Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
Mr GrimNasty said:
Even in the mid-80s there were spread full frontal nudity calenders in my workplace, I remember one engineer had a massive collection of impossibly massive jugs magazines always spilling out from under his bench. You would get the sack instantly these days if you brought such things into the workplace.
Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Your examples of calendars isn't the same, as that represents a change in the "rules" of the workplace, for want of a better description. Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Indecent assault was criminal back then - the "rules" were the same - just as it is now. The criminal benchmark was laid out.
The main point is the authorities probably wouldn't have cared back then and the evidence suggests 'celebrities' had a protected status and were free to do what they wanted. If we use a lower threshold of proof (balance of probabilities), it's very likely this isn't an isolated offence, either.
La Liga said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Even in the mid-80s there were spread full frontal nudity calenders in my workplace, I remember one engineer had a massive collection of impossibly massive jugs magazines always spilling out from under his bench. You would get the sack instantly these days if you brought such things into the workplace.
Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Your examples of calendars isn't the same, as that represents a change in the "rules" of the workplace, for want of a better description. Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Indecent assault was criminal back then - the "rules" were the same - just as it is now. The criminal benchmark was laid out.
The main point is the authorities probably wouldn't have cared back then and the evidence suggests 'celebrities' had a protected status and were free to do what they wanted. If we use a lower threshold of proof (balance of probabilities), it's very likely this isn't an isolated offence, either.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Even in the mid-80s there were spread full frontal nudity calenders in my workplace, I remember one engineer had a massive collection of impossibly massive jugs magazines always spilling out from under his bench. You would get the sack instantly these days if you brought such things into the workplace.
Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Your examples of calendars isn't the same, as that represents a change in the "rules" of the workplace, for want of a better description. Times do change. It was acceptable in the 80s! You cannot judge historic actions by today's values.
Indecent assault was criminal back then - the "rules" were the same - just as it is now. The criminal benchmark was laid out.
The main point is the authorities probably wouldn't have cared back then and the evidence suggests 'celebrities' had a protected status and were free to do what they wanted. If we use a lower threshold of proof (balance of probabilities), it's very likely this isn't an isolated offence, either.
The sentencing guidelines seem to indicate a non-custodial sentence if I read them right?
From http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than the genitalia)
Starting points: 26 weeks custody if the victim is under 13
Sentencing ranges: 4 weeks - 18 months custody
Starting points: Community order if the victim is aged 13 or over
Sentencing ranges: An appropriate non-custodial sentence
'Non-custodial sentence' in this context suggests a community order or a fine. In most instances, an offence will have crossed the threshold for a community order. However, in accordance with normal sentencing practice, a court is not precluded from imposing a financial penalty where that is determined to be the appropriate sentence.
From http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than the genitalia)
Starting points: 26 weeks custody if the victim is under 13
Sentencing ranges: 4 weeks - 18 months custody
Starting points: Community order if the victim is aged 13 or over
Sentencing ranges: An appropriate non-custodial sentence
'Non-custodial sentence' in this context suggests a community order or a fine. In most instances, an offence will have crossed the threshold for a community order. However, in accordance with normal sentencing practice, a court is not precluded from imposing a financial penalty where that is determined to be the appropriate sentence.
I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
onyx39 said:
I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
Probably true.Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
But you have to balance that against the many people that were seriously abused and have felt able to come forward now after having kept that secret to themselves.
gpo746 said:
onyx39 said:
I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
Probably true.Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
But you have to balance that against the many people that were seriously abused and have felt able to come forward now after having kept that secret to themselves.
Guilty persons may have gone free for some time as a result of people remaining silent, and they may now be coming forward, but in general unjustly harsh treatment even of a guilty individual is also wrong.
onyx39 said:
I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
How does a person's mind work to come up with things like this? 
onyx39 said:
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
Yes, because the police are responsible for sentencing aren't they? Edited by Gaz. on Thursday 25th September 14:47
La Liga said:
onyx39 said:
I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
How does a person's mind work to come up with things like this? gpo746 said:
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far.
Yes, because the police are responsible for sentencing aren't they? onyx 39 said
"I just find it quite sad that DLT is paying for the mistakes that Plod made with Saville.
Yes DLT grabbed her t1ts, and he shouldn't have done, it was wrong, I am not saying that it wasn't.
But she has been laughing about it in her act, surely if she was "damaged by it" she would have just blocked it out.
The fact that he is facing jail time for it, just strikes me that that Plod are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars, and had it not been for Saville, it would not have gone this far."
I'm assuming you got your quotations wrong in the haste to post ?
1) DLT isn't paying for any police mistakes. He's 'paying' because he's committed a sex offence and has been found guilty of it. That's the cause and effect. Nothing else.
2) Why would him facing jail time "strike you" that the police are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars?
They've investigated a range of allegations (complainants who came to them, this isn't pro-active work, it's reactive), taken these to the CPS who've prosecuted him, and he's been found guilty by a jury.
