Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
Rude-boy said:
No, I think you will find that the legal profession will cop it just as much as the rest of those involved. As I see it the only person who will have benefited from all of this was the poor lady DLT assaulted having finally seen her attacker convicted of the offence that left her so deeply traumatised for so many years that it is only just now that she has felt able to come forwards about it.
That's not really fair. Until Yewtree most of the victims didn't feel able to come forward because of their attacker's celebrity, that same celebrity that prevented them moving on because their attacker was always in the public eye.SamHH said:
Do a crime, get tried in the usual way with all the usual protections, get convicted.
That seems quite just to me.
This is not the usual way, though. Brought to trial, and found not guilty of all charges. That seems quite just to me.
Then all of a sudden more evidence is found which results in 3 charges and 1 conviction by a majority verdict. Of a relatively minor crime.
A media driven prosecution with a urgent need to get a conviction for anything. Will the same rigour be used to convict those whose negligence and apathy lead to the abuse of thousands of children over decades?
Scuffers said:
your miss understand my post.
what I am getting at is that the original case/charges/etc have all been to nothing.
all they managed to get on him was the new charge that would never have seen the light of day without the bogus charges being levelled.
so, after what? 2 years of faffing about wasting our money and his, they get him on some pathetic grope charge (that they could not get a unanimous verdict on)
do you consider this in the public interest to waste so much time and money on trivia?
hardly crime of the century is it? and yet every day 1,000's of crimes with real victims go un-investigated.
I am sure Ms. anonymous is now eagerly awaiting her compensation....
It's not hard to work out who it is - not sure why it's anonymous to be honest when the victim has publicly mentioned being groped by him as far back as 2007, maybe longer ago than that. I'd be surprised if she's after compensation.what I am getting at is that the original case/charges/etc have all been to nothing.
all they managed to get on him was the new charge that would never have seen the light of day without the bogus charges being levelled.
so, after what? 2 years of faffing about wasting our money and his, they get him on some pathetic grope charge (that they could not get a unanimous verdict on)
do you consider this in the public interest to waste so much time and money on trivia?
hardly crime of the century is it? and yet every day 1,000's of crimes with real victims go un-investigated.
I am sure Ms. anonymous is now eagerly awaiting her compensation....
TTmonkey said:
So, if the government decides that the records that it has over the last 20 years of drivers braking the speed limit but not previously punished, will be processed in due course and everyone will recveve fines.
That sentence doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say or ask?REALIST123 said:
One must assume that you have never had personal involvement with our badly broken criminal justice system. I hope it stays that way for you but do not think that doing nothing illegal will keep you out of the courts. It's no guarantee of that nor of you being found guilty.
I agree that miscarriages of justice happen. This could be one of them. But nobody has put forward any compelling reason why it is a miscarriage of justice.Bill said:
Rude-boy said:
No, I think you will find that the legal profession will cop it just as much as the rest of those involved. As I see it the only person who will have benefited from all of this was the poor lady DLT assaulted having finally seen her attacker convicted of the offence that left her so deeply traumatised for so many years that it is only just now that she has felt able to come forwards about it.
That's not really fair. Until Yewtree most of the victims didn't feel able to come forward because of their attacker's celebrity, that same celebrity that prevented them moving on because their attacker was always in the public eye.Given that we have a legal ruling here based on evidence produced and given one must also accept the statement of the victim as the Jury (with far more tools at it's hands than us) did. Even if we consider who Ms X might be and with that knowledge try to deduce the sort of person that they would have to be to do what they do for a living and then compare that to a lady who is too traumatised to speak out (until now) against an old and faded Radio DJ whose best days were behind him before someone asked what would happen if you dropped a Cossie lump in the front of a Sierra.
