There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 70 comments are related to the topic:
Dave Lee Travis Cleared
Dave Lee Travis Cleared
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 70
|
By:
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  |
|
By:
The sheer scale of victims' testimonies - potentially up to 1,000 Savile abused - are they all telling lies ??
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
anyway I am always the last to know things hound dog
 you may well be right |
|
By:
history tells us the elite have all ways been looked after/let off despite the evidence saying different , looks like nothing's changed
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Hound Dog the 'something behind the act' thought is usually true with a lot of personalities. Derek Thompson is a perfect example.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
"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... |
|
By:
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 .
|
|
By:
They have not been found guilty of lieing, its just that they could not prove his guilt
|
|
By:
Guilt by accusation hey dementia?
Have a lie down. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
No moves,
I think you might that GG is a convicted paedophile. Slightly different to Roache (not guilty) or Davidson (no charges). |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Wasn't Glitter found guilty of looking at under age images on a computer, alternately many women suggested Roach had actually raped them.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
* might find that
|
|
By:
To be fair to BLT it hall happened in the days before paedophilia had been invented...
|
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
agree
|
|
By:
Being found not guilty isn't the same as being not guilty.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Some interesting reading from the post at 15 Feb 14 01:18 above and after.
|