How does whatever sentence he is facing indicate desperation? Where's the logic or link?
2) Why would him facing jail time "strike you" that the police are desperate to get anyone who has done anything wrong behind bars?
They've investigated a range of allegations (complainants who came to them, this isn't pro-active work, it's reactive), taken these to the CPS who've prosecuted him, and he's been found guilty by a jury.
How does whatever sentence he is facing indicate desperation? Where's the logic or link?
La Liga said:
DLT isn't paying for any police mistakes. He's 'paying' because he's committed a sex offence and has been found guilty of it. That's the cause and effect. Nothing else.
Erm, yes he is.Both the police and CPS have been over zealous in their investigations and charges in relation to many celebrities because of their embarrassment over Savile.
I agree with what someone earlier posted, if you throw enough mud at someone eventually one piece will stick.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
DLT isn't paying for any police mistakes. He's 'paying' because he's committed a sex offence and has been found guilty of it. That's the cause and effect. Nothing else.
Erm, yes he is.Both the police and CPS have been over zealous in their investigations and charges in relation to many celebrities because of their embarrassment over Savile.
I agree with what someone earlier posted, if you throw enough mud at someone eventually one piece will stick.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Erm, yes he is.
Both the police and CPS have been over zealous in their investigations and charges in relation to many celebrities because of their embarrassment over Savile.
Where's the evidence of this other than you thinking it to be so? Both the police and CPS have been over zealous in their investigations and charges in relation to many celebrities because of their embarrassment over Savile.
Many complainants have approached the police. The evidence has been gathered, and then assessed by the CPS as providing a realistic prospect of conviction on the lower threshold of proof. The evidence has then been tested and one charge has reached the higher, conviction threshold.
So what should the police and CPS have done? Ignore all the complainants? Not prosecuted when the evidence met the required thresholds?
Where's the specifics they've acted otherwise then they would have? I'm yet to see anything other than speculation without grounds. I've seen people talk about procedure, time-frames, retrials, court choice etc etc as being reasons, all of which have been wrong.
"That sounds like it shouldn't occur to me with my non-existent knowledge or experience, therefore it is wrong and proves what I want to be the case".
PurpleMoonlight said:
I agree with what someone earlier posted, if you throw enough mud at someone eventually one piece will stick.
A re-trial is a standard procedure as I went to lengths to explain. It's no atypical or abnormal, nor an indication of "throwing mud". La Liga said:
Many complainants have approached the police. The evidence has been gathered, and then assessed by the CPS as providing a realistic prospect of conviction on the lower threshold of proof. The evidence has then been tested and one charge has reached the higher, conviction threshold.
So what should the police and CPS have done? Ignore all the complainants? Not prosecuted when the evidence met the required thresholds?
Okay, I've not followed every report of the DLT saga, but what evidence was gathered? I mean actual physical evidence and not just a claim from someone he did something they didn't like at the time but said nothing for 20 odd years?So what should the police and CPS have done? Ignore all the complainants? Not prosecuted when the evidence met the required thresholds?
So your support is based solely on the fact that the 'system' is always correct?
Given the number of cases DLT was charged with but failed to result in a conviction I would suggest the evidence test is somewhat lacking. Or more likely in the cases of these celebrities has been conveniently overlooked in favour of the publicity of being seen to be taking action .....
Given the number of cases DLT was charged with but failed to result in a conviction I would suggest the evidence test is somewhat lacking. Or more likely in the cases of these celebrities has been conveniently overlooked in favour of the publicity of being seen to be taking action .....
PurpleMoonlight said:
So your support is based solely on the fact that the 'system' is always correct?
And yours based on the normal processes and safe-guards have failing, which operate on a sound day-by-day basis. I wonder which is more probable? Especially given that he had a rather tip-top defence team. Do you not think they'd have spotted any abuse of processes or had charges dismissed via the formal processes and safeguards had they been baseless? No? PurpleMoonlight said:
Given the number of cases DLT was charged with but failed to result in a conviction I would suggest the evidence test is somewhat lacking.
The threshold to charge, roughly speaking, is whether a prosecution is more likely than not to succeed. This leaves ample room between that and 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It suggests nothing of the sort, other than you drawing conclusions based on the outcome without knowing what occurred.
onyx39 said:
La Liga said:
I don't know what evidence were gathered.
Any more than any of us do.I do know the processes and scrutiny things come under. People on here seem to think the CPS can do what they want. That's not true. There are many things the court / defence can do to halt / challenge unjust prosecutions.
So not only must the police / CPS have "conspired" (for whatever reason, and no one on here has evidence that's the case), the judge, court and defence must have not done their jobs correctly, either.
What you're all doing is taking a bag with 99,999 blue balls in it, and 1 red ball, and making a case that you'll pick the red ball out because you want the red ball so much.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff