Admin Maesknoll Red Posted February 13, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm sure most will find it no surprise that he has been found not guilty on 10 of the charges. He has said that the trial by media has been hell, far worse than the court trial. Another comment i found astounding and didn't realise, he has had to sell his house to pay the costs - how can it be right that amyone can make accusations against you and in sucessfully defending them you have to sell posessions and have no way of recouping the money from the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Seems ridiculous if your not found guilty, you are out of pocket. 5 live were talking about this earlier and said if you earnt little you got legal aid. If you are loaded it didn't matter you don't mind paying, everyone else its out of there pocket. What I don't get with these cases at moment a jury have to be 100% certain it happened, how can any jury be sure when its one persons word to anothers from 40 years ago. Seems a bit harsh on all concerned in these cases on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm sure most will find it no surprise that he has been found not guilty on 10 of the charges. He has said that the trial by media has been hell, far worse than the court trial. Another comment i found astounding and didn't realise, he has had to sell his house to pay the costs - how can it be right that amyone can make accusations against you and in sucessfully defending them you have to sell posessions and have no way of recouping the money from the state. He also lost his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Its a travesty that a mans life can be destroyed so publicly and financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craven arms Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Can they bring charges against the accusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted February 13, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Tough choice that: allow yourself to be found guilty (and have a roof over your head in prison) or become homeless proving your innocence? I accept that in DLT's case he probably isn't homeless, more a case of downgrading......but if it was one of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 How the hell do you defend yourself against 40 year old accusations? And even if you're acquitted, you're out of pocket, the mud sticks, and your lying accuser gets off scot-free. How should I know what I was I doing on Feb 13th 1974? * These days, I can't remember what I was doing last month. * Oh right, wondering how to explain to my beloved that I couldn't afford Valentine's Day flowers because I spent the money on a trip to Leeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lessons should have been learned from the Jo Yeates murder.The way her landlord,Chris Jeffries was treated by the media was absolutely scandalous.I was convinced he was guilty by the way he was portrayed.The press were rightly brought to account but look at the coverage Micheal Le Velle was subjected to.This current witch hunt on celebrities is doing massive harm to genuine victims of sexual crimes and the media with its sensationalistic hyperbole has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 So DLT got off, I think that just leaves Freddie Starr & Rolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Its a travesty that a mans life can be destroyed so publicly and financially. A Dave Lee Travesty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Dazzler Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 There is another one in the wind. Father Christmas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 There is another one in the wind. Cliff ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 AKA 'Kitty' - Elm House B+B Source, the same person who told me about Rolf, some 3 months before it hit the papers. I have no idea why it was deleted before as the same allegations were all over the net for 18 months if you knew where to look before the 'secret' was outed. Now the OB are considering pressing charges. That's all I was told, but as I say, my source was spot on about RH. Watch this degenerate into a Jill Dando murder cover-up thread. It doesn't help when people like you name people as "peado's". He's innocent until proven guilty, we have seen how people being named has ruined their life, so shut up and leave him alone unless he's proven guilty, which he isn't!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Good question. I have nothing but pity for a jury to try to come to a decision in these cases. The stakes are enormous. indeed, also I suspect the more dismissive posts on this thread probably emanate from men either unmarried or with no daughters. I wonder what they would do as a husband, father or grandfather if one of those confided in them with a similar incident historically involving a man? (famous or not), would they tell them 'your lying'?, 'oh forget it, it was a long time ago'?, 'nobody will believe you'? or support their loved one in a way a husband/father/grandfather should?