://thesexualoffenceshandbook.co...anonymity-are-the-press-in-constant-contempt/


The PCC Editors' Code has a pretty clear line on identifying vcictims of sexual assault too:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/696/Code_of_Practice_2012_A4.pdf

http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/449/Clause_11.pdf


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

Think this means that the Radio 1 line up of the late 60s had three nonces in post at the same time - savile, dlt and denning. Four if you include John Peel.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Think this means that the Radio 1 line up of the late 60s had three nonces in post at the same time - savile, dlt and denning. Four if you include John Peel.



I do include Peel, as he was absolutely a nonce.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I do include Peel, as he was absolutely a nonce.


So would I, I was just trying to head off another _'but, but, but he played great music, and anyway in Texas it wasn't...'_ wail-athon.  Mind, I think we can at least be sure nobody will run that line for DLT.


----------



## Maggot (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Think this means that the Radio 1 line up of the late 60s had three nonces in post at the same time - savile, dlt and denning. Four if you include John Peel.



I'm not defending what DLT did, but it's not in the same league as Savile. 

Groping women is out of order but was commonplace.  Having sex with girls in hospital is a whole different world of sordidness.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 24, 2014)

It is really boring being in hospital, though.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

Maggot said:


> I'm not defending what DLT did, but it's not in the same league as Savile.
> 
> Groping women is out of order but was commonplace.  Having sex with girls in hospital is a whole different world of sordidness.


Yes, of course savile was worse, I didn't say he wasn't. I just made the point they were all _sex offenders_ - thus 'nonce'.  But why do we have to get back into this 'oh it was commonplace' stuff?  Do you not think Travis *is* a sex offender?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

Apparently the victim (I'm not even going to bother with 'alleged') in one of the cases they didn't bring to court is now suing him:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-guilty-now-4313692


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

I'd imagine there's a lucrative line for Celebrity Lawyers in _'Transferring Assets to Spouse'_ nowadays.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Yes, of course savile was worse, I didn't say he wasn't. I just made the point they were all _sex offenders_ - thus 'nonce'.  But why do we have to get back into this 'oh it was commonplace' stuff?  Do you not think Travis *is* a sex offender?



Except that "nonce" doesn't denote "sex offender", it specifically denotes "sex offender *against children*".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'd imagine there's a lucrative line for Celebrity Lawyers in _'Transferring Assets to Spouse'_ nowadays.



Although if it can be proved that transfer started post-charge, the court can hammer you for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that "nonce" doesn't denote "sex offender", it specifically denotes "sex offender *against children*".




it used to cover all sex crimes in the day. I swear its used thusly in the Krays film. You know the one with him out of spandau ballet.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So would I, I was just trying to head off another _'but, but, but he played great music, and anyway in Texas it wasn't...'_ wail-athon.  Mind, I think we can at least be sure nobody will run that line for DLT.


 has that ever happened on here?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 24, 2014)

killer b said:


> has that ever happened on here?



There was a pretty horrible thread about Peel from what I can remember. With mixed views, obv.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it used to cover all sex crimes in the day. I swear its used thusly in the Krays film. You know the one with him out of spandau ballet.



*Them* out of Spandau Ballet - both Kemp brothers. 

Hasn't been used to mean all sex offenders since The Sweeney, though, you slag!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There was a pretty horrible thread about Peel from what I can remember. With mixed views, obv.



Actually, looking back at that thread the main _"it's none of your business what he got up to in private, it was a long time ago"_ protagonist is no longer with us.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

killer b said:


> has that ever happened on here?


 This thread - originally from 2004, but starts up again p5:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/julie-burchill-on-john-peel.22786/


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Actually, looking back at that thread the main _"it's none of your business what he got up to in private, it was a long time ago"_ protagonist is no longer with us.


 True, though there was some other equally distasteful stuff.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> True, though there was some other equally distasteful stuff.



Sure, but I think support for the distasteful waned as the discussion progressed.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2014)

The sex offending hairy cornflake.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2014)

hairy nonceflake


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> This thread - originally from 2004, but starts up again p5:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/julie-burchill-on-john-peel.22786/


 mainly quite thoughtful posts, outside of the belboid/frances fracas and CR's idiocy isn't it?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

killer b said:


> mainly quite thoughtful posts, outside of the belboid/frances fracas and CR's idiocy isn't it?


 Yeah, I agree, the vast majority of posts were spot on about 2 issues (that 'consensual' underage sex is still abuse - and that someone having done something good (Peel and new music) is irrelevant when it comes to their noncery).  Just a shame all that needed to be said, even if it was only 2 posters coming out with shite.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2014)

Personally I found that discussion quite useful - helped me to put my thoughts together on Peel (which I confess I'd probably been avoiding up til then).

