Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
greygoose said:
Scuffers said:
So, touching a 22 year olds boobs is the same as serially sexually abusing children?
Stealing a pack of crisps isn't the same as armed robbery but it doesn't make it ok. Let's says his was slightly different as he did it while sober and arguably within his work remit - tenuous possibly - so if joe Bloggs cupped a ladies boobies while at work it would be gross misconduct and P45 time - I'd struggle to see many companies just giving a final written warning as the person doing the boobs cupping would have made himself in an untenable position.
greygoose said:
Scuffers said:
So, touching a 22 year olds boobs is the same as serially sexually abusing children?
Stealing a pack of crisps isn't the same as armed robbery but it doesn't make it ok. Stealing a bag of crisps does not get you banged up for years.
Get the point?
Like i keep saying, if this was Joe blog's, No way would it have got to court.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
which caused things like the Brixton riots
There are always contextual issues but any riot is caused by the rioters taking a particular decision and course of action. For the most part that decision is a bad one and the course of action inadvisable to say the least.The environment and mental (motivation) causation for the practical 'expression' was what I was talking about.
Scuffers said:
Like i keep saying, if this was Joe blog's, No way would it have got to court.
Says who? There are plenty of low-level sexual offences that go to court. Some will also be historic. The full test code was evidentially met, so I fail to see on what grounds anyone could conclude it wouldn't have seen court with another offender.
Scuffers said:
True enough, but being on the sex offenders register is pretty digital.
Stealing a bag of crisps does not get you banged up for years.
Get the point?
Like i keep saying, if this was Joe blog's, No way would it have got to court.
If he had done it at work/work function its highly likely he would have been sacked - and for most married chaps that long slow drive home to tell the wife I've lost my job .... Why what's happened ... I was sacked... Why what did you do?....umm I tried to play honk the horn on a ladies boobies she didn't like it/wasn't appropriate so HR got involved and here I am. No reference no opportunity to resign no Pay in lieu of notice and a challenging time to find another job... Oh and I hope this doesn't cause us problems....Stealing a bag of crisps does not get you banged up for years.
Get the point?
Like i keep saying, if this was Joe blog's, No way would it have got to court.
Dig your own hole you lie in it.
Jail time would be a joke taken to court for 2 years farcical, caution possibly loss of job likely yep or if out of work possibly a beating for touching up another mans wife lady sister daughter.
Attitudes have changed since the swinging sixties.
Just as "Love thy neighbour"or"The Black and White Minstrels Show"would be seen as in bad taste nowadays.
It is obviously not correct that a man should casually grope a woman but it might be reasonable to consider the offence in the light of the prevailing social attitudes of that era and the fact that DLT was a product of that era.
I do not know what would have happened if the lady had reported the offence at the time it occurred but I surmise that at the most he would have been given a police warning.
I do wonder what we would feel if it was our wife or girlfriend that he had groped,added to which his power and control as a celebrity also puts him in a poor light.
It is concerning however that DLT will be,for some,put in the same category as Savillle and other vile paedophiles that certainly deserve their public opprobrium.
Just as "Love thy neighbour"or"The Black and White Minstrels Show"would be seen as in bad taste nowadays.
It is obviously not correct that a man should casually grope a woman but it might be reasonable to consider the offence in the light of the prevailing social attitudes of that era and the fact that DLT was a product of that era.
I do not know what would have happened if the lady had reported the offence at the time it occurred but I surmise that at the most he would have been given a police warning.
I do wonder what we would feel if it was our wife or girlfriend that he had groped,added to which his power and control as a celebrity also puts him in a poor light.
It is concerning however that DLT will be,for some,put in the same category as Savillle and other vile paedophiles that certainly deserve their public opprobrium.
Edited by avinalarf on Tuesday 23 September 22:21
Welshbeef said:
Jail time would be a joke taken to court for 2 years farcical, caution possibly loss of job likely yep or if out of work possibly a beating for touching up another mans wife lady sister daughter.
