ChatterBank1 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
// it is a perception held by some people, //
It's a perception held by me. I wouldn't say they're looking for a 'scapegoat' as you put it, simply that there's an peculiar concentration of efforts on famous people from Savile era. I'd put this down to a determination to make amends for the fact that Savile was allowed to rape and assault children to his hearts content while nobody (including the police) did anything to stop it.
If they're bringing criminals like Rolf Harris to justice, fine, but I'd be interested to know if they're investigating any gropings from 30 years ago by unknown people as part of this.
It's a perception held by me. I wouldn't say they're looking for a 'scapegoat' as you put it, simply that there's an peculiar concentration of efforts on famous people from Savile era. I'd put this down to a determination to make amends for the fact that Savile was allowed to rape and assault children to his hearts content while nobody (including the police) did anything to stop it.
If they're bringing criminals like Rolf Harris to justice, fine, but I'd be interested to know if they're investigating any gropings from 30 years ago by unknown people as part of this.
ludwig - "If they're bringing criminals like Rolf Harris to justice, fine, but I'd be interested to know if they're investigating any gropings from 30 years ago by unknown people as part of this."
I am sure that the police investigate any and all accusations of this nature - they don't have a 'go to the head of the queue' for famous people.
The reason why people like Harris and Travis are high-profile is because they are famous, and therefore newsworthy.
That does not mean that they are specifically targeted.
I am sure that the police investigate any and all accusations of this nature - they don't have a 'go to the head of the queue' for famous people.
The reason why people like Harris and Travis are high-profile is because they are famous, and therefore newsworthy.
That does not mean that they are specifically targeted.
// That does not mean that they are specifically targeted. //
Maybe, and I could be wrong, but if my wife (for example) went to the police and said that Joe Bloggs had grabbed her breast in 1995 I honestly don't think they'd be particularly interested.
They wouldn't for example send a squad to raid Joe Blogg's house in search of evidence, and they wouldn't give Joe Blogg's name to the papers on a fishing excercise to see if anyone else might come forward with similar stories about Joe Bloggs.
Maybe, and I could be wrong, but if my wife (for example) went to the police and said that Joe Bloggs had grabbed her breast in 1995 I honestly don't think they'd be particularly interested.
They wouldn't for example send a squad to raid Joe Blogg's house in search of evidence, and they wouldn't give Joe Blogg's name to the papers on a fishing excercise to see if anyone else might come forward with similar stories about Joe Bloggs.
Andy, I’m not sure svejk meant that. ‘Third go?’ Who’s he talking about? There have been more than two famous people charged and then acquitted. And I do think high profile people are being specifically targeted. I can’t recall seeing reports of anyone unknown answering to 20 or 30 year old allegations.
naomi - "I can’t recall seeing reports of anyone unknown answering to 20 or 30 year old allegations."
The key word here is 'unknown'.
If you or I fall out of a taxi at 3:00 a.m. and vomit into the gutter, it's not news.
If Naomi Campbell does the same - it is news.
That really sums it up - as a prurient society we love to see our celebrities brought low - that sells papers.
The key word here is 'unknown'.
If you or I fall out of a taxi at 3:00 a.m. and vomit into the gutter, it's not news.
If Naomi Campbell does the same - it is news.
That really sums it up - as a prurient society we love to see our celebrities brought low - that sells papers.
http://
this was about 30 odd years ago when the offences were commited
this was about 30 odd years ago when the offences were commited
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
15:33 Tue 30th Sep 2014 ///
Svejk /// they must have had a bit of trouble. It was their 3rd go at making 'something stick'. ///
15:37 Tue 30th Sep 2014
Andy, you take my answer to JTH, completely out of context, and ascribe a different meaning to it. Then repeat your 'findings' 3 or 4 times as if to convince yourself (or others) Lets hope you're never allowed on a jury in this country because, frankly, there's something 'not quite right'.
And in case there were any doubt about that, you appear to be equating this case with the drugging and raping of a 12 year old girl.
/// 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
15:33 Tue 30th Sep 2014 ///
Svejk /// they must have had a bit of trouble. It was their 3rd go at making 'something stick'. ///
15:37 Tue 30th Sep 2014
Andy, you take my answer to JTH, completely out of context, and ascribe a different meaning to it. Then repeat your 'findings' 3 or 4 times as if to convince yourself (or others) Lets hope you're never allowed on a jury in this country because, frankly, there's something 'not quite right'.
And in case there were any doubt about that, you appear to be equating this case with the drugging and raping of a 12 year old girl.
Svejk - "Lets hope you're never allowed on a jury in this country because, frankly, there's something 'not quite right'.
And in case there were any doubt about that, you appear to be equating this case with the drugging and raping of a 12 year old girl."
If you re-read the sequence of posts you will see that Naomi was putting forward a viewpoint that non-'famous' offences are possibly not investigated, to which I responded - we will never know.
At that point, mcfluff posted a link confirming that non-'famous' cases are indeed investigated.
Quite how you get to me equating Travis's case with the case linked is entirely beyond me!
Perhaps it is you who should be hoping jury service does not beckon?
And in case there were any doubt about that, you appear to be equating this case with the drugging and raping of a 12 year old girl."
If you re-read the sequence of posts you will see that Naomi was putting forward a viewpoint that non-'famous' offences are possibly not investigated, to which I responded - we will never know.
At that point, mcfluff posted a link confirming that non-'famous' cases are indeed investigated.
Quite how you get to me equating Travis's case with the case linked is entirely beyond me!
Perhaps it is you who should be hoping jury service does not beckon?
are you being deliberately obtuse? I know exactly what the sequence of posts was. Naturally they report horrific cases like the one in question. What they don't report on is grown women having their breasts groped 20 years ago for the very good reason that such a case doesn't exist.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Svejk-are you being deliberately obtuse? I know exactly what the sequence of posts was. Naturally they report horrific cases like the one in question. What they don't report on is grown women having their breasts groped 20 years ago for the very good reason that such a case doesn't exist.
You should be ashamed of yourself."
Leaving aside your rudeness, there is still no discernible link between what I have posted, and the post that mcfluff linked.
So I'll stay unashamed of myself, if it's all the same to you.
You should be ashamed of yourself."
Leaving aside your rudeness, there is still no discernible link between what I have posted, and the post that mcfluff linked.
So I'll stay unashamed of myself, if it's all the same to you.
naomi24 - "andy, your excuses don't wash. I can’t believe you compare the case in mcfluff’s link to the one under discussion. I agree with Svejk. You should be ashamed of yourself."
I have managed to unravel where the confusion is coming from - when I advised that non'famous cases do get reported, I was not in any way drawing any link whatsoever with the Travis case - that conclusion is entirely of yours and Svejk's making.
The point I was making is that non-famous' cases do indeed get reported.
I made no reference to, or inference that the cases were linked in any way shape or form. My point was entirely the fact that a historical case had made the media, it was not connected to the circumstances of the case in question, or drawing comparions with the Travis case.
Both you and Svejk share more in common than you think - you are both capable of entirely misunderstanding a post and jumping to conclusions and dishing out insults before asking for clarification.
I remain unashamed of myself - you two can think over your individual knee-jerk reactions for yourselves.
I have managed to unravel where the confusion is coming from - when I advised that non'famous cases do get reported, I was not in any way drawing any link whatsoever with the Travis case - that conclusion is entirely of yours and Svejk's making.
The point I was making is that non-famous' cases do indeed get reported.
I made no reference to, or inference that the cases were linked in any way shape or form. My point was entirely the fact that a historical case had made the media, it was not connected to the circumstances of the case in question, or drawing comparions with the Travis case.
Both you and Svejk share more in common than you think - you are both capable of entirely misunderstanding a post and jumping to conclusions and dishing out insults before asking for clarification.
I remain unashamed of myself - you two can think over your individual knee-jerk reactions for yourselves.
Naomi - "andy, If there was a knee-jerk reaction here it was from you. Perhaps you should have had the sense to consider the circumstances of the two cases on question before blathering seemingly triumphantly ahead! I’m truly shocked!"
I cannot legislate in advance for someone taking two and two and making twenty-two, even if it is the two people on the thread who have consistently argued against the right of the victim in the Travis case to obtain justice and not simply laugh off a sexual assault because it is 'what goes on'.
Don't try and make me responsible for the fact that both of you jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion with no evidence whatsoever, simply because you delight in being 'shocked' and flinging inaccurate accusations about.
It is you and Svejk who should be considering what you post before you post it - then you won't be caught out in such ludicrous conclusions based on nothing more than your mutually overheated imaginations, and the irresistable urge to take the moral high ground.
I cannot legislate in advance for someone taking two and two and making twenty-two, even if it is the two people on the thread who have consistently argued against the right of the victim in the Travis case to obtain justice and not simply laugh off a sexual assault because it is 'what goes on'.
Don't try and make me responsible for the fact that both of you jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion with no evidence whatsoever, simply because you delight in being 'shocked' and flinging inaccurate accusations about.
It is you and Svejk who should be considering what you post before you post it - then you won't be caught out in such ludicrous conclusions based on nothing more than your mutually overheated imaginations, and the irresistable urge to take the moral high ground.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV16 mins ago
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.