I don't really hold with things not needing to be said. They always need to be said, or people forget.


----------



## tony heath (Sep 24, 2014)

John Peel's  gravestone epitaph  "Teenage dreams, so hard to beat" may stand the test of time better than allegations he was a child sex abuser


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2014)

see?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 24, 2014)

editor said:


> The sex offending hairy cornflake.




Metro headline this morning:

*HAIRY CORNFLAKE FACING PORRIDGE *

**


----------



## Wilf (Sep 26, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Metro headline this morning:
> 
> *HAIRY CORNFLAKE FACING PORRIDGE *
> 
> **


 Unfortunately not:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-trial-live-4326240
He's also 'defiant'. Dirty bastard.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 26, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Unfortunately not:
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-trial-live-4326240
> He's also 'defiant'. Dirty bastard.





Boo!!!

Still, £350K he's spent and will never work again.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it used to cover all sex crimes in the day. I swear its used thusly in the Krays film. You know the one with him out of spandau ballet.


What, the Kemp brother who played the Kray brother, or the other Kemp brother who played the other Kray brother?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 26, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Unfortunately not:
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-trial-live-4326240
> He's also 'defiant'. Dirty bastard.



On the balance of things you can see why the sentence was suspended but his total lack of contrition makes him one lucky sex case to escape chokey.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> On the balance of things you can see why the sentence was suspended but his total lack of contrition makes him one lucky sex case to escape chokey.



I can't see why it was suspended at all. Maybe a few months in prison would give him time to reflect on his attitude towards and treatment of women.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I can't see why it was suspended at all. Maybe a few months in prison would give him time to reflect on his attitude towards and treatment of women.


The sentencing remarks are here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-david-patrick-griffin-a-k-a-dave-lee-travis/

The mitigating factors are at para 17.


----------



## yardbird (Sep 26, 2014)

A pariah. 
I wonder how his social circle will take this? 
He will not be out casually walking the streets - just think of the abuse he would/will get.
Unfortunately only verbal, unlike the abuse that he carried out


----------



## tony heath (Sep 26, 2014)

He could still do toad shows


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I can't see why it was suspended at all. Maybe a few months in prison would give him time to reflect on his attitude towards and treatment of women.



Sure, I can see that too.  I was just thinking that he's only been convicted of one incident and that was at the lower end of the scale, he's unlikely to be a risk so the argument for sending an old man to prison isnt as strong as some others.  But yes its the continuing denial thats sticks in the craw.


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 26, 2014)

I think the judge should call him back into court and explain to him very carefully he hasn't been acquitted.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 26, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The sentencing remarks are here:
> 
> http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-david-patrick-griffin-a-k-a-dave-lee-travis/
> 
> The mitigating factors are at para 17.


 Not really significant, but this seemed like an odd turn of phrase to include in mitigation:



> You have no previous convictions. In the course of two trials I have heard from a great number of character witnesses called on your behalf. Their descriptions included the following: a kind person always trying to help people, friendly, no airs and graces, generous, warm hearted and a good friend.


To me the real injustice isn't so much the suspended sentence (even though I do think he should of done time for the single offence).  It's that there's a clear pattern of behaviour going back decades.  Yes, I know, the issue of assuming guilt when a jury has found someone innocent.  However, with 'historic cases' and situations where there was only the 2 people present, the bar was going to be high to get beyond a reasonable doubt.  But to put it in common sense terms, I believe the women who accused him.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

The judge remarked that he didn't contribute to length of the trials but actually he did. He could have acknowledged that what these women had said was true and not put them through a trial.

He's acted poorly including accusing the one victim that got a guilty verdict of jumping on the bandwagon to make money. In fact the reason she came forward was because she was so outraged that he was found not guilty of the earlier charges. 

That's why, regardless of age, health and damage to his career he should have served a sentence. 

And yes, he seems to think he's been acquitted. Dirty cunt.


----------



## hot air baboon (Sep 26, 2014)

....does he go on the sex offenders register...?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 26, 2014)

hot air baboon said:


> ....does he go on the sex offenders register...?


 I was wondering that, but a quick wiki-ing didn't make it clear. Presumably not as, from memory, it  would have to be mentioned by the judge at sentencing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> The judge remarked that he didn't contribute to length of the trials but actually he did. He could have acknowledged that what these women had said was true and not put them through a trial..


So if you plead not guilty, you should get extra punishment? I think that's a very dangerous road.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Not really significant, but this seemed like an odd turn of phrase to include in mitigation:
> 
> 
> To me the real injustice isn't so much the suspended sentence (even though I do think he should of done time for the single offence).  It's that there's a clear pattern of behaviour going back decades.  Yes, I know, the issue of assuming guilt when a jury has found someone innocent.  However, with 'historic cases' and situations where there was only the 2 people present, the bar was going to be high to get beyond a reasonable doubt.  But to put it in common sense terms, I believe the women who accused him.



I find the whole character witness thing quite odd particularly in cases like this.

Most sexual harassment, assault or abuse is not done openly and publicly. Such a crime tends to rely on secrecy and feelings of shame. So how does the assurance of his buddies that he's a top bloke help in such a case? 'He's never grabbed my tits or put his hand up my skirt so he's clearly not a sex pest your honour'


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So if you plead not guilty, you should get extra punishment? I think that's a very dangerous road.



You get a reduction of 1/3 for an early guilty plea, so you can easily switch that to an extra 1/3 for going not guilty.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So if you plead not guilty, you should get extra punishment? I think that's a very dangerous road.



No, sorry I didn't mean that but it was badly worded. I thought the comments of the judge were strange though. 

He, like Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris sought to discredit his accuser in quite a nasty way. I think that should be taken into account.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I find the whole character witness thing quite odd particularly in cases like this.
> 
> Most sexual harassment, assault or abuse is not done openly and publicly. Such a crime tends to rely on secrecy and feelings of shame. So how does the assurance of his buddies that he's a top bloke help in such a case? 'He's never grabbed my tits or put his hand up my skirt so he's clearly not a sex pest your honour'



From what I could be bothered to read about this trial is his defense was based mainly on bringing in people who had met him and not been nonced by him. Very odd.


----------



## tony heath (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I find the whole character witness thing quite odd particularly in cases like this.
> 
> Most sexual harassment, assault or abuse is not done openly and publicly. Such a crime tends to rely on secrecy and feelings of shame. So how does the assurance of his buddies that he's a top bloke help in such a case? 'He's never grabbed my tits or put his hand up my skirt so he's clearly not a sex pest your honour'


 yes... It makes me think that they possibly know other people who are predatory sex abusers and DLT doesn't fit into the same profile. If they're sure DLT isn't it's likely they know exactly who is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You get a reduction of 1/3 for an early guilty plea, so you can easily switch that to an extra 1/3 for going not guilty.


A very bad thing, that. I can see why it's done, but it's not good for justice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> No, sorry I didn't mean that but it was badly worded. I thought the comments of the judge were strange though.
> 
> He, like Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris sought to discredit his accuser in quite a nasty way. I think that should be taken into account.


Ok, fair enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A very bad thing, that. I can see why it's done, but it's not good for justice.



It is a bit wonky, but that's what happens. 

Then look to the US; regardless of whether you done it or not, if you get charged with a crime you either plead guilty and negotiate a sentence you can handle, or plead not guilty and go away forever.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

tony heath said:


> yes... It makes me think that they possibly know other people who are predatory sex abusers and DLT doesn't fit into the same profile. If they're sure DLT isn't it's likely they know exactly who is.



Not even that but how many of us want to believe our bezzer/husband/brother/wife is capable of such a crime? 

We could, to the best of our knowledge believe they're not but we can't 100% know.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> No, sorry I didn't mean that but it was badly worded. I thought the comments of the judge were strange though.
> 
> He, like Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris sought to discredit his accuser in quite a nasty way. I think that should be taken into account.



The judge covers this at para 15:



> The prosecution submits that a further aggravating feature is the way in which it is suggested that you used the media to proclaim your innocence from the moment you were arrested. They rely on paragraphs 66 to 70 of the judgment in Attorney General’s Reference No. 38 of 2013, R. v. Stuart Hall [2013] EWCA Crim 1450 where the Court of Appeal decided that Hall’s descriptions of the allegations as “...pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious” followed by a plea of guilty was a serious aggravating feature of his offending.
> 
> In my judgment that has only a very limited impact in your case where you have been acquitted of 14 out of the 15 charges which have been put before two juries, and where the offence of which you have been convicted was not known at the time you made your comments to the media. It follows that I shall take no account of this issue when passing sentence.



(My emphasis)

As it is, it seems to be a pretty appeal-proof sentencing.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

Cheers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The judge covers this at para 15:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems fair enough to me. We may all have our thoughts as to his likely guilt in other charges, but the judge has to act as if he has only been found guilty of one charge and is of previous good character, and he has not been slagging off the victim in this one charge to the media. He has probably been very, very fortunate in that regard - got lucky that he didn't slag off this particular victim.


----------



## tony heath (Sep 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> Not even that but how many of us want to believe our bezzer/husband/brother/wife is capable of such a crime?
> 
> We could, to the best of our knowledge believe they're not but we can't 100% know.


 The more people talk about this the better, but also the worse, we're are having emotional breakdowns, trust has gone, we don't have the answers, especially what to do with historic abusers where's no proof that the abuse is or isn't continuing.


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Seems fair enough to me. We may all have our thoughts as to his likely guilt in other charges, but the judge has to act as if he has only been found guilty of one charge and is of previous good character, and he has not been slagging off the victim in this one charge to the media. He has probably been very, very fortunate in that regard - got lucky that he didn't slag off this particular victim.



Actually he did. 

'In a victim impact statement read out in court, she said: "I was particularly horrified at the defendant's allegations that desire for attention or financial greed motivated me to come forward.'

He also verbally attacked a journalist who had made an accusation of assault and making a bit of an arse of himself in the court.


----------



## ShakespearO (Sep 26, 2014)

The judges sentencing remarks made it very easy to identify the victim.


----------



## angusmcfangus (Sep 26, 2014)

*Convicted sex offender Jonathan King to appear in BBC documentary*
September 26, 2014 0 comments
Music impresario Jonathan King, who was jailed for child sex offences, is to return to TV screens after being interviewed for a BBC documentary about rock band Genesis.

There's hope for the fellow yet!


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> The judges sentencing remarks made it very easy to identify the victim.


Yep, and considering she made a statement saying she fought hard to preserve her anonymity, I don't know why so much detail was given.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 26, 2014)

DLT had to sell his house to pay his legal fees. Will he be eligible for a council flat?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2014)

Justice still may be done....

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29415240


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 30, 2014)

_The attorney general's office said four people had complained that the sentence was "unduly lenient"_

Can anyone complain?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> _The attorney general's office said four people had complained that the sentence was "unduly lenient"_
> 
> Can anyone complain?


Yes, but reviews are limited to sentences relating to certain offences or types of offence:

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence


----------



## albionism (Sep 30, 2014)

OK own up, which four of you complained!


----------



## Betsy (Sep 30, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> _The attorney general's office said four people had complained that the sentence was "unduly lenient"_
> 
> Can anyone complain?


I think the people that complained did so because of his arrogant attitude outside of the court house after his sentencing. He more or less called the woman a liar again saying that "we (him and his family) know the truth" presumably about the incident he was convicted of.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/dj-dave-lee-travis-found-154600004.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Justice still may be done....
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29415240


justice? it's a court of law, not a court of justice.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2014)

I'm not comparing them, but didn't Jesus Christ our Saviour also have a beard, and was he not also mocked and ridiculed, and was he not also put before a judge, and was he not also punished for groping women?

Makes you think.


----------



## Lurdan (Sep 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not comparing them, but didn't Jesus Christ our Saviour also have a beard, and was he not also mocked and ridiculed, and was he not also put before a judge, and was he not also punished for groping women?
> 
> Makes you think.


I often looked at him and thought "Jesus Christ".


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not comparing them, but didn't Jesus Christ our Saviour also have a beard, and was he not also mocked and ridiculed, and was he not also put before a judge, and was he not also punished for groping women?
> 
> Makes you think.



Was he done for groping women? That's blasphemy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> Was he done for groping women? That's blasphemy.


It was ‘touch my feet!’ this, ‘nail me!’ that... Non-stop with the guy.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 30, 2014)

I'd never thought of it like that, but now you mention it wasn't there special treatment for the woman who "touched the hem of his garment"?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> wasn't there special treatment for the woman who "touched the hem of his garment"?



Standard grooming behaviour - all about psychological control


----------



## UrbaneFox (Sep 30, 2014)

Our Lord Emmanuel. No wonder they named a porno film after him.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 30, 2014)

'Dr' Fox
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/30/dj-neil-fox-arrested-alleged-sex-offences


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> It was ‘touch my feet!’ this, ‘nail me!’ that... Non-stop with the guy.



Didn't he have a fetish for women washing his feet, then drying his cheesy toes with their hair?
Sick fuck!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2014)

and did those feet in ancient times, really need some washing


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 1, 2014)

Nothing much changes through the years....


----------



## Wilf (Oct 2, 2014)

The Perv Bishop's 'ere - keep yer socks on!


----------



## yardbird (Oct 21, 2014)

DLT has had his requesr to appeal turned down.


----------

