Dave Lee Travis arrested

is it too early to mention that Jack Duckworth fondled me in the '70s, or shall i leave it a few weeks? :suspect:
 
Garry Edwards said:
If you dare to say that, maybe, just maybe, someone who is suspected of doing something 30 or 40 years ago that was considered to be normal then but which is considered to be totally unacceptable today should be judged by the standard of that time rather than this time, I can virtually guarantee that you will be vilified and will be accused of being exactly the same as the person who is being accused, without evidence, of wrongdoing.

That's what happens on forums.
Click to expand...

No - you were talking about groupies in the Jimmy Saville case (Top of the Pops era), when others were referring to his alleged abuse of minors in hospitals...
 
Garry Edwards said:
If you dare to say that, maybe, just maybe, someone who is suspected of doing something 30 or 40 years ago that was considered to be normal then but which is considered to be totally unacceptable today should be judged by the standard of that time rather than this time
Click to expand...

Well, if the police are involved, any person would be questioned in relation to offences committed under the law in place at the time, since there is a general principle in UK law that it should not be retrospective in its effect.

We also have no statute of limitations in the UK.
 
Last edited:
FourRingCircus said:
I have absolutely no knowledge of why he has been arrested and that's why I'm trying to have a sense of balance / devils advocate about things. I'm not prepared to start casting any kind of judgement against DLT, or anyone else for that matter. I think the press have got this plaything and will have a go at anyone just now.
Click to expand...

So if you have no idea why he's been arrested, how can it appear that they are using modern legislation retrospectively. I think it's pretty much a given that he hasn't been arrested for slapping a woman's backside. I also think it's highly likely that he's been arrested on suspicion of doing something that was against the law at the time as I don't believe you can be convicted of a crime if it wasn't a crime at the time it was committed.
 
There were things floating around about him grabbing Liz kershaw and sticking his hand up the skirt of another woman. I'm assuming that is what it relates too. Unless there's more and those allegations have brought more out.
 
PMK said:
No - you were talking about groupies in the Jimmy Saville case (Top of the Pops era), when others were referring to his alleged abuse of minors in hospitals...
Click to expand...
It's a forum. Different people post different things at much the same time and then make strange assumptions about what someone else actually meant.
Never, at any point, did I or would I defend anyone of sexual offences against children or anyone else.

All that I actually said was that, in the 60's and 70's, groupies were a real problem for anyone and everyone who was either famous or who worked alongside famous showbiz people, and that people should be judged on what they have actually done, not on what other people have alleged them to have done. I think that's pretty clear to anyone who bothers to read what is actually in front of them, instead of jumping to conclusions.

One of my favourite (misquotes) from C.S. Forrester...
I judge a man not by what others say about him but from what I see him do
Click to expand...
 
I think people who think it is appropriate or funny to make jokes about child abuse in a thread discussing that very subject are bang out of order
 
FourRingCircus said:
What I'm on about is not paedophillia. I'm saying that a cheeky slap on the backside of a woman collegue for example, was acceptable behaviour back in the 70's. Nowadays, it's virtually an arrestable offence, if not a sackable one.
Click to expand...

The culture in many workplaces may have been different, so it was not possible for a woman to be taken seriously if she complained about such behaviour and it was seen as part of the territory that had to be put up with, but there were plenty that did not find it and similar things in the least acceptable (that's anecdotal rather than internet evidence, so I can't point you at a website).

I am not talking about situations where both parties give informed consent prior to any spanking being administered. A "cheeky slap" suggests you aren't either.
 
Bernie174 said:
As far as I am aware, no one is being accused of raping their wife...So I still wonder what modern legislation is being used retrospectively?

Interestingly, a man couldn't rape his wife, because of the words of the marriage ceremony. "Love honour and obey". In other words assumed consent. I'm not saying it was right, it was however the result of case law, not as I recall legislation. Either way it has nothing at all to do with DLT, Savile or anything else under discussion.
Click to expand...

The post of yours that I quoted referred to "Assault, indecent or otherwise" having "long been a criminal offence", so it was actually you that prompted my pointing out that one of the more serious indecent assaults (a point on which we agree) was not a criminal offence "relatively (and surprisingly) recently".

As subsequent posts have shown, it appears that no current legislation is being applied retrospectively, the law being less of an ass than is sometimes the case.
 
Many years ago, my female supervisor used to wear a name tag, above her left breast.
Apparently "Pat" was not an instruction :(
And I got a slap.

I just hope that she has forgotten this, and doesn't intend to sue many years later ;)
 
Nod

No, rape of anyone was a criminal offence in the past, and has been for a very long time.
However, there is case law (That being Law interpreted by Judges in a specific case that can be applied generally when Judges make decisions in the future), that a man had a defence to a charge of rape against his wife, for the reasons I gave above. To put it in simple terms, consent was given at time of wedding.
It's as simple as that, and not in the terms you used.
However, you made a point about Modern Law being used retrospectively, and I am still waiting for you to explain, which would have been better yapping on about something you clearly know nothing about.
 
Lets not start to get personal
We all know Friday night is generally a "free fer all night", but play nice please.
 
The wife's convinced Rolph Harris will be next
 
Well, I never saw it coming at all :( If they name Terry Wogan next I shall be devestated.
 
FourRingCircus said:
What I'm on about is not paedophillia. I'm saying that a cheeky slap on the backside of a woman collegue for example, was acceptable behaviour back in the 70's. Nowadays, it's virtually an arrestable offence, if not a sackable one.

Nobody has suggested that DLT was a Jimmy Saville character. Yet this is the conclusion drawn by the sudden media hype. I'm sure he probably slapped a few backsides in his time but it was considered ok then, it's not now.:nono:
Click to expand...

Times were very different in the 70s & 80s. Things went on at my first workplace that would never be acceptable now & "sexual harrassment" was as bad from the women as from the men.

As an apprentice I would have to go to the typing pool regularly & was terrified for my life every time I walked in there!

Another time we were innocently(ish) talking about stockings & suspenders. The next day 2 of the girls in the department happily showed off there suspender tops to me that they had put on solely to try & shock.

Jimmy Saville basically appears to be about as bad as anyone can get but there appears to now be some settling of old scores going on & people jumping on the bandwagon. The witch hunt going on at the moment is in danger of diluting the main focus of the initial enquiry which was into a paedophile ring
 
Last edited:
johnb said:
Times were very different in the 70s & 80s. Things went on at my first workplace that would never be acceptable now & "sexual harrassment" was as bad from the women as from the men.

As an apprentice I would have to go to the typing pool regularly & was terrified for my life every time I walked in there!

Another time we were innocently(ish) talking about stockings & suspenders. The next day 2 of the girls in the department happily showed off there suspender tops to me.

Jimmy Saville basically appears to be about as bad as anyone can get but there appears to now be some settling of old scores going on 7 people jumping on the bandwagon. The witch hunt going on at the moment is in danger of diluting the main focus of the initial enquiry which was into a paedophile ring
Click to expand...
A voice of reason:)

This is the point that I was trying to make in the earlier thread, but many people just didn't seem to get it.

I can go back even further, as I was a teenager in the 60's. Suddenly, we had the contraceptive pill, sexually transmitted diseases had virtually died out - and there were now cures for them anyway - and women suddenly had freedoms that they had never had before. There were more jobs than people to fill them so it was normal for women to work. People tended to work hard (usually in boring jobs because education then was of a very low standard because of lack of qualified teachers and the baby boom that had resulted from the end of the second world war) and play hard, this was the era of rock and roll, cheap booze and a completely new freedom to experiment with everything.

There was no such thing as political correctness, health and safety etc. And the right to say "NO" applied, at least in the minds of most people, to say no only to full sex - men groping women and women groping men in the workplace and elsewhere was considered normal and, even if not "right", at least it wasn't considered to be unacceptable.

If a woman complained to her manager about inappropriate behaviour she would probably be told to grow up and go away. If she persisted, she would be labelled a troublemaker and sacked.

There is a rather strange discussion in this thread about retrospective legislation. This isn't about retrospective legislation, it's actually about retrospective behavioural standards, with some people trying to apply the standards of today to what happened a very long time ago.