All I can say with certainty is that I am damn glad that none of this has impacted on my life and that I hope that this will give more victims the sense that they must come forward and not hide their pain. Hiding away only prolongs that pain and suffering and quite possibly leaves others at risk. One of the people I know who suffered life changing injuries as a result of a sexual attack was able to come to terms with many aspects of it. The only thing that she found almost impossible to cope with (to the point of pills and booze at dawn thoughts) was that it took seeing her attacker acquitted of a similar offence a few years later for her to approach the authorities.
Rude-boy said:
SamHH do you think that any further mention of DLT from this point onwards will be prefaced with "Convicted Sex Offender DLT" or "DLT, who in 2014 was convicted of deliberately brushing his hand across a woman's clothed chest at some point 19 years previously..."
Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
Let us also put this into the context of the Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris trials and the Saville (sp?) issues. Is it right and just that DLT should be put in the same group?
I have no problem with criminals doing the time for their crime. I do have an issue with, to put it into PH speak, someone being done for 105 on the M5 at 2am in the dry being treated by society after they have done their time, in the same way as a chap who has just mown down 15 school kids standing at a bus stop outside a School on a wet October afternoon in a car that was travelling at 40 mph. I think that most of us understand and can see that this is what will effectively happen to DLT.
Am I correct that you are arguing that people are either incapable of, or choose not to, distinguish between different severities of sexual offence?Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
Let us also put this into the context of the Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris trials and the Saville (sp?) issues. Is it right and just that DLT should be put in the same group?
I have no problem with criminals doing the time for their crime. I do have an issue with, to put it into PH speak, someone being done for 105 on the M5 at 2am in the dry being treated by society after they have done their time, in the same way as a chap who has just mown down 15 school kids standing at a bus stop outside a School on a wet October afternoon in a car that was travelling at 40 mph. I think that most of us understand and can see that this is what will effectively happen to DLT.
Even if that argument is correct, which seems doubtful, it surely can't be a reason not to prosecute people for less serious sexual offences. Otherwise it would give offenders a free rein to assault people, safe in the knowledge that, unless they did the most serious of crimes, they would not be punished.
BoRED S2upid said:
I've not been following this too closely but what exactly is the punishment for groping boobs?
If you're poor or unknown - A slap round the chops or a knee in the spuds.If you're wealthy or famous - Tens of thousands in costs, a criminal record and possibly a spell in chokey.
Rude-boy said:
SamHH do you think that any further mention of DLT from this point onwards will be prefaced with "Convicted Sex Offender DLT" or "DLT, who in 2014 was convicted of deliberately brushing his hand across a woman's clothed chest at some point 19 years previously..."
Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
I might have accidentally touched a woman's (clothed) breast in a tube train or nightclub but I don't think I've done it deliberately. Not to anyone I wasn't very closely acquainted with anyway.Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
Edited by Rude-boy on Tuesday 23 September 17:07
eldar said:
This is not the usual way, though. Brought to trial, and found not guilty of all charges.
Then all of a sudden more evidence is found which results in 3 charges and 1 conviction by a majority verdict. Of a relatively minor crime.
A media driven prosecution with a urgent need to get a conviction for anything.
Your argument seems to boil down to: if you are found not guilty of a crime, you should be immune from prosecution for any similar crimes.Then all of a sudden more evidence is found which results in 3 charges and 1 conviction by a majority verdict. Of a relatively minor crime.
A media driven prosecution with a urgent need to get a conviction for anything.
eldar said:
Will the same rigour be used to convict those whose negligence and apathy lead to the abuse of thousands of children over decades?
I don't know. But the possibility that one crime might not be properly investigated is no reason to criticise the rigorous investigation and prosecution of another crime.SamHH said:
Am I correct that you are arguing that people are either incapable of, or choose not to, distinguish between different severities of sexual offence?
Even if that argument is correct, which seems doubtful, it surely can't be a reason not to prosecute people for less serious sexual offences. Otherwise it would give offenders a free rein to assault people, safe in the knowledge that, unless they did the most serious of crimes, they would not be punished.
