Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY

[Prawnboy]

King Herald said:

I remember grabbing my mates girlfriends tits at a bike rally in 1986, and since this sort of world-changing revelations is now fashionable and are currently changing the world, I'm living in fear she may one day 'come clean' to the cops and ruin my life.

I did it, I plead guilty, we were all drunk and I overstepped the mark....

However, I'm not famous, have no money, no social status, so maybe it doesn't apply to people like me?

Maybe if you were standing outside at work stone cold sober and felt up the pair of tits of an almost complete stranger, (as DLT did) it would also apply to you.

[turbobloke]

Prawnboy said:

King Herald said:

I remember grabbing my mates girlfriends tits at a bike rally in 1986, and since this sort of world-changing revelations is now fashionable and are currently changing the world, I'm living in fear she may one day 'come clean' to the cops and ruin my life.

I did it, I plead guilty, we were all drunk and I overstepped the mark....

However, I'm not famous, have no money, no social status, so maybe it doesn't apply to people like me?

Maybe if you were standing outside at work stone cold sober and felt up the pair of tits of an almost complete stranger, (as DLT did) it would also apply to you.

It may apply, but I suspect that the major part of KH's comment is, would it be applied? Given how famous KH is, on a par with DLT

[Scuffers]

PurpleTurtle said:

Very interestting, notwithstanding the fact that DLT shouldn't have been running around groping anybody's boobs.

problem is, conviction or not, we still only have her word for it...

(and no, I am not saying it's OK to go around groping anybody)

[deadslow]

Scuffers said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Very interestting, notwithstanding the fact that DLT shouldn't have been running around groping anybody's boobs.

problem is, conviction or not, we still only have her word for it...

(and no, I am not saying it's OK to go around groping anybody)

The jurors do seem to have done their very best to let him off, so one can only assume the evidence on this single charge was utterly compelling.

[Scuffers]

deadslow said:

The jurors do seem to have done their very best to let him off, so one can only assume the evidence on this single charge was utterly compelling.

yes, so compelling it was only a 10/2 majority verdict after several days of machinations.

be clear here, only evidence was what she said, nobody else witnessed said incident (Mr Gorman was testifying on what he had heard - ie, office gossip)

[deadslow]

Scuffers said:

deadslow said:

The jurors do seem to have done their very best to let him off, so one can only assume the evidence on this single charge was utterly compelling.

yes, so compelling it was only a 10/2 majority verdict after several days of machinations.

be clear here, only evidence was what she said, nobody else witnessed said incident (Mr Gorman was testifying on what he had heard - ie, office gossip)

Well these 12 people sat and listened to everything and looked long and hard at the parties concerned and 10 of them decided he was guilty.

[Scuffers]

deadslow said:

Well these 12 people sat and listened to everything and looked long and hard at the parties concerned and 10 of them decided he was guilty.

yes, however, 10/2 is not 'compelling' as you put it, 12/0 would have been.

[Scuffers]

Unbelievable!

Suspended sentence given to ex-BBC DJ Travis for indecent assault to be reviewed by UK's attorney general’s office

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29415240

[gruffalo]

Hopefully it will be deemed too harsh and reduced.

[CAPP0]

Scuffers said:

Unbelievable!

Suspended sentence given to ex-BBC DJ Travis for indecent assault to be reviewed by UK's attorney general’s office

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29415240

They really do have the knives out for him.

[unrepentant]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Surprised that given her degree of fame, she didn't just name and shame and dare him to sue? Surely it would have done as much damage to his career as a suspended sentence. To actually try and get him banged up by the police and CPS would seem to be more than a little vindictive.

She did name and shame him, every time she went on stage by all accounts. It was a big part of her act!

[Magog]

PurpleTurtle said:

Scuffers said:

onyx39 said:

REALIST123 said:

And the 'victim' who 'only wanted the truth to be told' chooses to remain anonymous.

Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....

I assume your not talking about the BBC researcher, she is far from anonymous in this.

if it's who I think it is, her she is talking about it in a pod cast from a few years back,

http://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_e...

38 mins in

make of this what you will...