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 I agree entirely. He is innocent until proven otherwise. I'm not accusing him. The Police are. And it's all over the internet and has been for 18 months at least. I apologise if you had not heard of this before, but it's not my fault if you haven't. Oh, and Eco put the name out. I did previously, but asked the mods to pull it if they were unhappy. They did, so I didn't name CR again. Big Fan I'm guessing. Apologies, I had no idea it was the batchelor boy you were talking about ! Had just heard about his concert with Morrisey and guess his name was on my mind for some reason. Sorry Cliff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted February 14, 2014 Author Admin Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 indeed, also I suspect the more dismissive posts on this thread probably emanate from men either unmarried or with no daughters. I wonder what they would do as a husband, father or grandfather if one of those confided in them with a similar incident historically involving a man? (famous or not), would they tell them 'your lying'?, 'oh forget it, it was a long time ago'?, 'nobody will believe you'? or support their loved one in a way a husband/father/grandfather should?. If you had a relative that said a celeb had felt her bum or even her boobs, 40 years ago, would you really expect a prosecution for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 If you had a relative that said a celeb had felt her bum or even her boobs, 40 years ago, would you really expect a prosecution for that? in this particular case I suspect the introduction of the more minor offences was to show a pattern, in the same way that it was used successfully in the case against Stuart Hall, I bet Stuart Hall is beginning to wish he pleaded not guilty and if he had knowing what we know now just imagine having to listening to his cowardly weasel words after the trial, like we did in every one of his court appearances leading up to his conviction. I just wonder have you got a better idea?, perhaps just take your chances with the more serious offences?, where the same outcome would have occurred DLT losing a lot of money but being found not guilty?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nause Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 No, and this is the problem with Yewtree. Horrendous sex stuff committed by celebs is lumped in with really low level sex-pest stuff as all "worth pursuing". The Mirror has taken this angle too, the CPS destroying DLT's life for stuff that, even if true, would earn him little more than a fine today. I'm certainly not saying that what he is alleged to have done is ok btw. Total weasel words from the CPS when asked to justify why they brought this case: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-trial-operation-3143623 The law is a complete ass at times and needs a complete overhaul. Most of our laws are set in stone from the victorian times and fall short somewhat on basic common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 The law is a complete ass at times and needs a complete overhaul. Most of our laws are set in stone from the victorian times and fall short somewhat on basic common sense. That is exactly what we don't need, the burden of proof is so high these days the cps works on a 85% chance of success before they will even prosecute, the problem is expensive lawyers are able far too often able to exclude evidence that is most prejudicial to their client and usually on the most frivolous of grounds, the only real problem our law has is it is riddled with loopholes that the law makers (usually failed lawyers and solicitors) leave so as their mates on the legal gravy train can rip the arse out of it and as we've seen having bled the system dry with far too many trips to the european court of human rights are now bleating about the tightening up of legal aid regs. and here's the thing, let's see if Roache or Travis sue their accusers in a court where the burden of proof is much lower in fact works on probability, somehow I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 I can't see the point in prosecuting people for minor offences - like groping - decades after the event. It's just a waste of police time and public money. When I was 16 and physically gorgeous I used to work in a Tesco after school. Quite frequently the older, lumpy women who were permanent there would pinch my bum or try to get their Hand in my trousers. It was part of work life. Imagine the cops' response if I phoned to complain about it now. They'd laugh their heads off. However if I said some celebrity had done the same thing, they'd be round my house with their blues-and-twos flashing, to take statcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 I can't see the point in prosecuting people for minor offences - like groping - decades after the event. It's just a waste of police time and public money. When I was 16 and physically gorgeous I used to work in a Tesco after school. Quite frequently the older, lumpy women who were permanent there would pinch my bum or try to get their Hand in my trousers. It was part of work life. Imagine the cops' response if I phoned to complain about it now. They'd laugh their heads off. However if I said some celebrity had done the same thing, they'd be round my house with their blues-and-twos flashing, to take statcement. As I said RR, it is almost certainly to paint a picture to the court of the frequency, it would never be allowed in as evidence otherwise, high powered lawyers would have it thrown out. What if it wasn't Tesco's it was a catholic church and perpetrator was male? and the police were trying to prove a historical case against him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 As I said RR, it is almost certainly to paint a picture to the court of the frequency, it would never be allowed in as evidence otherwise, high powered lawyers would have it thrown out. What if it wasn't Tesco's it was a catholic church and perpetrator was male? and the police were trying to prove a historical case against him? I think we have to distinguish between the degrees of seriousness of the offence. "the famous DJ allowed his hand to brush the side of my boob" is a world away from "Father O'Fiddly shagged me up the arris!" I'm not condoning groping. I once had to forcefully convince a supervisor of a girlfriend of mine that she did not enjoy his wandering hand attention. The time however to deal with it is when it happens, not decades later. When looking at historic crimes, the police should prioritise the most serious crimes only. After all, it's not like they can be arsed to investigate most of the crime that happens now.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think we have to distinguish between the degrees of seriousness of the offence. "the famous DJ allowed his hand to brush the side of my boob" is a world away from "Father O'Fiddly shagged me up the arris!" I'm not condoning groping. I once had to forcefully convince a supervisor of a girlfriend of mine that she did not enjoy his wandering hand attention.The time however to deal with it is when it happens, not decades later. When looking at historic crimes, the police should prioritise the most serious crimes only. After all, it's not like they can be arsed to investigate most of the crime that happens now.' You of all people should know why that bit of advice didn't, wouldn't and hasn't worked especially at the bbc and catholic church, so it's a total non argument. As for your last sentence, as I have already said, the reason the minor offences are prosecuted are to show a behavioral pattern, they would never be allowed in as additional evidence if only the more serious offences were prosecuted, it was a ploy that certainly worked in their favour when Stuart Hall was prosecuted, as I also said before perhaps he is wishing that he kept up his 'brazen this out' original tactic and maybe his wife of 56 years wouldn't be filing for divorce as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 These days, I can't remember what I was doing last month. I wish my memory was as good yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 I'm sure most will find it no surprise that he has been found not guilty on 10 of the charges. He has said that the trial by media has been hell, far worse than the court trial. Another comment i found astounding and didn't realise, he has had to sell his house to pay the costs - how can it be right that amyone can make accusations against you and in sucessfully defending them you have to sell posessions and have no way of recouping the money from the state. Just to put things in perspective I believe he is still on bail because of 2 other charges. Lets wait until the verdict on these before we start on how much of an ass the law is. Just a quick question but can I sue the bird who squeezed my balls back in 1974 in Baileys ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Just to put things in perspective I believe he is still on bail because of 2 other charges. Lets wait until the verdict on these before we start on how much of an ass the law is. Just a quick question but can I sue the bird who squeezed my balls back in 1974 in Baileys ? That wasn't a bird it was Saphire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 You of all people should know why that bit of advice didn't, wouldn't and hasn't worked especially at the bbc and catholic church, so it's a total non argument. As for your last sentence, as I have already said, the reason the minor offences are prosecuted are to show a behavioral pattern, they would never be allowed in as additional evidence if only the more serious offences were prosecuted, it was a ploy that certainly worked in their favour when Stuart Hall was prosecuted, as I also said before perhaps he is wishing that he kept up his 'brazen this out' original tactic and maybe his wife of 56 years wouldn't be filing for divorce as well. But were there any serious offences against DLT? The bloke is just an office sex pest, at worst, not a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 I can't see the point in prosecuting people for minor offences - like groping - decades after the event. It's just a waste of police time and public money. When I was 16 and physically gorgeous I used to work in a Tesco after school. Quite frequently the older, lumpy women who were permanent there would pinch my bum or try to get their Hand in my trousers. It was part of work life. Imagine the cops' response if I phoned to complain about it now. They'd laugh their heads off. However if I said some celebrity had done the same thing, they'd be round my house with their blues-and-twos flashing, to take statcement. Spot on, they were different times. In the early seventys I was a callow youth ,all long blow dried hair and dungarees (jeez, I would have fancied me myself) and worked in Jacksons of Yate. I was warned never to go into the Ascot section (all women ) around xmas time. Of course i got lured in on some work pretext. To put it bluntly, I was virtually raped by about ten pissed up GILFS ! Everybody was looking through the glass screens dividing the area and laughing, even the male foremen ! Afterwards, when they let me go, I was BOLLOCKED by my boss and told that I'd learned a lesson you lucky bastard ! I soon got over it, but they were different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.