I am not arguing that you and I are not able to differentiate between the Saville's and the DLT's of this World, but then we know a bit (or possibly a lot in your case?) about both cases and they are frankly at opposite ends of the spectrum.Even if that argument is correct, which seems doubtful, it surely can't be a reason not to prosecute people for less serious sexual offences. Otherwise it would give offenders a free rein to assault people, safe in the knowledge that, unless they did the most serious of crimes, they would not be punished.
Let use move on 3 years though. DLT is caught a few mg over the limit the morning after a party or (very unlikely) is invited to a BBC Radio 1 reunion. You and I know that the header in the paper will say. You and I will think back and go "Oh yeah, fondled a ladies boobs and got bounced for it" because we know a bit about the case.
Barry Jones (16) knows nothing of the different offences that different people were accused or convicted of and (because it is the big things we tend to remember) thinks "He was one of those nonces like Saville and Hall".
I do not for one second think that people should not be punished for their crimes. I do however think that there is a gulf between the crimes that Saville has been accused of and those DLT has been convicted of, a gulf which is simply crossed by calling both "Sex Offenders".
Now there is a part of me that says sleep with scum and you're going to end up smelling like scum, and yet is that really just?
Randy Winkman said:
I might have accidentally touched a woman's (clothed) breast in a tube train or nightclub but I don't think I've done it deliberately. Not to anyone I wasn't very closely acquainted with anyway.
The problem is what do you do if the lady in question believes that you did it intentionally?REALIST123 said:
Absolutely, as you too clearly are!
Recent events prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
I'm not sure what you mean.Recent events prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
To clarify, I agree that the offence of which Travis has been convicted is less serious than some other sexual offences. I don't think I've said anything contrary.
Welshbeef said:
Sounds like 40 hours community service.
A lot of time and effort and cost all round for what is a rather low crime/caution territory.
Why didn't she grab. His balls and crush them job done or a knee or a form slap in his balls. Job jobbed.
The old fashioned way!A lot of time and effort and cost all round for what is a rather low crime/caution territory.
Why didn't she grab. His balls and crush them job done or a knee or a form slap in his balls. Job jobbed.
I guess most wives/girlfriends will have done this at some point in the past..
Rude-boy said:
Randy Winkman said:
I might have accidentally touched a woman's (clothed) breast in a tube train or nightclub but I don't think I've done it deliberately. Not to anyone I wasn't very closely acquainted with anyway.
The problem is what do you do if the lady in question believes that you did it intentionally?Not a 2+ year multi million pound crown court farce in the full blaze of the media.
I cannot see any way that this is defencable or justice.
Rude-boy said:
Given that we have a legal ruling here based on evidence produced and given one must also accept the statement of the victim as the Jury (with far more tools at it's hands than us) did. Even if we consider who Ms X might be and with that knowledge try to deduce the sort of person that they would have to be to do what they do for a living and then compare that to a lady who is too traumatised to speak out (until now) against an old and faded Radio DJ whose best days were behind him before someone asked what would happen if you dropped a Cossie lump in the front of a Sierra.
All I can say with certainty is that I am damn glad that none of this has impacted on my life and that I hope that this will give more victims the sense that they must come forward and not hide their pain. Hiding away only prolongs that pain and suffering and quite possibly leaves others at risk. One of the people I know who suffered life changing injuries as a result of a sexual attack was able to come to terms with many aspects of it. The only thing that she found almost impossible to cope with (to the point of pills and booze at dawn thoughts) was that it took seeing her attacker acquitted of a similar offence a few years later for her to approach the authorities.
Perhaps she didn't come forwards because she didn't think anything would be done, or if it was she'd be dragged through the publicity mire, and she only did because the other prosecutions failed. From the BBC article it sounds like he stood in front of her and gave her tits a thorough grope, and she mentioned it at the time to colleagues.All I can say with certainty is that I am damn glad that none of this has impacted on my life and that I hope that this will give more victims the sense that they must come forward and not hide their pain. Hiding away only prolongs that pain and suffering and quite possibly leaves others at risk. One of the people I know who suffered life changing injuries as a result of a sexual attack was able to come to terms with many aspects of it. The only thing that she found almost impossible to cope with (to the point of pills and booze at dawn thoughts) was that it took seeing her attacker acquitted of a similar offence a few years later for her to approach the authorities.
