Dave Lee Travis
 

Am I the only one thinking what a waste of money this case is, I mean its just part of a witch hunt at the end of the day.

Remember these cases are 30-40 years old, the days when carry on films were made and many other shows that would not see the light of day now.

Although he seemed to have been a perv in his day and the behavior would not be tolerated in today's PC world, in those days a lot of things were accepted during every day life.

It just seems wrong to me to judge someone on today's outlook for crimes committed many years ago when the outlook was different.

I'm sure everyone agrees that today is better, but this trial is just wrong in my opinion.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Hmm, so a sexual assault is OK, as long as it happened a long time ago.


Im pretty sure the victims would disagree.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

He's a dirty naffing nonce who like rest of his celebrity nonce pals should be locked up.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Perhaps a trial wouldn't have been required if he admitted that he'd been a bit of an old lech? Of course, it's possible he's entirely innocent, in which case how else, apart from a trial, could he get his word across?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I'm sensitive to the argument that the current rash of prosecutions apply today's standards to yesterday's actions, however we're not talking about the middle ages; this happened in my lifetime. I know there was never a time when it would have been acceptable for me to grope random women in the manner that he has.

He's a shit, send him away.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

He will be judged in accordance with the prevailing standards of the time of the acts, not those in existence today.

It will be interesting to see if he gives evidence. Mr. Roache too!

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Not that I'd know the facts for sure but does anyone else ever just get a feeling about people when these accusations come out?

When Jimmy Savile was exposed it was hardly a shocker but Ken Barlow..?

Seems that if you are male and were reasonably famous in the 70's or later you would appear to be a guaranteed pederast or paedophile.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

No, not that many of them considering. Just the dirt bags.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I can remember the odd grope happening in the 70's 'as a joke' etc. It was different times.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I was just grateful for anything that came my way. Starved of attention, I suppose.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I have a friend who would say that, 20 years down the line, an incident of this nature has affected a lot of her life since, while the man now subject to a 'witch hunt' has enjoyed decades of getting away with it and living his life just fine. I do think that trials are needed, but if they are found to be guilty, I think they deserve everything that's coming to them, probably more.

I know that the majority in the Travis case were adults (and to be honest, I don't see that as being anything of a better situation), but when has it EVER been ok to grope a child? I know many could use the excuse that a teenager might have been acting inappropriately, wearing the wrong clothes, flirting, whatever. Teenagers don't make good decisions. That's why they don't have full autonomy until 16-18, and in the meantime, adults are supposed to help them out, not initiate them.

Stuart Hall was originally sentenced in line with how he might have been sentenced at the time he committed those acts, and on appeal, his sentence was extended. No, it's never been ok, who cares if judgements are harsher now? Wasn't legal then, isn't now.

I do agree about Savile though, I remember when the documentary and story broke thinking, 'how is this news'?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I alway thought that David Attenborough looked and sounded a little dodgy. You always wondered where his other hand was when he picked up an armadillo or koala.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Either there should be no reporting on such cases until the Trial is finished or, if they are acquitted, their accusers should be identified. The current method seems far too one sided to me.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Odd grope as a joke.....are you for real? I think your attitude to it stinks.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Well bully for you

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

You surprise me as someone with experience in the legal field. The pressure on the victims when they do have the courage to confront their attackers is immense, and the legal requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that in a situation like this, where there are often only 2 people present at the event in question, the accused is acquitted anyway unless there is some physical evidence to back up the accuser (little chance of that after 20-30 years). Thats one reason its extraordinary that these cases have made it to trial, the prosecution usually prefers to put its resources on what it considers to be near certain convictions.

An example of how the court is weighted from a case near and dear to me. The Crown prosecutor had managed to collect a lot of evidence from multiple witnesses against a pedophile. However, the judge rejected the potential testimony of 2 witnesses who were prepared to testify that the accused had full on raped them because the case that the crown actually brought to trial was only for a "groping" type of assault. The end result was it was one witnesses word against the accused and he walked, probably to offend again as he had numerous grandchildren, not one of whom could be pursuaded to attend the bastards funeral.

Its reasonable to say that the accused should be able to remain anonymous, although with the nature of news and celebrity its going to be hard to maintain that blackout, especially in an internet age, however, to suggest that the accusers should be named in the case of a not guilty verdict shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what they have already gone through just to get to the point that charges have been laid.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Droit de seigneur eh?

I never found them to be very funny and nor did one groper once i hit him. I was worried sick what might happen if he reported me for that thwack, instead the slimeball bought me flowers. That made it all ok didn't it.

Seriously, your views are strange.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

:goodpost: All these celebrities exploited their fame and position of relative power for their own needs but now expect a degree of annominity...well too bad. These case are all too close to home. The law as it stands is all too weighted against the victims.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Not so. The jury will convict or acquit depending upon what they decide the "facts" were. They are the sole decision makers in that respect

If they were prepared to give such evidence, why was he not tried for rape? If he walked, it was because the fact finder did not accept her version of events. You may not like the decision but that is the system we have.

In any event, just because the accused has previously committed 100 burglaries, it does not automatically follow that he committed the 101st one. Each one has to be proven.

Thank you for the dressing down.

I have been in Court enough to know that some people make accusations based upon malice and little else. If it is OK that the allegations made against the accused are reported, it seems only fair that, if acquitted, the name of the accuser should also be released. As I said above, my preferred procedure would be that there is no reporting until a verdict is rendered. Character assassination by media is no picnic for those acquitted either.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

This thread reminds me, I think I'll watch Canadian TV tonight to see Mrs Slocombe getting her pussy stroked and John Inman measuring mens' inside legs with a smutty smirk.

Ah, the 70s... just made it to Canada. :rofl:

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Allegedly ( my lawyer asked me to post on your behalf ).

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Does this apply to those such as Craig Charles too?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

One wonders if you would wish to have your husband "exposed" and whether you would protect the identity of the accuser if he was acquitted.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Well the convicted celebrities, don't think I mentioned names:)

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Too close to home read first hand experience....

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I'm always aware of what a possible malicious statement could do to my husbands career, as is he, and in his job I always hope that he works to not putting himself in any kind of compromising situation so he could be boyond reproach.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Because they had seen the way their sister had been ostracized by the family for daring to raise the elephant in the room, and also because they were appalled at the way the legal system had treated her.

Basically they were not prepared to be the lightening rod in the middle so were not prepared to press charges. They were however prepared to testify in support of their sisters case, but the judge spiked that.

If you ask me the crown screwed up royally, and to be fair he did apologize, but he was at a complete loss to explain why the judge would make such a ruling.

Strangely enough the old bastards will made no mention of one of his kids eh... Oh yes, and it turns out he bought the silence of another daughter who is now the executor of his will and who seemingly managed to buy a 60 acre chunk of land for $1 that was originally intended for someone else;)

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

OK, so please explain to me the logic for not exposing the accuser if acquitted, if they is to be no reporting ban until the verdict?

As can be seen from the posts above, lots of people believe that, if taken to Trial, the accused is guilty.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

I never once said I thought it was all OK, what I am saying was the general perception in the day was not as it is today.

I agree that someone who had their bottom pinched etc in those days would have been as welcoming to it as they would today, but it was 'almost' acceptable at the time (the 70's).

In my mind there is a vast difference between a Jimmy Saville, who it appears was a predatory pedophile and Travis who it appears was a bit of a male chauvinist who took advantage of his position to slap an arse or grope a breast.

Both are wrong but to my mind one is worth picking up 30-40 years later and the other is not.

I can't believe someone would be traumatized for 40 years after having her underwear felt by a perv, but a child assaulted, yes I could.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Do you believe, for example, that juries should be informed of all of the other offences for which each accused has been convicted during the course of each new trial?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

You said "All".

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Which of the ones being discussed have been convicted? In fact, which of them have even commenced their defence?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Ah yes, much of his defence was based on that the woman had previously been a stripper and was reliving the old days by doing a private dance for him.


But yes, anonymity for the accused too is right and not just in rape and sexual assault cases.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

The jury are presented with facts upon which they must base their decision, but in the case of a "he said / she said" situation where the "facts" presented are in opposition and there is no other evidence it must necessarily be hard for a jury to all agree and say there can be no doubt. Sure, maybe it happens, occasionally, although I suspect that more often than not the crown simply decides it has little chance of a conviction and chooses not to pursue the matter.

To say that its up to the jury, and that if they acquit it has nothing to do with any decisions and rulings of the judge seems to me to be nonsense. In this particular case the judges ruling denied the jury information that may have altered their view. Rather than one lone witness, several witnesses would have testified to his abusive behaviour, ruling out the possibility that it was one crackpot accusation, plus the severity of the offences described would have perhaps helped to paint a picture of longstanding and repeated offending. But the jury never got the chance to weigh those facts, so no, Im afraid we dont hold the jury responsible for the verdict.


The crown should and does play a role in figuring out if they think an accusation is false or malicious, if there really is insufficient evidence other than one word against another then it will be hard to make a case. If there is other evidence or testimony then let the jury decide if they think there is a decent case or not.

Putting the accusers in the spotlight is going to further discourage people from coming forward, as if having to relive the experience and face your assaulter in court and have his lawyer rip into your character and actions isnt enough of an impediment to people coming forward in trials of the nature in the first place.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

L
So some of it was OK? Believe me it is never OK to be groped, or underwear felt as you put it. Your phrasing makes that seem such a trivial thing. How clever of you. You seem to be forgetting that someone was wearing the underwear at the time. Your opinions are gross.

40 years on, yes, you still remember. I feel ill just reading your words.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Jesus. point to the part where I actually said I thought it was OK!!!!

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

[QUOTE]Both are wrong but tomy mind one is worth picking up 30-40 years later and the other is not.

Ican't believe someone would be traumatized for 40 years after having her underwear felt by a perv, but a child assaulted, yes Icould.

Am I the only one thinking what a waste of money this case is, I mean its just part of awitch hunt at the end of the day.[QUOTE]

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

In lots of trials, this is all there is. It is not something peculiar to sexual offences. I believe that most people are able to weigh opposing evidence appropriately. The jury determine the facts. That is the basis of trial by jury.

The Judge makes decisions prior to the trial starting, sometimes during the trial, about evidence. S/he does so on the basis of rules of evidence that are known to the lawyers for both sides. What you appear to be arguing for is that a conviction should be obtained at all costs. Thankfully, the law doesn't agree with you.

It is your argument that, if the crown decide to pursue a trial, the accused is guilty?

No one wishes to put them in the spotlight, I simply wish for each to be afforded the same "protection". What is wrong with a reporting ban until the decision is made?

Remember the old adage: innocent until proven guilty?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

[QUOTE=bats;11089957][QUOTE]Both are wrong but tomy mind one is worth picking up 30-40 years later and the other is not.

Ican't believe someone would be traumatized for 40 years after having her underwear felt by a perv, but a child assaulted, yes Icould.

Am I the only one thinking what a waste of money this case is, I mean its just part of awitch hunt at the end of the day.

I repeat, show me the part where I said it was OK!!!!


If the part you've put up is your proof, then I believe you need a new pair of glasses.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

As far as I can see, not being brought to book for 30-40 years doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it just because it was a long time ago, it just means that you've had a level of freedom that your victim has not. I think these women coming forward now are incredibly brave, and deserve kudos for that. To be honest, some of the comments I'm reading here about it being 'just a grope' are really degrading to those women and their experience. Would it have still been just a grope if it had been your daughter/sister/cousin/mother? It really does sound like these women/girls were merely objects in some people's eyes, rather than the autonomous women they should have been allowed to be.