I can just imagine a police interview. "Ms X has made a statement in which she complains that on or about *** date you deliberately placed one hand on her bottom and the other hand on her breast. What do you say about that?"
"I don't think I can remember a Ms X". It was 40 years ago."

"Have you ever been to ABC in Sheffield and were you there on *** date"
"Can't remember, it was 40 years ago"

"Did you ever touch a women in an inappropriate manner?"
"Yes, all the time, I just don't remember this one. Most of them just giggled and did the same to me"

"Do you accept that this kind of behaviour was wrong"
"It would be wrong if she didn't want me to do it, but I only did it with women who came right up to me and made it clear that they wanted me to"

"What is your attitude towards touching women in an inappropriate manner?"
"It's not acceptable now, it was normal back then"
 
Garry Edwards said:
There is a rather strange discussion in this thread about retrospective legislation. This isn't about retrospective legislation, it's actually about retrospective behavioural standards, with some people trying to apply the standards of today to what happened a very long time ago.
Click to expand...
Another voice of reason.:thumbs: The 'retrospective legislation' thing is probably my fault, but you have said exactly what I was trying to get over at the time.:thumbs:
 
Garry Edwards said:
men groping women and women groping men in the workplace and elsewhere was considered normal and, even if not "right", at least it wasn't considered to be unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Really! I don't recall that being the case in any place I worked in and it would certainly have constituted an offence under the Sexual Offences Act unless there was clear consent, (which does not mean "she's a woman so she must be gagging for it").

Garry Edwards said:
If a woman complained to her manager about inappropriate behaviour she would probably be told to grow up and go away. If she persisted, she would be labelled a troublemaker and sacked.
Click to expand...

Which is quite possibly why people are now coming forward to reveal things that happened then but which were either not taken seriously or caused them to be subjected to abuse, ridicule or worse.

I'm sorry Gary but unless it was with mutual consent it was inappropriate (and probably illegal) then, as it is now.
 
Sonriendo said:
Well, I never saw it coming at all :( If they name Terry Wogan next I shall be devestated.
Click to expand...

Some people really have no taste whatsoever :p
 
What I can't understand is why majority of people have waited 30/40 years to come forward and make complaints. Not saying they are not true but why wait that long?:thinking:
 
Nikon Man said:
What I can't understand is why majority of people have waited 30/40 years to come forward and make complaints. Not saying they are not true but why wait that long?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of them did complain at the time and were either ignored or punished as a result. Others have been fighting for years for justice (eg Steve Meesham) but the mainstream media don't report it.

The bigger question is why do we not get to hear about it until the perpetrators are dead?
 
Johnd2000 said:
Quite a lot of them did complain at the time and were either ignored or punished as a result. Others have been fighting for years for justice (eg Steve Meesham) but the mainstream media don't report it.

The bigger question is why do we not get to hear about it until the perpetrators are dead?
Click to expand...

Because they sue for libel and win (Savile did over Jersey care home visit) even if what they are sue over is actually true!
 
srichards said:
Because they sue for libel and win (Savile did over Jersey care home visit) even if what they are sue over is actually true!
Click to expand...

There's an interesting question about why McAlpine is suing now, when he didn't attempt to sue the Scalleywag magazine or David Icke ten years ago. What happened in the last ten years that makes him now more confident in his legal position? Could it possibly be because some of the potential witnesses have since died (in some cases, in suspicious circumstances) I wonder?
 
Johnd2000 said:
There's an interesting question about why McAlpine is suing now, when he didn't attempt to sue the Scalleywag magazine or David Icke ten years ago. What happened in the last ten years that makes him now more confident in his legal position? Could it possibly be because some of the potential witnesses have since died (in some cases, in suspicious circumstances) I wonder?
Click to expand...

It's possibly libellous to suggest that!

It's probably because it is all coming out in the open so old links will surface and more awkward questions will be asked.

The relative, Jimmy M, was well known for his antics.

Whose lawyer was present at the North Wales investigation and why. That's another question...

Bottom line is that the North Wales police misidentified the person and named Lord M as being the one. It wasn't him. Jimmy and him look similar. The victim thought the abuser was dead so it was a bit poor of Newsnight to infer it was a living person rather than being clear the victim thought they were dead even though the identification pointed at someone still living.

Also photos of actual abuse showing prominent people have been destroyed. Funny how actual proof disappears then abuse victims are accused of having no evidence...
 
I was caned (a lot) slapped around the head, made to box against older bigger lads, had various classroom items hurled at me and humiliated at school by school staff but never complained about it, just how life was then (1960's)

Certainly never even thought about reporting them to the police then or now, just grew up and forgot about it. Do I have a case? No I really can't be bothered, chasing something that happened to me years ago just seems futile.

I had a wretched home life too but never had a chip on my shoulder about anything when I was a kid, just made me more self reliant.
 
Last edited:
Nikon Man said:
I was caned (a lot) slapped around the head, made to box against older bigger lads, had various classroom items hurled at me and humiliated at school by school staff but never complained about it, just how life was then (1960's)

Certainly never even thought about reporting them to the police then or now, just grew up and forgot about it. Do I have a case? No I really can't be bothered, chasing something that happened to me years ago just seems futile.

I had a wretched home life too but never had a chip on my shoulder about anything when I was a kid, just made me more self reliant.
Click to expand...

That's how life was then. We had teachers who weren't fit for purpose - incompetent ones, bullies, people who, today, wouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. I came from a broken home and we rarely had enough to eat, I used to hunt rabbits when I was 7 to put food on the table.

There's a lot of truth in the saying that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

I have immense sympathy for people who were genuinely abused (sexually or otherwise) in the dim and distant past, but I can't help wondering why it is that nearly all the complaints about their alleged abusers seem to feature people who have made it in life and who are worth suing. Why do we only hear allegations about wealthy celebrities and never about coal miners and and factory workers?
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's how life was then. We had teachers who weren't fit for purpose - incompetent ones, bullies, people who, today, wouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. I came from a broken home and we rarely had enough to eat, I used to hunt rabbits when I was 7 to put food on the table.

There's a lot of truth in the saying that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

I have immense sympathy for people who were genuinely abused (sexually or otherwise) in the dim and distant past, but I can't help wondering why it is that nearly all the complaints about their alleged abusers seem to feature people who have made it in life and who are worth suing. Why do we only hear allegations about wealthy celebrities and never about coal miners and and factory workers?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't make the news? No newspaper prints all the allegations from victims who are abused by nobodies. There are plenty but that doesn't sell papers.
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's how life was then. We had teachers who weren't fit for purpose - incompetent ones, bullies, people who, today, wouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. I came from a broken home and we rarely had enough to eat, I used to hunt rabbits when I was 7 to put food on the table.

There's a lot of truth in the saying that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

I have immense sympathy for people who were genuinely abused (sexually or otherwise) in the dim and distant past, but I can't help wondering why it is that nearly all the complaints about their alleged abusers seem to feature people who have made it in life and who are worth suing. Why do we only hear allegations about wealthy celebrities and never about coal miners and and factory workers?
Click to expand...

Ordinary paedophiles get banged up every day. It's the cover-ups that protect "important people" that are the real scandal.
 
"I'd rather see Dave Lee Travis Play Mcbeth..."
 
Musicman said:
Well, if the police are involved, any person would be questioned in relation to offences committed under the law in place at the time, since there is a general principle in UK law that it should not be retrospective in its effect.

****$We also have no statute of limitations in the UK.****
Click to expand...

Not strictly true, we do for some offences, though no serious ones.
 
Nikon Man said:
What I can't understand is why majority of people have waited 30/40 years to come forward and make complaints. Not saying they are not true but why wait that long?:thinking:
Click to expand...
I can understand some of the reasons given for this delay, however my brain doesn't get the ones who have sat for two months since the story broke, and then gone to Max Clifford rather than the police.
 
DLT now charged. What a complete FARCE this operation Yewtree is.Name the accusers and then see if there are any complaints. That's the problem. :bat:
 
kestral said:
DLT now charged. What a complete FARCE this operation Yewtree is.Name the accusers and then see if there are any complaints. That's the problem. :bat:
Click to expand...

Name the accusers? Are you okay in the head?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top