Should he be known in the future as a sex offender? Well he is, and has been found guilty of a brazen (albeit low level) attack, so the time to worry about his reputation was 19 years ago.
To me this case has been blown out of proportion. It has cost DLT his reputation, his lively hood and the home he had. The CPS have seen the pursuit of celebrities as an opportunity to make a name for them selves, this is not about justice. The fact that the original charges all came to nothing shows a very weak case and it was only after they asked for others to come forward that they dug up a new charge without which DLT would have now been a free innocent man.
Now the other thing for me is that the second victim is now a star in her own right, yet she has anonymity from the jury and press, how can that be? She was so traumatised that it took him being in court for one set of allegations to force her to come forward after years of opportunity to do so, how do we know her past as we have seen his be raked over, so wrong to me.
And as for Dave Gorman and the producer who appeared for the prosecution, what sort of spineless men are a party to such an event and yet do or say nothing? Perhaps at the time it was not such a big deal, but with operation Yewtree it now was.
Of course we have not heard the evidence the jury did so we can only speculate at this moment.
What will be interesting is what he gets, will they want the maximum to send a message, or will it be what it warrants, a slap on the wrists? If it was a nobody this would never have made it to court, at worst he would have got a caution.
Will DLT have the stomach to appeal as with such a flimsy case on one persons word or can he afford to lose more money defending something like this?
At this rate there will soon be no Top of the Pops repeats as there will be none left allowed to be shown hosting.
Now the other thing for me is that the second victim is now a star in her own right, yet she has anonymity from the jury and press, how can that be? She was so traumatised that it took him being in court for one set of allegations to force her to come forward after years of opportunity to do so, how do we know her past as we have seen his be raked over, so wrong to me.
And as for Dave Gorman and the producer who appeared for the prosecution, what sort of spineless men are a party to such an event and yet do or say nothing? Perhaps at the time it was not such a big deal, but with operation Yewtree it now was.
Of course we have not heard the evidence the jury did so we can only speculate at this moment.
What will be interesting is what he gets, will they want the maximum to send a message, or will it be what it warrants, a slap on the wrists? If it was a nobody this would never have made it to court, at worst he would have got a caution.
Will DLT have the stomach to appeal as with such a flimsy case on one persons word or can he afford to lose more money defending something like this?
At this rate there will soon be no Top of the Pops repeats as there will be none left allowed to be shown hosting.
Bill said:
Perhaps she didn't come forwards because she didn't think anything would be done, or if it was she'd be dragged through the publicity mire, and she only did because the other prosecutions failed. From the BBC article it sounds like he stood in front of her and gave her tits a thorough grope, and she mentioned it at the time to colleagues.
Should he be known in the future as a sex offender? Well he is, and has been found guilty of a brazen (albeit low level) attack, so the time to worry about his reputation was 19 years ago.
Good points all.Should he be known in the future as a sex offender? Well he is, and has been found guilty of a brazen (albeit low level) attack, so the time to worry about his reputation was 19 years ago.
Only she knows why she didn't take it further than mentioning it to colleagues. In that world though (if I am correct in suspecting who Ms X is and one in which I walk on the very fringes from time to time) word gets around fast and you know that telling a colleague about such an incident is as likely to 'cause issues' as going to the Police about it. Perhaps even more so!
Ultimately though the facts stand and he has been convicted of this crime. It is his problem that he will now be labelled with the same brush as rapists and those guilty of extreme sexual assaults. It is too late for DLT and he must accept his comeuppance. I'm still not entirely comfortable with the size of that brush though.
It really is a very difficult question in my head though. This from a man who still holds the opinion that there should be something in line with a '2 strikes and they're off' rule for rapists and those convicted of serious sexual assaults...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff