Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
gpo746 said:
Dave Lee Travis has been sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for two years, for indecently assaulting a woman in 1995.
3 months suspended for two years. Pretty much a very low sentence. I would suggest the judge has got it about right.
Add a destroyed reputation and career, plus his huge defence costs, that seems a pretty steep punishment for what he was found guilty of.3 months suspended for two years. Pretty much a very low sentence. I would suggest the judge has got it about right.
Borghetto said:
Add a destroyed reputation and career, plus his huge defence costs, that seems a pretty steep punishment for what he was found guilty of.
He was sentenced on the single case that was before him. Not for stuff he may have done/ may not have done.I can't compare it to anything similar as I don't recall many " groping" offences appearing in court, but I am sure the judge in this case will have simply applied it as he saw it suited the offence.
9mm said:
La Liga said:
A suspended sentence is appropriate. It's a low-level sexual offence.
I'd suggest anyone doing the same thing in a pub somewhere tonight would face a caution at worst.Einion Yrth said:
9mm said:
La Liga said:
A suspended sentence is appropriate. It's a low-level sexual offence.
I'd suggest anyone doing the same thing in a pub somewhere tonight would face a caution at worst.PurpleMoonlight said:
Well done the police and CPS, worth every penny of the millions it costs us over two trials to get a 3 month suspended outcome!
f
king ridiculous waste of money.
Very much so.f
king ridiculous waste of money.PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
The threshold to charge, roughly speaking, is whether a prosecution is more likely than not to succeed.
Then the CPS's judgement process needs to be re-assessed. How many convictions did they fail to achieve against DLT again?
12 get taken to trial 1, he's acquitted of 10 of them, they re-try 2, he's acquitted on them both, they then drop in this last case, and scrape though on a 10/2.
the outcome? he's now likely to declare bankruptcy, (and I would imagine we as a state will have to support him), we have wasted how much in public money to prosecute these charges though months and months with 2 high court hearings lasting weeks, all to get a 3 month suspended sentence on something that 99.999999% of the public would think nothing more that a slap in the face would have been required.
can somebody please explain how any of this was (1) just and (2) in the public interest?
at a time when PC plod are winging about lack of resources to tackle crime and investigations, they waste thousands of police and CPS hours on this case.
in the mean time, the 1,400 victims up north are still suffering the effects of their serious abuse and yet the police have still to deal with a large number of the perpetrators.
Sorry, this is just grandstanding by the DPP etc.
9mm said:
I know that but you get my drift. Then I contend that if someone didn't admit guilt and IF they were prosecuted, it'd be a fine at most.
Like this low-level sexual assault guilty plea? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756321/Se...Read the sentencing guidelines, it'll stop you from having to make things up.
Scuffers said:
so, just how many charges were made in the first place?
12 get taken to trial 1, he's acquitted of 10 of them, they re-try 2, he's acquitted on them both, they then drop in this last case, and scrape though on a 10/2.
1) 12 first trail, 10 NG, 2 undecided, I believe. 12 get taken to trial 1, he's acquitted of 10 of them, they re-try 2, he's acquitted on them both, they then drop in this last case, and scrape though on a 10/2.
2) Standard presumption CPS apply for re-trial (as per policy I linked you earlier).
3) Another complainant comes forward between the trial. Meets criteria for a charge.
4) 3 charges tried. Two NG, one G.
5) Sentenced for G.
No one could crystal ball either trial. The first could have ended with 12 convictions, the second could have ended with 3 convictions. Just because they didn't doesn't make the trials unjust.
Scuffers said:
we have wasted how much in public money to prosecute these charges though months and months with 2 high court hearings lasting weeks, all to get a 3 month suspended sentence on something that 99.999999% of the public would think nothing more that a slap in the face would have been required.
You call it wasted, I call it justice for the victim who would have likely been ignored when it occurred. I'd be cautious assuming what others think. Scuffers said:
can somebody please explain how any of this was (1) just and (2) in the public interest?
Because sexual offending is criminal and needs to be challenged. Scuffers said:
at a time when PC plod are winging about lack of resources to tackle crime and investigations, they waste thousands of police and CPS hours on this case.
It's one trial. There are 10s of thousands of trials per year. It's economically insignificant. Scuffers said:
in the mean time, the 1,400 victims up north are still suffering the effects of their serious abuse and yet the police have still to deal with a large number of the perpetrators.
So what are you actually saying? Ignore this one because of others? Two wrongs don't make a right. Scuffers said:
Sorry, this is just grandstanding by the DPP etc.
I genuinely see nothing other a standard investigation that was prosecuted in a standard way. TTmonkey said:
The poor young girl up North that allegedly got murdered, dismembered and cooked off has had no justice. Years her killers have been known, but the PC brigade would rather go after an over firendly white guy than a gang of killers in case they get labelled as racists.
utter rubbish.
Nearly all murders are detected. The detection-rate is consistent across all ethnicities. utter rubbish.
There may well be many in the so-called Justice system that bridle a bit when they see what excesses are perpetrated on the masses of tax payers and wealthy individuals. They, however, daren't complain about the enormous waste of court time, public expenditure, exorbitant fee system of senior practitioners, 'Spanish practices', and the rest of the circus paraphernalia. They know that to raise a wig above the parapet is job suicide and there is no more closed profession than the Law.
No good arguing with barristers, as I have found on here, they merely twist quotes to suit a misdirection and then mock in retaliation. They will only ever defend the status quo strictly according to the law books and brook no argument that the system badly needs reform. They adore circular arguments that eventually disappear (guess where?). I don't blame them, your job is of paramount importance in keeping your family etc together. But a modicum of honesty (!) and humility would not go amiss. I'm pleased to admit I have a friend in their midst who fills the above slagging-off admirably and agrees with me, but privately.
The police and the CPS in the DLT saga come out of it as idiots that are costing public funds far too much and their actions are indefensible.
No good arguing with barristers, as I have found on here, they merely twist quotes to suit a misdirection and then mock in retaliation. They will only ever defend the status quo strictly according to the law books and brook no argument that the system badly needs reform. They adore circular arguments that eventually disappear (guess where?). I don't blame them, your job is of paramount importance in keeping your family etc together. But a modicum of honesty (!) and humility would not go amiss. I'm pleased to admit I have a friend in their midst who fills the above slagging-off admirably and agrees with me, but privately.
The police and the CPS in the DLT saga come out of it as idiots that are costing public funds far too much and their actions are indefensible.
La Liga said:
[
With respect to this case which I believe is the Charlene Downes one. The case collapsed due to poor policing.It was widely believed that there was a reluctabnce initially by the police to investigate the matter due to the potential racial elements involved. TTmonkey said:
The poor young girl up North that allegedly got murdered, dismembered and cooked off has had no justice. Years her killers have been known, but the PC brigade would rather go after an over firendly white guy than a gang of killers in case they get labelled as racists.
utter rubbish.
Nearly all murders are detected. The detection-rate is consistent across all ethnicities. utter rubbish.
In the case of the supposedly "similar" ones involving Paige Chivers due to the police case being ongoing and a reward being offered and incidents involving one of the defendants since, 2 people have been charged with her murder
9mm said:
La Liga said:
A suspended sentence is appropriate. It's a low-level sexual offence.
I'd suggest anyone doing the same thing in a pub somewhere tonight would face a caution at worst.A better example might be: the CEO of your company has a meeting with an important client. After the meeting, the CEO's PA is escorting the client down in the lift when he decides that his 'status' gives him the right to grab her boobs. Should that result in just a caution?
La Liga said:
9mm said:
I know that but you get my drift. Then I contend that if someone didn't admit guilt and IF they were prosecuted, it'd be a fine at most.
Like this low-level sexual assault guilty plea? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756321/Se...Read the sentencing guidelines, it'll stop you from having to make things up.
I'm struggling to see how this could have been viewed as anything other than the lowest level category but please let me know what I may be missing.
La Liga said:
You call it wasted, I call it justice for the victim who would have likely been ignored when it occurred. I'd be cautious assuming what others think.
Really?You think this is money well spent to provide justice for one person who claims DLT squeezed her boobs?
I guess that the CPS don't have a cost effectiveness criteria. Perhaps they should. The money could be better spent elsewhere.
TTwiggy said:
9mm said:
La Liga said:
A suspended sentence is appropriate. It's a low-level sexual offence.
I'd suggest anyone doing the same thing in a pub somewhere tonight would face a caution at worst.A better example might be: the CEO of your company has a meeting with an important client. After the meeting, the CEO's PA is escorting the client down in the lift when he decides that his 'status' gives him the right to grab her boobs. Should that result in just a caution?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff