Dave Lee Travis Sentence To Be Reviewed...

[Jomlett]

Dave Lee Travis indecent assault sentence to be reviewed - http://gu.com/p/42xhn/tw

[Svejk]

lol@ludwig

[andy-hughes]

2sp - "In the odd interview I've seen with him outside the court after the sentence was passed, he didn't even seem slightly ashamed, contrite or apologetic."

Indeed - and I have referenced that point myself on this thread and others.

It was Travis's monumental arrogance and pomposity, referring to the accusers in the trials as liars and fantasists (altrhough who would fantasise about being groped by him is a large wonder!) that caused the eventual coming forward of the victim that saw him convicted.

But still he remains blissfully unaware that his own boorish inappropriate behaviour, which he likes to think of as 'tactile' and 'cuddly' is not received as such, and just because that is his stated intention does not make his behaviour right, morally or indeed legally.

[andy-hughes]

ludwig - let's not pursue that shall we?

[2sp_]

Andy, I wonder if his lack of remorse or comprehension about his actions has fuelled some members of the public to complain that his sentence has been too lenient?

Maybe if he was full of apologies and regret, we (as in The Public) would be more satisfied with the outcome as it currently stands?

[agchristie]

2sp - more likely they think the judge was too soft, despite, in my view, him giving a balanced and proportionate summing up and sentence.

[kvalidir]

But we are a tiny minority of affronted folk 2SP- Naomi and Svejk speak for the whole country when they say that the naughty spiteful girl should have left the nice cuddly man and his lovely wife alone. Apparently.

[ludwig]

Getting back to the point - is it a reasonable sentence for the crime? I'd want to know what happens in similar cases. Is 3 months suspended normal for comparable assaults - does anyone know?

[naomi24]

Andy, for goodness sake. No one – no one at all – has said his behaviour was right morally or legally, and as for the people he deemed liars and fantasists, we do know their accusations didn't hold water. Who are we to argue with the court?

[andy-hughes]

naomi - "Andy, for goodness sake. No one – no one at all – has said his behaviour was right morally or legally ..."

Indeed - I have in fact agreed with you about that fact earlier in the thread, so I am not sure why you are raising it again here.

"... and as for the people he deemed liars and fantasists, we do know their accusations didn't hold water...." - not sure what point you are making here either?

"Who are we to argue with the court?"

We are citizens of a democracy, and if we don't agree with the way our courts act on our behalf, we are entitled to say so - again, not sure of your point?

[ludwig]

Again, I'd like to know if the sentence is a typical one, or of they've treated the hairy cornflake as a Special K's.

That would go along way to knowing if the sentence was unduly lenient or not.

[andy-hughes]

2sp - "Andy, I wonder if his lack of remorse or comprehension about his actions has fuelled some members of the public to complain that his sentence has been too lenient?

Maybe if he was full of apologies and regret, we (as in The Public) would be more satisfied with the outcome as it currently stands?"

I would agree.

That is why I am mistified at the vocifourous defence mounted by some of the posters on this thread - that he has suffered enough, lost his house and career, his family are innocent et al.

Travis has brought his downfall on himself with his boorish arrogant behaviour, compounded by his continued boorish grandstanding and protestations of no wrongdoing, and the lack of grace and humilty to admit to his behaviour and apologise.

That approach may have won him a deal more support than he has recieved, and may have saved his career.

Hoist by his own petard.

[Svejk]

doubt there's any precedent Ludwig, because such a case would never reach court.

[jackthehat]

///we do know their accusations didn't hold water.///

No, we know that the prosecution didn't convince the Jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.......they had no such trouble with the case of the Researcher, though

[Khandro]

This might interest mikey, taken from the 'Letters of Lady Diana Cooper to her son John Julius Norwich 1939-52'. When she was ambassadress to Paris and was groped by the foreign secretary Ernie Bevan in a lift: "he suddenly clasped me into his arms with the strength and immobility of a bear and buried his podgy face in my neck. So we stood for a full minute, then with a very slow utterly relentless gesture he lifted his mouth to mine. No struggles could have affected the situation, as well stand up to the mountain-weight of lava." She was then affronted when Bevin asks her to join him in bed, but asserts herself, and writes later: "Still there's life in the dear dog and courage and character and humanity and a lot of other nice things".
Quite a lady!

[Svejk]

they must have had a bit of trouble. It was their 3rd go at making 'something stick'.

[naomi24]

andy, I didn’t raise it again – you did.

//We are citizens of a democracy, and if we don't agree with the way our courts act on our behalf, we are entitled to say so//

I agree – but you seemed to be saying earlier that the court made its judgement and that is that. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jack, therefore the accusations didn’t hold water – as I said.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - "they must have had a bit of trouble. It was their 3rd go at making 'something stick'."

Your language appears to suggest that you are in the 'witch hunt' camp over this case.

From my experience, the justice system and the CPS bring cases to court on the basis that they believe that they have sufficient evidence to warrent a trial, and to secure a conviction.

This perception that the legal system is after a scapegoat because of failures in bringing Jimmy Saville to trial are frankly farcical media-generated tosh, and should be dismissed as such.

[naomi24]

//This perception that the legal system is after a scapegoat because of failures in bringing Jimmy Saville to trial ...//

Who said that?

[andy-hughes]

naomi - "//This perception that the legal system is after a scapegoat because of failures in bringing Jimmy Saville to trial ...//

Who said that?"

That has not been raised specifically on this thread, but it is a perception held by some people, and bears comment on this thread I feel.

[naomi24]

I'm not sure that is the perception held by people on this thread. It occurred to me that these witch hunts began with the Jimmy Savile scandal, but never that they are on-going as a result of a failure to bring him to trial.