Dave Lee Travis arrested

[cambsno]

Great post Garry and so true.


Rightly or wrongly that's what happened in those days, and am willing to bet that megastars like zeppelin, Beatles and the stones among others have probably many similar skeletons in their closet.

 

[MartynK]

Martyn
I find that strange, unless you mean at the point of reporting the crime? In which case, the same would be true in England & Wales.
But beyond that, a statement would be required, and that would have the certificate at the top which (should) be signed before the statement is taken.

Bernie: No, that's not what I meant. I also served in the RHKP which followed much the same process as the English forces - without the printed certificate, this was typed in - but the Scottish forces were completely different. The officer recorded the complainant's and witnesses' statements in his notebook, in his own words, and used the notes to prepare a report for the Procurator Fiscal. It was written in the third person - "the complainant states that she had been drinking in The Grapes public house at ......... with the now accused, MacDonald, who is a friend of her brother, on the evening of Friday 6 February 1976. They left together at 10.00pm and walked to her house at ............ Her sister was asleep in her bedroom upstairs". You get the idea. There was no printed charge sheet either. The officer advised the suspect that he was going to prefer a charge, cautioned him, told him what the charge was and recorded it - and any reply - in his notebook. There was no need for anyone to sign anything but, in practice, I generally asked the accused to sign the notebook entry if he replied to the charge. That's just the way it was done.

 

[big soft moose]

lack of a demand to see a birth certificate to check age (and lets face it we don't do that!) .

to be honest that's a bit of a red herring - the " I thought she was 16" defence might fly for a 16 year old or even 18 year old boy - but mature adult men shouldn't be preying on barely legal girls either

and lets face it any one who's seen a reasonable number of females sans apparel isn't going to mistake a 14 year old for a 25 year old however much they might protest later that they did

if we are honest these celebs and pop stars knew exactly what they were doing - there's even a bon jovi track (and yes I know they haven't been accused of anything) on farenheit that ends with Richie saying "just how old are you anyway.... ahhh man"

 

[andya700]

And as you say yourself, this was just your experience, and by no means covers every situation in every circumstance. And predator? Jesus. :shake:

If you read my post#91, there were girls at my school who WERE predators, who deliberately set out to "get off" with famous people at every opportunity.

What are your thoughts on Bill Wyman and Mandi Smith?

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bill_Wyman?o=2802&qsrc=999

Why isn't he in prison?

 

[Garry Edwards]

And as you say yourself, this was just your experience, and by no means covers every situation in every circumstance. And predator? Jesus. :shake:



That doesn't make "taking them up on it" acceptable.



Sounds like you were both absolute charmers at that time....take the easy pickings rather than the tougher alternative.



It doesn't matter where they got into, or how they got in; ejecting them would have been the simple, smart, and RIGHT thing to do. Just because they made the claim to be of age didn't make it so.

Sometimes I can't believe the justifications I read, and believe even less that those making them completely believe them.

You're entitled you your opinions.
But with respect, you weren't there. You weren't part of that scene and AFAIK you weren't even born.

I have no idea what the scene is like now, but I do know what it was like then. I don't think that you do.

 

[viv1969]

I have no idea what the scene is like now, but I do know what it was like then. I don't think that you do.

What the "scene" was / is like is irrelevant. I know that then, and now, grown men in positions of influence over the girls (and boys) in that type of situations should have the morals to keep their hands (and d***s) to themselves.

Clearly I'm wrong. :shake:

 

[big soft moose]

I have no idea what the scene is like now, but I do know what it was like then. I don't think that you do.

Thing is though garry shagging underage girls has never been okay or legal (well not in any of our life times) - it may have been part of the "scene" but that doesn't make it okay to do it or mean that there won't be consequences for those caught

I'm well aware of what the scene was like - both then and more recently - but "everyone else was doing it" doesn't fly as a defence either than or now

 

[nilagin]

I think by "scene" Garry is referring to under age girls looking and acting a lot older than they really are and throwing themselves at older men. Some underage girls have the ability to look and act a lot older than just barely legal too.
My wife used to work in a hair dressers where one of the Saturday girls looked and acted lot older than she actually was. My wife was gobsmacked when the girl revealed she was actually 13.