Very interestting, notwithstanding the fact that DLT shouldn't have been running around groping anybody's boobs.

She says... 'Dave Lee Travis, did once, I don't know whether intentionally, or accidentally, Grab my Boob'. It's not really clear if she's saying that to cover herself, but I would have thought if that was played in court it would be enough to put it firmly in the reasonable doubt territory.

Of course she may well not have been the complainant.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

Unbelievable!

Suspended sentence given to ex-BBC DJ Travis for indecent assault to be reviewed by UK's attorney general’s office

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29415240

After 4 (yes, 4) people have complained. Jesus wept, you just couldn't make it up.

[Chim]

REALIST123 said:

Scuffers said:

Unbelievable!

Suspended sentence given to ex-BBC DJ Travis for indecent assault to be reviewed by UK's attorney general’s office

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29415240

After 4 (yes, 4) people have complained. Jesus wept, you just couldn't make it up.

Found them, they where protesting outside the court



By the way, does this mean we get to arrest Justin Timberlake as well

[Scuffers]

at this rate, he may as-well appeal the conviction...

[SamHH]

REALIST123 said:

After 4 (yes, 4) people have complained. Jesus wept, you just couldn't make it up.

There is no minumum number of people that must complain to the Attorney-General for him to review a sentence. But a review does not mean that the Attorney-General will decide the sentence is unduly lenient and refer it to the Court of Appeal, nor that, if he does, the Court of Appeal will agree to hear the case, nor that, if it does, the Court of Appeal will alter the sentence.

Are you really opposed to the policy of people being able to request that the AG reviews certain sentences? Or are you just railing against a conviction you don't like?

[SamHH]

CAPP0 said:

They really do have the knives out for him.

Who does?

[anonymous-user]

SamHH said:

REALIST123 said:

After 4 (yes, 4) people have complained. Jesus wept, you just couldn't make it up.

There is no minumum number of people that must complain to the Attorney-General for him to review a sentence. But a review does not mean that the Attorney-General will decide the sentence is unduly lenient and refer it to the Court of Appeal, nor that, if he does, the Court of Appeal will agree to hear the case, nor that, if it does, the Court of Appeal will alter the sentence.

Are you really opposed to the policy of people being able to request that the AG reviews certain sentences? Or are you just railing against a conviction you don't like?

Er, no? What makes you think that? I am 'railing' about the massive waste of taxpayers and others money wasted on a minor issue that has been clearly shown to be a very common 'offence' that 999999 times out of a million goes unnoticed or is dealt with by the 'victim' in a summary fashion.

Having said that, if all it takes is 4 complaints I think I can get a group together that could get most sentences reviewed. Is that where we should be going? What about a few of us asking for a reduction? Will that get listened to or can judges only get it wrong in one direction?

I doubt, in most cases, anyone would be interested, unless it's a similarly hot topic with celebrities and the self proclaimed righteous involved

[anonymous-user]

SamHH said:

CAPP0 said:

They really do have the knives out for him.

Who does?

Indeed. If we put them in a little "they" box and imply it's spiteful / revengeful then we need not consider that our opinions may not be shared by others...

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 29th September 21:55

[SamHH]

REALIST123 said:

Having said that, if all it takes is 4 complaints I think I can get a group together that could get most sentences reviewed.

The eligible ones, yes. Not all sentences can be reviewed. I'm not sure why you would want to do that.

REALIST123 said:

Is that where we should be going?

No, but I don't think there's much danger of that. In the 12 months ending September 2012, there were 1.2 million people convicted in England and Wales. In 2012, there were 435 requests for the Attorney General to review unduly lenient sentences, 344 of which were eligible for review and 88 of which were referred to the Court of Appeal. So only a tiny fraction of sentences are reviewed.

REALIST123 said:

What about a few of us asking for a reduction? Will that get listened to or can judges only get it wrong in one direction?

There's no need for the Attorney General to be able to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal for reduction, because the defendant can appeal themselves.

Setting aside your belief about the appropriateness of the sentence in this case, are you in favour of, or do you oppose, people being able to ask the Attorney-General to review certain sentences?

Edited by SamHH on Monday 29th September 22:25