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.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Peter, I think that by saying that you don't believe these incidents worth picking up 30-40 years after the fact, you could be seen to be implying that you think they were ok, because times were different etc... Why else would it be worth ignoring incidents that have clearly hurt these women to your mind?

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

No. my argument is that the crown does not act to bring every accusation to court, it uses its discretion to decide where to allocate its resources and it will, if no external pressure is brought to bare, only allocate resources to those cases where it believes it is likely to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They can be pretty sure someone is guilty based on form, but choose not to pursue a trial if they dont think they have enough hard evidence to convince a jury. Thats not quite the same thing.


Nothing, I would be in favour, but I cant think of a way of it being practical in this age of instant internet information.

Ryan Giggs had legal anonymity over his injunction to prevent the publishing of the details of his marital infidelity, but a fat lot of good it did him.

However, just because there is not a reporting ban in no way makes it acceptable in my view to subject the (alleged) victims to more trauma than the legal procedures already inflicts on them.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

My whole thing was that it was seen differently in those days, who watched the chauvinistic portrayals in 'Life on Mars' with a grimace and remembered yes it was a bit like that.

What he did was wrong, I'm sure in this day and age it would be stamped down on very quickly, in those days it was not. With it not being stamped down on the perpetrator would imagine himself being a bit of fun and no doubt get worse.

Now the world has changed and this type of thing is recognized for what it is at all levels. Today it would be stopped early, the person would be dealt with, probably a sacking.

So as i said, I believe its a waste of money to get a pensioner up in front of a court today for something he was allowed to get away with 30-40 years ago. Goes without saying if it was pedophilia, rape or murder then those would be some of the exceptions.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

[QUOTE=PeterF;11089977][QUOTE=bats;11089957]Those quotes from you show how flippantly you are dismissing groping breasts, touching a woman's knickers. You don't think they are serious actions enough to hurt, to leave a lasting memory. You side with the groper when you say it's a witch hunt. That you can't even see this confirms my opinion.

Re: Dave Lee Travis
 

Apart from anything else, no-one was killed or seriously harmed and memories will have faded.

Plus as I stated above, the general perception to the crime would have been different, it was deemed minor enough at the time for his peers and managers to allow him to get away with these things. [I should add, if he is guilty]

We have progressed as a society.