I've seen the suggestion of a caution several times. You cannot receive a caution if you do not admit the offence. On a side-note, it's also irrelevant because there were too many offences which took it beyond the caution threshold, even if there were admissions.
Scuffers said:
Exactly...
I would suggest it's a reason in proportionality..
To suggest this case is justice is laughable.
So should the CPS give-up and don't do what they'd ordinary do (I'm yet to see anyone show why they wouldn't have done this with others) because you don't see the offence with the same seriousness as others do? I would suggest it's a reason in proportionality..
To suggest this case is justice is laughable.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
which caused things like the Brixton riots
There are always contextual issues but any riot is caused by the rioters taking a particular decision and course of action. For the most part that decision is a bad one and the course of action inadvisable to say the least.La Liga said:
o should the CPS give-up and don't do what they'd ordinary do (I'm yet to see anyone show why they wouldn't have done this with others) because you don't see the offence with the same seriousness as others do?
Show me another person who has been prosecuted in the same way for the same action?Seriously, 2+ years and two high court cases?
Vaud said:
Welshbeef said:
That's true and its also true that the vast majority of UK men have cupped a ladies boobies without permission end result "game on", or her man punches you or she doesn't appreciate it and knees you in the balls.
Vast majority? I have plenty of times
turbobloke said:
Not quite, that equivalence would require dissolving the division between lawful and unlawful behaviour as though the distinction didn't matter.
I'm talking about motivations for behaviour. I'm not wrapping anything else around it as it doesn't alter the motivations. Scuffers said:
Show me another person who has been prosecuted in the same way for the same action?
Yes, this is the first re-trial in the history of English criminal law when a jury fails to reach a verdict for multiple sexual offences 
You mean sexual assault as it is now? Here's a recent sexual assault. Make a note of the sentence and he is entitled to his discount for pleading, and note the Judge's remarks: Judge Paul Watson QC, said: "She is to be commended for the fact that she stuck to her guns and brought this to the attention of the authorities. People who randomly sexually assault members of the public must expect custodial sentences."
How about we actually go through some rationale rather than making up what we want to suit our bias?
Here's the guidance the CPS use. We'll start off with an important one:
"There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial."
Quite an important one, that. What do you think about it? Does that make it sound like this is unusual, given the presumption is to apply for a retrial when this occurs? Here's a few more considerations:
"Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?"
Evidentially yes, since he was convicted.
"Will the witnesses attend again and give evidence?"
Yes.
"Is it in the public interest?"
Yes.
"Views of the victim"
I'd imagine they still wanted him tried.
"New information?"
Another victim came forward where the evidence of the offence met the full test code.
There are further considerations like the police views etc: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/
Scuffers said:
Seriously, 2+ years and two high court cases?
Where else is it going to go? It was a Crown Court trial, if the jury fail to reach a verdict and the CPS apply for a re-rial, it's going to go back to Crown Court. Crown Court trials often take months and years to get to court. That's standard fare. So given the above, what's unusual about this trial, especially as the presumption is the prosecution will seek a re-trial?
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Not quite, that equivalence would require dissolving the division between lawful and unlawful behaviour as though the distinction didn't matter.
I'm talking about motivations for behaviour. I'm not wrapping anything else around it as it doesn't alter the motivations. Scuffers said:
Show me another person who has been prosecuted in the same way for the same action?
Yes, this is the first re-trial in the history of English criminal law when a jury fails to reach a verdict for multiple sexual offences You mean sexual assault as it is now? Here's a recent sexual assault. Make a note of the sentence and he is entitled to his discount for pleading...
You make it sound like he produced a supermarket store card and got his discount!
Anyway, this scum imo is hardly comparable to DLT.
A complete stranger, he sidles up next to and 'sexually' assaults a girl he has never seen before and on public transport... and walks away (virtually) because he has used his 'discount' card, ie pleaded guilty.
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought DLT has been convicted of 'indecent' assault (10-2 maj) not 'sexual' assault?
dandarez said:
entitled to his 'discount' for pleading...
You make it sound like he produced a supermarket store card and got his discount!
I make it sound nothing more than it practically is. It's well established law that people receive sentencing reductions for early guilty pleas. It's is proven to save time, money and prevents victims and witnesses from attending court. You make it sound like he produced a supermarket store card and got his discount!
The point was he pladed guilty and nearly went to prison, so those who are proposing it's outrageous for DLT to go to prison, and that it's "just because it's him", are way off the mark. Since he isn't entitled to any early-plea reductions.
dandarez said:
Anyway, this scum imo is hardly comparable to DLT.
Really? Travis made the victim go through two trials. This must have been horrific for the victim in such a high-profile case. The person I linked did not put his victim through this. I'd also argue touching someone's leg is less serious than touching their breasts. Although I wouldn't expect a lot on here to actually consider the victim. They're more interested with defending and feeling sorry for the convicted sex offenders.
dandarez said:
A complete stranger, he sidles up next to and 'sexually' assaults a girl he has never seen before and on public transport... and walks away (virtually) because he has used his 'discount' card, ie pleaded guilty.
I'm not sure whether or not the early plea resulted in the sentence suspended or not. dandarez said:
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought DLT has been convicted of 'indecent' assault (10-2 maj) not 'sexual' assault?
You're not wrong, but the reason for that is it were called "indecent assault" when Travis committed it, but post-2003 became "sexual assault". La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
Show me another person who has been prosecuted in the same way for the same action?
Yes, this is the first re-trial in the history of English criminal law when a jury fails to reach a verdict for multiple sexual offences You mean sexual assault as it is now? Here's a recent sexual assault. Make a note of the sentence and he is entitled to his discount for pleading, and note the Judge's remarks: Judge Paul Watson QC, said: "She is to be commended for the fact that she stuck to her guns and brought this to the attention of the authorities. People who randomly sexually assault members of the public must expect custodial sentences."
How about we actually go through some rationale rather than making up what we want to suit our bias?
Here's the guidance the CPS use. We'll start off with an important one:
"There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial."
Quite an important one, that. What do you think about it? Does that make it sound like this is unusual, given the presumption is to apply for a retrial when this occurs? Here's a few more considerations:
"Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?"
Evidentially yes, since he was convicted.
"Will the witnesses attend again and give evidence?"
Yes.
"Is it in the public interest?"
Yes.
"Views of the victim"
I'd imagine they still wanted him tried.
"New information?"
Another victim came forward where the evidence of the offence met the full test code.
There are further considerations like the police views etc: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/
Scuffers said:
Seriously, 2+ years and two high court cases?
Where else is it going to go? It was a Crown Court trial, if the jury fail to reach a verdict and the CPS apply for a re-rial, it's going to go back to Crown Court. Crown Court trials often take months and years to get to court. That's standard fare. So given the above, what's unusual about this trial, especially as the presumption is the prosecution will seek a re-trial?
the simple facts are in the first trial, all but two charges were dismissed.
the two remaining they went for re-trial, at which point both were dismissed
the only charge they got to stick was the additional boob group that added between trials.
so, even if you assume that charge was a heinous crime, it did not justify the first trial did it?
and in 99.999% of cases the same, it would have likely not made it to magistrates court would it?
please try and be honest with your rhetoric.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Not quite, that equivalence would require dissolving the division between lawful and unlawful behaviour as though the distinction didn't matter.
I'm talking about motivations for behaviour. I'm not wrapping anything else around it as it doesn't alter the motivations. Scuffers said:
Show me another person who has been prosecuted in the same way for the same action?
Yes, this is the first re-trial in the history of English criminal law when a jury fails to reach a verdict for multiple sexual offences You mean sexual assault as it is now? Here's a recent sexual assault. Make a note of the sentence and he is entitled to his discount for pleading, and note the Judge's remarks: Judge Paul Watson QC, said: "She is to be commended for the fact that she stuck to her guns and brought this to the attention of the authorities. People who randomly sexually assault members of the public must expect custodial sentences."
How about we actually go through some rationale rather than making up what we want to suit our bias?
Here's the guidance the CPS use. We'll start off with an important one:
"There is a presumption thfat the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial."
Quite an important one, that. What do you think about it? Does that make it sound like this is unusual, given the presumption is to apply for a retrial when this occurs? Here's a few more considerations:
"Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?"
Evidentially yes, since he was convicted.
"Will the witnesses attend again and give evidence?"
Yes.
"Is it in the public interest?"
Yes.
"Views of the victim"
I'd imagine they still wanted him tried.
"New information?"
Another victim came forward where the evidence of the offence met the full test code.
There are further considerations like the police views etc: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/
Scuffers said:
Seriously, 2+ years and two high court cases?
Where else is it going to go? It was a Crown Court trial, if the jury fail to reach a verdict and the CPS apply for a re-rial, it's going to go back to Crown Court. Crown Court trials often take months and years to get to court. That's standard fare. So given the above, what's unusual about this trial, especially as the presumption is the prosecution will seek a re-trial?
ked up that it will use a pile driver to crack a peanut......Scuffers said:
you example is nothing like the same, and you know it.
Both low-level sexual assaults which fall within similar sentencing guidelines. Both went to Crown Court. Both fundamentally one word against the other. Scuffers said:
the simple facts are in the first trial, all but two charges were dismissed.
the two remaining they went for re-trial, at which point both were dismissed
the only charge they got to stick was the additional boob group that added between trials.
So? They're simply the specific circumstances / variables of this case. What relevance does this have to the presumptions and CPS criteria that would apply for charging and applying for a re-trial as per the CPS guidance? the two remaining they went for re-trial, at which point both were dismissed
the only charge they got to stick was the additional boob group that added between trials.
The simple fact is this was not an atypcial approach or application of the law / procedures. Your belief that it were is speculative and not backed up by any data, facts or reference points, where as I actually have shown why it's not atypical.
Just because you want something to be so, does not make it so.
Scuffers said:
so, even if you assume that charge was a heinous crime, it did not justify the first trial did it?
There were 12, and if this were an additional charge between the first and second, then it's even less relevant. You can't just pick and choose something theoretical which didn't occur.That's without assuming it doesn't stand-up in its own right, which of course you have no idea because you're not privvy to the evidence. I'd argue and offence which clearly there were sufficient evidence, which would result in a possible custodial sentence is justified for a prosecution.
Not that you care about the victims.
Scuffers said:
and in 99.999% of cases the same, it would have likely not made it to magistrates court would it?
No, because he was charged with multiple offences. Do you really think 12 indecent assaults would end up in a Magistrates' Court? You think the Magistrates' have the sentencing power should someone be found guilty of 12 of those offences
They didn't even have the sentencing power to deal with one low-level offence guilty-plea I showed and example of.
Stop simply making things up. Don't just say it would, show WHY it would be the case. Do you understand the distinction?
Scuffers said:
please try and be honest with your rhetoric.
AKA I'm sighting guidelines, law and procedures to show the rationale and decision-making, whereas you're just making it up as you go along and speculating on something you know little about. I see your rhetoric has omitted the "this wouldn't happen to anyone else" now. Could you not bring yourself to write it again after seeing the criteria I highlighted?
REALIST123 said:
Excellent explanation of how the CPS is so fked up that it will use a pile driver to crack a peanut......
Not really, they found the threshold test was met for 12 charges - hardly a pile driver. The circumstances resulted in a conviction as per standard procedure where the presumption is re-trail in such circumstances. ked up that it will use a pile driver to crack a peanut......The problem is people like you are unable to see it's just par for the course because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work and their justifications.
Most university's now run a course during fresher's week explaining about consent and rape. It is beyond me that society teaches the average rain fall in Sierra Leone rather than physical relationships.
I am glad I don't have to start a new relationship now, at some point one party has got to make a move, 40 years ago if you misread the signals you got your face slapped. Is that not still how it should be.
I am glad I don't have to start a new relationship now, at some point one party has got to make a move, 40 years ago if you misread the signals you got your face slapped. Is that not still how it should be.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff