Dave Lee Travis Cleared

Post ya bet, ta....

Its about time BF started a market with trials - would clean up.

Good. There's some legs and co. dances we have / would have missed

All these women making up all these lies about celebs......

I wonder if Stuart Hall now regrets pleading guilty.

These guys are having there reputations trashed because by a bunch of mischievous gold digging tarts making ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegations to get a bit of compo

The DPP should be called to account for this disgraceful waste of public money and the identities of these mischief makers should be made public and they should be done for perjury

you mean the CPS

Tis their human right to make frivolous and false accusations.

Should this not be on the Lay of the day thread?

It would be a sad day if a man can't squeeze a woman's breasts as a form of greeting

fred west must be turning in his grave , if only he could be tried now no chance of a conviction

Just need Rolf Harris now for my treble

Freddie Starr arrested for the 4th time. THEY are determined to convict somebody for something

Hamster abuse?

Just waiting for KEITH HARRIS to go to court for having his hand up Alex Hammonds bottom for all these years..The mind boggles why no one has said anything yet?..

Alice Plunkett surely Colonel

OR.....

Ville

Alice is the standby for "cuddles the monkey"..

very good ct

Do you think they will make him stand trail again for the other two counts where they could not agree ?

The CPS and the Police are a right set of mugs. Total waste of taxpayers money with some of the **** that they are bringing to trial.

Would Saville have been found not guilty if he'd lived? One of the big lessons in these cases seems to be its almost impossible to prove one way or other after so many years. Its alright to presume guilt in a case if the defendant dies before a prosecution and trial takes place.

Is the above a true definition of English law as it stands?


News organisations routinely refer to Jimmy Saville as a pediophile is this legally or morally correct as he has never had the chance to go in front of a jury and put his case like the rest of the famous people accused, most of whom were ecquitted.

Wretched girls in care being groomed "here & now " by ?

             back burner

Do you think they will make him stand trail again for the other two counts where they could not agree ?

Well they should have got a sense of the way the wind is blowing so if they got any sense they will not pursue it

no chance

Do you trust the police on tv now pmsl. Bunch of uneducated halfwits most of them.

Media have even called Saville a murderer.

Dead people tend not to sue for libel.

A dead person cannot be libelled - fact.

Saville looked like a nonce, acted like a nonce and plenty of evidence exists that he was given access to mentally challenged or distressed women in hospitals, his depravity knew no boundaries.
Travis was never in that league and whoever allowed his case to progress so far is obviously mentally challenged themselves.

moondan.........I bet a smart lawyer would have pulled holes in all the evidence said no to be overwhelming against Saville, these things are very difficult to prove, some of the allegations against him went back 60 years to the 1950's.

Isn't it  true to say that, he is an innocent man, because he has never been proven guilty in a court of law that's how English law works.

no moves

You are right.

Saville is an innocent man.

He has never been able to answer any questions that might of been put to him because he is dead.

British law states a man is innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

There have been many cases where a person has looked guilty and it's turned out he was innocent.

When the prosecution has presented it's case the judge turns to the jury and tells them wait until you have heard all the evidence before you make your minds up.

The only case where I think it's been stated as a fact in a court of law that someone has committed a crime was Lord Lucan but I am not 100% about that.

Isn't it  true to say that, he is an innocent man, because he has never been proven guilty in a court of law that's how English law works.

indeed it does, otherwise we would be locking up an awfully lot of innocent people

I see this as a sacrificial offering of some old men

to satisfy the vindictiveness and greed of women imo

it is far too long ago to establish either guilt or innocence in these cases

still if it keeps people entertained

just a personal opinion

you are right seaside, nobody as yet has presented any proof against Saville, it is all allegations

don't ask me to say if I think Saville was innocent or guilty

because I DONT KNOW...the question is, does anybody else really know????????

No moves,

Yes you are correct in law.

Saville was of my generation and even in the sixties most of us thought there was something not quite right about the guy, as time moved on and he started to wear those shorts we were more than convinced.
It says much about this country that he got away with it for so long and it is more than likely he was protected by many of our powerful who had much to hide and still do.

A statute of limitations is long over due in all but crimes such as murder and I have the feeling this backward little country will comply in the nearish future.

In most cases, it's always there. LACK OF EVIDENCE.

"Saville was of my generation and even in the sixties most of us thought there was something not quite right about the guy"

Certainly did !!!  Because with Savile there was always this silly act, "Now then, now then.....Guys and gals......Now then, now then.....as it 'appens.....Goodness gracious"  Jingle jangle....... he couldn't be like that all the time, there had to be something behind the act, behind that front.

Now then, now then.....Guys and gals......Now then, now then.....as it 'appens.....Goodness gracious"  Jingle jangle.......

oh well that clinches it

he must be guilty

ffs

The sheer scale of victims' testimonies - potentially up to 1,000 Savile abused - are they all telling lies ??

I have NO IDEA..has any of their testimonies be proved correct in a court of law

of course the police were remiss in not following up on claims against him while he was alive

but I think we have gone from one extreme to the other here

anyway the police don't investigate much crime nowadays do they

only the serious cases

the police should learn from Saville, apologise and move on,

only my own opinion

Frankly I think if there had been 1000 allegations against him while he was alive

I think the police may well have acted

seems to me, an awful lot of after timing going on here

anyway I am always the last to know things hound dog

you may well be right

history tells us the elite have all ways been looked after/let off despite the evidence saying different , looks like nothing's changed

Only the extremely thick or like minded never saw it.

Those that did were reminded how valuable he was to the good causes and he knew that better than anyone.
A sicko that did much good.

Hound Dog the 'something behind the act' thought is usually true with a lot of personalities. Derek Thompson is a perfect example.

Only the extremely thick or like minded never saw it.

I used to work "adjacent" to Fleet Street and was told the tabloids had turned him upside down and found nothing.

Was he a nonce? Yes. Was he a paedo? No real evidence that he was -- a couple of claims that do not fit with the pattern of his offending. How did he get away with it? Targeting the vulnerable and moving round the country.

Firstly

If found innocent does DLT get his legal fees paid back? He had to sell his house to defend himself.

Second

Why are the claimants given anonymity? They have been proved to be lying?

I'm not sure they were proved to be lying Lex, although it's odds on some were. I think many thought an arm around you or any kind of contact at all nowadays constitutes sexual abuse.

"Why are the claimants given anonymity? They have been proved to be lying?"

Not sure the jury did think they were lying, but how do you weigh it up, no evidence, no witnesses, and all this happened 30/40 years ago.....difficult to come to a guilty verdict so he was cleared...

Guilty as sin as they all are. Why did he have  to sell his house ? Because he had to have the best  barrister money could buy to get him off. 1 or 2 accusations then doubt but multiple accusations no way, and there were plenty more commplainents who never pressed charges .

They have not been found guilty of lieing, its just that they could not prove his guilt

Guilt by accusation hey dementia?

Have a lie down.

Ok but does he get his money back?


and.... what if he couldnt get the best barrister and only had a caravan to sell? Justice is based on your ability to pay?

Perception is everything really.........Garry Glitter is almost exiled from this country and nobody mentions his name or plays his records anymore but I wonder if his activities were any worse than William Roach or Jim Davidson.  Roach will be back on our screen in the next few months lauded as screen hero Ken Barlow and probably given a knighthood from the queen when ITV find an excuse to get rid of him in a couple of years time.

No moves,

I think you might that GG is a convicted paedophile.
Slightly different to Roache (not guilty)  or Davidson (no charges).

no moves .... are you aware of what you have just stated ie,his activities were no worse than william roaches ....
you must be aware mr roach was found not quilty and that mr glitter was found guilty .... im sure like a lotof people the old ... no smoke without fire will be thought ... i ask y to consider what if someone from yr past made the same allegations and y had been found not quilty and cretins on here continued to suggest y were a peodophile ... perhaps yr thoughs might be different ... glitter was found guilty ... the others so far havnt been ...let the courts decide

Wasn't Glitter found guilty of looking at under age images on a computer, alternately many women suggested Roach had actually raped them.

I am not really  disputing the legal position..... I am just speculating whether many of that era had a bohemian lifestyle where values of ordinary people didn't in their opinion apply to themselves.

* might find that

To be fair to BLT it hall happened in the days before paedophilia had been invented...

DLT should have been found Guilty for offences of raping peoples ears..

When that half-wit was in his prime he was still playing the likes of Status Quo and ELO when you could buy The Jam,Clash,SLF,etc etc..

That was the time to jail him and for some old chancers to put down their knitting and to have a pop at him 35 years later is a disgrace..

The 1970 and 80's was a different time and much as I hated him then no-one deserved to be put through that trial...

agree

Being found not guilty isn't the same as being not guilty.

ima_mazed66     Joined: 12 Oct 09
Replies: 6596 15 Feb 14 01:18 
Being found not guilty isn't the same as being not guilty.
..............................................................
In that case, we're all guilty.  All it takes is an accusation.

I thought my point was a fairly straightforward one to be honest as all I'm saying is that it would be very naive to think that purely because a jury either didn't think or couldn't beyond reasonable doubt decide if someone was guilty and so returned a verdict of not guilty, that doesn't mean that person actually is innocent of some or all of the charges attributed to them.

That was a general point regardless of the charges. As for the more specific ones in this bunch of cases, I'd be very surprised if all of the claims were true but equally so if none of them were either and it's all down to interpretation from each side regarding the accused and the accusers. Didn't a female radio newsreader make claims of DLT's having wandering hands? No doubt she would have considered that inappropriate and it certainly would be today compared to the 70s but I'm sure DLT will just say that he was being friendly but in a touchy-feely kind of way.

I'm just guessing here but I would imagine he wasn't as much so with the male newsreaders or colleagues and there are plenty of examples of him and other DJs of the day who are all over young girls as they are introducing the next song on TOTP. I'd also imagine that when some of these celebs were inviting young girls back to their dressing rooms that some knew full well what was on the agenda but others a bit more naive were, well a bit more naive. So then if anything happened that they weren't expecting, again that would be seen in two different ways from both sides, one with the girls saying they were put in a precarious position and the other with the celebs saying the girls knew the score or else they shouldn't have gone back to their rooms.

ok but does DLT get his money back?


For those of you that remember it was the time of

Love Thy Neighbour
On the Buses
Carry On Films
Wheel Tappers and Shunters
TisWas
Alf Garnett
Robins Nest
Rising Damp
The Professionals
The Sweeney
Department S


It was a different culture and values and it is wrong to compare what was 'acceptable' then to now.
A hug then could be assault now.


As Dave Lee Travis told the police: ‘They can smell money. This is just someone jumping into the game to see how much money they can get out of it … why wait (so many) years?’


Which seems a valid question to ask when some of the allegations were aired for the first time nearly 40 years after the event.


This is how it so easily could work. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays fixed damages to victims of violent crime. On its website, the first page supplies a PDF link; on page 66 of that is a tariff that any idiot can understand of what you may claim for various sexual transgressions.
For example: under 18, one incident, non-penetrative = £3,300. Two incidents = £4,400. But if you say it was penetrative, it leaps to £13,500; find a doctor to swear you are very psychologically disturbed by it and you net £27,000. And so forth.


If you are claiming there was an assault 30, 40 or even 50 years ago, with no witnesses, no forensic or any other evidence – what, you might think, have you to lose by trying it on? And, while you’re at it, exaggerating to the hilt? For further encouragement, ever since the Jimmy Savile revelations, the inclination on the part of the authorities is to believe those who accuse the famous. Now this may be commendable, but is it justice? Certainly, two juries thought not.

Some interesting reading from the post at 15 Feb 14 01:18 above and after.