British Expats - Dave Lee Travis

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)

- - Dave Lee Travis (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/dave-lee-travis-822442/)

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 11090060)

That's fine, so long as you accept that it is fine for the reputation of one person to be trashed, without them being able to identify the person responsible for the trashing.

Im fine with that if the crown believe that there is enough evidence to warrant a charge.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

[QUOTE=PeterF;11090079][QUOTE=bats;11090050]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterF (Post 11090028)

The whole fall out from the Jimmy Saville case, not this single case.

Fall out, as in people having to account for their behaviour. Which you think is ok as it was a longish time ago.

Anyone in authority fiddle with your willy when you were young?

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11090065)

His lawyer didnt.:thumbdown:

The Judge must have believed it was appropriate otherwise the Judge would have put a stop to it and, when doing so, the received wisdom it that it makes the jury more sympathetic to the accuser's version of events.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11090082)

Why then would the lawyers on one side try to introduce something that they know will not be admissible?
They clearly believed the testimony to be relevant and admissible, but the judge, after due deliberation, did not. They screwed up.

The Judge or the lawyer?

Lawyers will, generally, use every weapon in their arsenal to achieve what their client wants them to achieve, subject to ethical restraints, of course.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

This thread's depressing. :(

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by bats (Post 11090088)

Isn't the accuser the Crown after deciding that there is a case to answer?

No, not in the context I was discussing.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 11090094)

Right, and if you dont already know my view of the judge you can probably guess its not overly favourable.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11090090)

Im fine with that if the crown believe that there is enough evidence to warrant a charge.

OK, I'm not.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 11090096)

The Judge or the lawyer?

.

Yes...;)

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11090103)

Right, and if you dont already know my view of the judge you can probably guess its not overly favourable.

That is what everyone that doesn't get the verdict they wish thinks.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 11090099)

This thread's depressing. :(

+1.

Im off for a drink.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by bats (Post 11090088)

Isn't the accuser the Crown after deciding that there is a case to answer?

Been sorting out the kids so will sift out the other comments to me in a bit. Bats you're right, I was told the choice to prosecute was not mine, the only thing I could do was to retract my statement, but it's up to CPS to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 11090099)

This thread's depressing. :(

I agree. I had to go and watch a Benny Hill video just for balance.

Re: Dave Lee Travis

[QUOTE=bats;11090093][QUOTE=PeterF;11090079]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bats (Post 11090050)

Fall out, as in people having to account for their behaviour. Which you think is ok as it was a longish time ago.

Anyone in authority fiddle with your willy when you were young?

FFS I HAVE NEVER SAID IT WAS OK, I CANNOT HELP IT IF YOUR A BLIND IDIOT WHO CANNOT READ.

My whole point was.

1. It was a long time ago.

2. Nobody was killed or raped.

3. Proving will be difficult after such a long time (the act itself would be difficult to prove if no-one saw it).

4. At that time in the 70's, as bad as it would have been to the person, society as a whole did not treat such things as seriously as they do today.

5. Because of 4, the perpetrator would probably have not been chastised against such behaviour (at the early stages even before it got as far as it did) which may have stopped it getting any further.

6. It is costing a lot of money and no good will come of it now.

And no, no-one of authority ever fiddled with my willy when I was young, although I was the recipient of an unwanted attempted gay fondle, which even in my drunken state I fought my way out of. Has it given me nightmares all my life, absolutely not.

If he (DLT) had forced himself on someone and attempted rape, then I would see the need, for someone acting the dick and thinking himself free to touch where he wanted at a time when he was allowed to get away with it, no, I don't see the need for it now (for the 6 reasons above and given time I could probably think of more).

So one final time NO I DO NOT THINK IT WAS OK!! rightio?

Re: Dave Lee Travis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 11090119)

I agree. I had to go and watch a Benny Hill video just for balance.

Which sums up the time really doesn't it, a TV show that everyone loves that couldn't possibly be made today.