News1 min ago
Dave Lee Travis Sentence To Be Reviewed...
Dave Lee Travis indecent assault sentence to be reviewed - http://
Answers
Those who cry 'unduly lenient' are perhaps looking at this too narrow. DLT has a conviction against his name, has suffered the long anguish of two trials which has obviously taken its toll on his health. His reputation has been tarnished, his finances have taken a battering, sold his home to finance his costs etc. Put the sum total together of his 'punishment'...
14:30 Mon 29th Sep 2014
Svejk - "Unfortunately, andy, in his never-ending quest to take offence on other peoples behalf seems to have had a common-sense bypass."
I would argue that I am not 'taking offence' on anyone's part.
I confess I am uncomfortable with naomi's "It was years ago, it was a grope, get over it ...' position, and I am awaiting a response from her when she returns.
But aside from that, I don't find anything offensive in any of the posts, so I fail to see why I am seen as 'taking offence' here - ?
If I was takling offence, I would say so.
I would argue that I am not 'taking offence' on anyone's part.
I confess I am uncomfortable with naomi's "It was years ago, it was a grope, get over it ...' position, and I am awaiting a response from her when she returns.
But aside from that, I don't find anything offensive in any of the posts, so I fail to see why I am seen as 'taking offence' here - ?
If I was takling offence, I would say so.
The court evidence does not suggest that Travis 'groped her boob' as you put it, but that the lady in question was the victim of a sustained sexual assault.
------------------
I believe you're gilding the lily a bit too much now with your sackcloth and ashes routine.
Abhorrent and distatseful though his actions were I would have to argue that a 10-15 second grope of breasts through clothing does not constitute a 'sustained sexual assault'.
http://
From link:
The DJ had squeezed her breasts for 10-15 seconds after cornering her in a corridor of a BBC studio.
If that is how it has been reported from a courtroom then it's safe to say that we HAVE heard the evidence.
------------------
I believe you're gilding the lily a bit too much now with your sackcloth and ashes routine.
Abhorrent and distatseful though his actions were I would have to argue that a 10-15 second grope of breasts through clothing does not constitute a 'sustained sexual assault'.
http://
From link:
The DJ had squeezed her breasts for 10-15 seconds after cornering her in a corridor of a BBC studio.
If that is how it has been reported from a courtroom then it's safe to say that we HAVE heard the evidence.
andy, //I am uncomfortable with naomi's "It was years ago, it was a grope, get over it ...' position,//
I'll respond to that. If every woman who found herself subjected to unwanted wandering hands took the case to court, the courts would collapse under the strain. Most of us are sensible enough to get over it.
I'll respond to that. If every woman who found herself subjected to unwanted wandering hands took the case to court, the courts would collapse under the strain. Most of us are sensible enough to get over it.
ChillDoubt - "I believe you're gilding the lily a bit too much now with your sackcloth and ashes routine."
I dispute that I have a 'sackcloth and ashes' routine.
From memory, the judge's summing up did refer to a 'sustained assault'.
If the judge and jury did not feel that the incident was a sexual assault, then why has Travis been convicted of that offence, and sentenced accordingly?
I am trying hard not to stray from the facts as I understand them - the only point at which I deverge from some posters on the thread is the severity of reaction from the victim which the offence has caused - and which encouraged the lady in question to bring the accusation in the first place.
I am not trying to exagerate the circomstances of the offence, I simpy think that if a jury found Travis guilty of assault based on evidence which none of us have heard, then an assault is what occured.
I dispute that I have a 'sackcloth and ashes' routine.
From memory, the judge's summing up did refer to a 'sustained assault'.
If the judge and jury did not feel that the incident was a sexual assault, then why has Travis been convicted of that offence, and sentenced accordingly?
I am trying hard not to stray from the facts as I understand them - the only point at which I deverge from some posters on the thread is the severity of reaction from the victim which the offence has caused - and which encouraged the lady in question to bring the accusation in the first place.
I am not trying to exagerate the circomstances of the offence, I simpy think that if a jury found Travis guilty of assault based on evidence which none of us have heard, then an assault is what occured.
naomi24 - "If every woman who found herself subjected to unwanted wandering hands took the case to court, the courts would collapse under the strain. Most of us are sensible enough to get over it."
I have I hope explained that although you have taken such a situation in your stride, others are less able to do so, and they deserve the protection of the law, and an element of sympathy from wider society.
I find your view the thin end of a wedge - if everyone has to be 'sensible enough to get over ...' a criminal act, then protection for the vulnerable is erroded accordingly, and that is the thrust of my entire argument.
I have I hope explained that although you have taken such a situation in your stride, others are less able to do so, and they deserve the protection of the law, and an element of sympathy from wider society.
I find your view the thin end of a wedge - if everyone has to be 'sensible enough to get over ...' a criminal act, then protection for the vulnerable is erroded accordingly, and that is the thrust of my entire argument.
If the judge and jury did not feel that the incident was a sexual assault, then why has Travis been convicted of that offence, and sentenced accordingly?
-------------------
So we are in agreement that he has been convicted and sentenced accordingly, so what are you adding to the discussion? Most on this thread believe he's been sentenced appropriately and see no point in pursuing this further, so what is your continuing argument? That the wording of his offence didn't carry enough gravitas? That he ought to be deemed a sexual predator as opposed to just a 'dirty old man'?
-------------------
So we are in agreement that he has been convicted and sentenced accordingly, so what are you adding to the discussion? Most on this thread believe he's been sentenced appropriately and see no point in pursuing this further, so what is your continuing argument? That the wording of his offence didn't carry enough gravitas? That he ought to be deemed a sexual predator as opposed to just a 'dirty old man'?
ChillDoubt - "If the judge and jury did not feel that the incident was a sexual assault, then why has Travis been convicted of that offence, and sentenced accordingly?
-------------------
So we are in agreement that he has been convicted and sentenced accordingly, so what are you adding to the discussion?"
My response began with agchristie's assertion that Travis has suffered enough given the lengths of the trials and the financial and physical toll on Mr Travis - I pointed out that in my view, these factors are not relavent, and a discussion has developed from there.
Most on this thread believe he's been sentenced appropriately and see no point in pursuing this further, so what is your continuing argument?"
I have no put forward an argument about the length of sentence, none of my posts are concerned with that aspect of the case.
"That the wording of his offence didn't carry enough gravitas? That he ought to be deemed a sexual predator as opposed to just a 'dirty old man'?"
I refer to my previous answer - I am not concerned with the wording of the offence, or any reference to Mr Travis's character, and have offered nothing in my posts on either subject.
Others do appear willing to debate, which is why the thread has not stopped yet - you appear to think I am arguing issues which I have not mentioned. If you wish to argue my views, feel free, but that is not the same as suggesting notions which have not been mentioned by me, or anyone else.
-------------------
So we are in agreement that he has been convicted and sentenced accordingly, so what are you adding to the discussion?"
My response began with agchristie's assertion that Travis has suffered enough given the lengths of the trials and the financial and physical toll on Mr Travis - I pointed out that in my view, these factors are not relavent, and a discussion has developed from there.
Most on this thread believe he's been sentenced appropriately and see no point in pursuing this further, so what is your continuing argument?"
I have no put forward an argument about the length of sentence, none of my posts are concerned with that aspect of the case.
"That the wording of his offence didn't carry enough gravitas? That he ought to be deemed a sexual predator as opposed to just a 'dirty old man'?"
I refer to my previous answer - I am not concerned with the wording of the offence, or any reference to Mr Travis's character, and have offered nothing in my posts on either subject.
Others do appear willing to debate, which is why the thread has not stopped yet - you appear to think I am arguing issues which I have not mentioned. If you wish to argue my views, feel free, but that is not the same as suggesting notions which have not been mentioned by me, or anyone else.
naomi24 - "andy, most of us who encounter this sort of unwanted attention get over it – leaving the law to help those who really need its protection."
I absolutely agree with you on that.
Where we appear to part company is that you appear to suggest that the woman in this case is not someone who really needs the protection of the law.
My position is that she is - which is why she has chosen to exercise her right to its protection - and why this case has occured in the first place.
That is the entire basis of my position on this thread - and nothing to do with the wording of the charge, or the perception henceforth of Mr Travis, as was suggested by ChillDoubt.
By no means does every 'grope' amount to a sexual assault, I am not naive enough to suggest that it does, either in intent or reception.
My point is that, as appears in this case, the situation was more serious than that, then the law is in place to protect a victim and to bring punishment to an offender, and that is what has occured here.
I absolutely agree with you on that.
Where we appear to part company is that you appear to suggest that the woman in this case is not someone who really needs the protection of the law.
My position is that she is - which is why she has chosen to exercise her right to its protection - and why this case has occured in the first place.
That is the entire basis of my position on this thread - and nothing to do with the wording of the charge, or the perception henceforth of Mr Travis, as was suggested by ChillDoubt.
By no means does every 'grope' amount to a sexual assault, I am not naive enough to suggest that it does, either in intent or reception.
My point is that, as appears in this case, the situation was more serious than that, then the law is in place to protect a victim and to bring punishment to an offender, and that is what has occured here.
As I understand it, the woman he was convicted of assaulting had *got over it*. She immediately reported the incident to the studio floor manager (?) and others, so there was independent knowledge of the assault at the time it occured.
It was on learning that DLT was being tried for other assaults that she came forwards to 'add weight' to those accusations.....weight that couldn't be so easily dismissed.
It was on learning that DLT was being tried for other assaults that she came forwards to 'add weight' to those accusations.....weight that couldn't be so easily dismissed.
I'll get to work later and change the name on the flag:
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.