 

[big soft moose]

I think by "scene" Garry is referring to under age girls looking and acting a lot older than they really are and throwing themselves at older men. .

yes but the older men probably knew damn well that a lot of groupies were under age - but it didn't stop them from bedding them (which is both morally wrong, and illegal)

However much a young girl throws herself at you it is still the adults responsibility to decline

 

[Headless Lois]

Things is, have any of these high profile cases been about 'the scene' in terms of girls out clubbing and throwing themselves at celebs? I mean, I am sure it happens now.
There was an interesting interview with Rod Stewart a few months ago, where the interviewer was asking if he had done anything he regretted (in a clear hint towards these cases), and he said no, because everything he's ever done has been consensual.
I think it muddies the waters somewhat to say that there was a particular way things were - because we're not talking about consensual acts here. Nor are the police stupid (well, I hope).
If loads of people 'jump on a bandwagon' they are not going to have consistent stories - it would be very difficult to build any kind of credible case. If lots of people come forward, people who don't know each other, telling similar stories of things that happened across a number of decades, and there's a consistent theme, surely there would be a case to answer and it is right and proper that this was investigated?

 

[nilagin]

The one thing that is being overlooked though is these men and girls will likely be high on drugs as well as drinking, probably too stoned and p****d to notice or care.

 

[boyfalldown]

The one thing that is being overlooked though is these men and girls will likely be high on drugs as well as drinking, probably too stoned and p****d to notice or care.

its funny that - because atleast one of the people who has levelled accusations at DLT was neither drunk, stoned or in a club. if true I'm not sure how this relates to a 'scene'.

Mr Travis, who was later released on bail, denied earlier this month that he had groped two former BBC workers. One of his alleged victims, the newsreader Vivien Creegor, accused him of fondling her breasts while she was live on Radio 4 in the 1970s.

I'm also a little lost as to what "scene" is being referred to in the case of Jimmy Saville. The drink and drugs scene ongoing at Stoke Mandeville hospital maybe?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Thing is though garry shagging underage girls has never been okay or legal (well not in any of our life times) - it may have been part of the "scene" but that doesn't make it okay to do it or mean that there won't be consequences for those caught

I'm well aware of what the scene was like - both then and more recently - but "everyone else was doing it" doesn't fly as a defence either than or now

I'm not suggesting that the fact that it was happening all the time made it OK if the girls were under age. Of course it doesn't. All that I'm trying to point out is that, 30 or 30 years ago at least, there was no "need" for celebs to seek out and abuse women, the women sought them out and wouldn't leave them alone. And also pointing out that people in the public eye, who had a lot of consensual sexual encounters, might struggle to answer police questions about individuals, even if they knew their names at the time - even those who gave their names may not have given the correct ones, it was pretty common for them to use names of an older sister.

I'm also a little lost as to what "scene" is being referred to in the case of Jimmy Saville. The drink and drugs scene ongoing at Stoke Mandeville hospital maybe?

That's a different subject entirely, please don't muddy the waters by comparing apples with pears.

 

[boyfalldown]

That's a different subject entirely, please don't muddy the waters by comparing apples with pears.

You've repeatedly suggested (or implied) that the 'scene' at the time in some way mitigates this. I'm just clarifying what that 'scene' was.

 

[Headless Lois]

Garry, to be honest, I think it is you that is muddying the waters - because whatever scene was or wasn't around, it has nothing to do with DLT/Savile/these other high profile cases as these seem to be mainly about celebs taking advantage of their status to abuse children/women, often in workplaces.
Where does any 'scene' come into any of it? It's a different argument, surely?

 

[viv1969]

I'm not suggesting that the fact that it was happening all the time made it OK if the girls were under age. Of course it doesn't. All that I'm trying to point out is that, 30 or 30 years ago at least, there was no "need" for celebs to seek out and abuse women, the women sought them out and wouldn't leave them alone.

By suggesting that these men only took advantage of girls who "sought them out", still smacks heavily of suggesting it's ok.

I don't care if underage girls turned up naked in their hotel rooms, legs akimbo.....as the adults, the men should have had them removed. And if they were unsure of the age, then the default decision should have been, and should still be, NO.

You're trying to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Garry Edwards]

By suggesting that these men only took advantage of girls who "sought them out", still smacks heavily of suggesting it's ok.

I don't care if underage girls turned up naked in their hotel rooms, legs akimbo.....as the adults, the men should have had them removed. And if they were unsure of the age, then the default decision should have been, and should still be, NO.

You're trying to justify the unjustifiable.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain how things were then. I'm not saying that sex with underage girls was in some way OK, just pointing out that in my experience it was always the girls who were doing the chasing. If there were any innocent, under age girls around at these venues - and there may have been - these are not the girls that I'm talking about.

You've repeatedly suggested (or implied) that the 'scene' at the time in some way mitigates this. I'm just clarifying what that 'scene' was.

I'm talking about the situation at rock venues. I'm not talking about what some people may have done at other places.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain how things were then.
.

same thing

you are saying "then" lots of celebs and hangers on used to shag young girls many of whom were 'willing' (despite being legally unable to consent) as if that somehow makes it okay.

I don't dispute that in the 60s -80s many celebs (and hangers on) did indeed shag many willing young girls - What I dispute is that this was ever okay.

Those who thought it appropriate to commit statutory rape as part of the "rock scene" are now paying the price for their actions and rightly so

 

[andyscott]

Gary is not defending the actions he is mitigating why things may have happened.

 

[big soft moose]

Gary is not defending the actions he is mitigating why things may have happened.

Like I said how are the two things different ?- by mitigating (ie making excuses) for unacceptable behaviour he is defending it

 

[andyscott]

Like I said how are the two things different ?- by mitigating (ie making excuses) for unacceptable behaviour he is defending it

No mitigation is different.

So you maybe guilty of killing someone etc but the reasons and mitigation do affect your sentence.

You can plead guilty and still have mitigating circumstances.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm talking about the situation at rock venues. I'm not talking about what some people may have done at other places.

I'm not sure how that's relevant? AFAIK DLT has been accused of sexual assault while he was at work (amongst other places). Others have been accused of assaults in places that their victims can hardly be said to have been willing.

It wouldn't be acceptable anywhere. But you seem to wish to excuse the inexcusable, and, despite what you said about me, bring a lot of irrelevant info n

 

[Yves Geza]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain how things were then. I'm not saying that sex with underage girls was in some way OK, just pointing out that in my experience it was always the girls who were doing the chasing. If there were any innocent, under age girls around at these venues - and there may have been - these are not the girls that I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the situation at rock venues. I'm not talking about what some people may have done at other places.

I roadied for enough bands when I was a student in the '70s and saw plenty too!

Garry, for the people who can't understand that the past is another country, you might want to tell them about old attitudes to homosexuality, to Christianity, to foreign people of different colours, to cars versus bicycles or even to cigarette smoking! All different - many of them different from anything we'd even be permitted to post today!

And for the self-appointed anti-nonce patrols here, you might want to read this article by Will Self about the country that we have been changed into. It's presumably ironic that he's sold it to the Mail

 

[big soft moose]

No mitigation is different.

So you maybe guilty of killing someone etc but the reasons and mitigation do affect your sentence.

You can plead guilty and still have mitigating circumstances.

true - but that's still defending the action " yes I shot him twice in head but he had a gnu too and it was self defence" is a defence of the action

Garry seems to be saying in essence "yes they shagged underage girls, but hey it was okay because everyone was doing it, and anyway they were gagging for it" How is that not defending the action ?

My point is that it is never okay to shag underage children regardless of the circumstances

 

[Cobra]

I roadied for enough bands when I was a student in the '70s and saw plenty too!

Garry, for the people who can't understand that the past is another country, you might want to tell them about old attitudes to homosexuality, to Christianity, to foreign people of different colours, to cars versus bicycles or even to cigarette smoking! All different - many of them different from anything we'd even be permitted to post today!

From someone of a similar age,
that is one of the most sensible posts I've read for a long time.
different era? yes. Different county, it certainly looks like it to me, a lot of
the time.

 

[fracster]

true - but that's still defending the action " yes I shot him twice in head but he had a gnu too and it was self defence" is a

Assault by a deadly Gnu..is that a new crime?...........

 

[Cobra]

Assault by a deadly Gnu..is that a new crime?...........

Not for a Moose its not

 

[boyfalldown]

I roadied for enough bands when I was a student in the '70s and saw plenty too!

Garry, for the people who can't understand that the past is another country, you might want to tell them about old attitudes to homosexuality, to Christianity, to foreign people of different colours, to cars versus bicycles or even to cigarette smoking! All different - many of them different from anything we'd even be permitted to post today!

And for the self-appointed anti-nonce patrols here, you might want to read this article by Will Self about the country that we have been changed into. It's presumably ironic that he's sold it to the Mail

A number of years ago I was arrested at an airport for the hideous crime of traveling with my 6 month old daughter without my wife. It's funny now but not completely on track of this discussion.

I understand Garry's point, even though I don't agree with it. I remember stories of a certain band whose roadies would give coloured stickers based on the acts female groupies would perform. But my point is its not relevant to this. DLTs accusers level accusations at him at work, not some club. Other recent cases have included the bbc and various hospitals. Im prepared to bet those victims didn't go to those places up for it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm not even mitigating this behaviour, just explaining how things were.
If people had sex with girls who they knew or suspected were under age, then they were wrong, whatever the circumstances.

But don't think in terms of old men with plenty of experience, a lot of them were just teenagers themselves at the time, their judgement wasn't as well developed then, plus a lot of them were almost permanently high - although I'm not excusing that either, it's a fact.

As for allegations that certain people abused children or mentally incompetent people in hospitals, children's homes or similar, that's something very different and I think it's a great pity that these allegations can never come to Court and be tested.

As for the allegation that someone came up behind a woman live on radio and had a feel, that too is wrong if true, but it is the sort of thing that happened then. It was almost a standard practical joke when someone was live on air - pull faces at them, stick a rude cartoon in front of their eyes or even tickle them - anything to try to get them to giggle on air. Having a feel is obviously a big step too far, but I can see how and why that might have happened, if it did happen.

Anyway, I've just tried to explain how things were then. I'm pretty sure that some people did cross the line, and if they did then of course they should be punished for it - but I see enormous problems. If a number of people make allegations then it is likely that they will be believed, whether those allegations are true or not, and the people who are accused will have a problem even remembering their accusers, let alone satisfying a jury that the allegations are lies. As I see it, one of the big problems is that genuine complaints were ignored at the time, big names were protected by their employers and the police just weren't interested, so people who were genuinely abused could do absolutely nothing about it at the time.

Anyway, If people want to read something into things that I haven't actually written, then that is their problem, not mine. I've said all that I'm going to say on this subject.

 

[nilagin]

My mate started his apprenticeship at the age of 15 in 1971. Where he worked there was a dept. full of women, the women would think nothing of "grabbing" hold of the apprentices if they should enter the dept. Now it's called sexual assault, back then it was seen as having a laugh at someone else's expense.

 

[Bernie174]

I think there's still some point missing going on with what Garry has said.
Barely legal, or illegal, it's not a gray area, on a persons 16th birthday, they become legal, there is no 'barely'. It's a simple over or under.
However, there's a defence in law that takes into account where a person under 16 gives the appearance of being over 16. I came very close to finding myself in extactly the same position when I was 20. She said she was 16, her mother told me she was 16, ergo she was 16. Unfortunately she wasn't, she was 15.
It happens, and if women lie about their age, then you cannot blame the bloke. He's asked the right questions, he's taken into account what age he thinks she is, if that was reasonable when tested in a court, then he walks.

Far from being a red herring introduced by Garry, it's a valid point. Much has been made of a girl under 16, and he has provided some context as to what it was like at the time. Is it any different now, I bloody hope so, my daughter being 15. But being a realist, I doubt it.

Now this may or may not be relevant, however, it isn't evidence connected with the case, it's simply context. Normally, I'd be the first to strike out at Garry, but in this case he's right, and perhaps it will stop some of the hysteria caused by that emotive expression 'under 16'. Which I do find odd, having not met many 15 year old virgins when I was that age, the majority of whom lost that to someone older than 16.

 

[Headless Lois]

If a number of people make allegations then it is likely that they will be believed, whether those allegations are true or not, and the people who are accused will have a problem even remembering their accusers, let alone satisfying a jury that the allegations are lies.

I disagree - it is not down to volume of complaints it is down to consistency of what is said by the alleged victims.
I really doubt that someone innocent is going to have trouble convincing a jury if they have NEVER sexually abused someone, bearing in mind none of these cases have been about slightly underage girls in clubs, throwing themselves at men.

 

[big soft moose]

, on a persons 16th birthday, they become legal, there is no 'barely'. It's a simple over or under.

Legally yes , morally no - grown men shouldn't be preying on girls who are legal but only just either

, if women lie about their age, then you cannot blame the bloke. He's asked the right questions, he's taken into account what age he thinks she is,

As above yes you can - if he's a kid too then fair enough, but someone in their twenties has no business boinking 16 year old just because its legal

so okay a predator may have done a 15 yo instead of a 16 yo - serves him right for being a predator..

Also a lot of these allegations revolve around assault, harassment, and rape - those don't turn on how old someone is - and there's no excuse for plying an adult woman with drink and drugs then taking advantage of her either

 

[fracster]

What about the deadly Gnu?

 

[big soft moose]

What about the deadly Gnu?

Its the most powerful hand Gnu in the western world , did I make 6 posts or only 5 ? , well , do you feel lucky, punk ?

 

[fracster]

Its the most powerful hand Gnu in the western world , did I make 6 posts or only 5 ? , well , do you feel lucky, punk ?

Very good Pete.

 

[Yv]

Legally yes , morally no - grown men shouldn't be preying on girls who are legal but only just either



As above yes you can - if he's a kid too then fair enough, but someone in their twenties has no business boinking 16 year old just because its legal

so okay a predator may have done a 15 yo instead of a 16 yo - serves him right for being a predator..

Also a lot of these allegations revolve around assault, harassment, and rape - those don't turn on how old someone is - and there's no excuse for plying an adult woman with drink and drugs then taking advantage of her either

OK, just to spin that around....trust me, at 16/17, I did NOT want anything to do with other 16/17 yr old boys because frankly, their mental capacity/maturity would have left ME feeling like the cradle snatcher. I regularly dated guys in their very late teens and usually early 20's and so did many of my friends - you can say thats wrong if you want, but it happened then, it still happens now and I have absolutely no doubt it will continue to do so in the future.....even if the 'moral climate' means they have to become ever more circumspect and ergo, vulnerable.

 

[big soft moose]

OK, just to spin that around....trust me, at 16/17, I did NOT want anything to do with other 16/17 yr old boys because frankly, their mental capacity/maturity would have left ME feeling like the cradle snatcher. I regularly dated guys in their very late teens and usually early 20's and so did many of my friends - you can say thats wrong if you want, but it happened then, it still happens now and I have absolutely no doubt it will continue to do so in the future.....even if the 'moral climate' means they have to become ever more circumspect and ergo, vulnerable.

true - but there's a difference between late teens early 20s (when I was 19 my girlfriend was 17 IIRC) , and guys in their late twenties, thirties, forties etc doing young and impressionable girls after plying them with drugs and alcohol - the latter is definitely wrong, even if legal (and tbh if she's to drunk to consent the legality is borderline at best anyway)

 

[MartynK]

true - but there's a difference between late teens early 20s (when I was 19 my girlfriend was 17 IIRC) , and guys in their late twenties, thirties, forties etc doing young and impressionable girls after plying them with drugs and alcohol - the latter is definitely wrong, even if legal (and tbh if she's to drunk to consent the legality is borderline at best anyway)

No, it's not borderline. The law requires informed consent, and if the girl's too drunk to understand what she's doing, she's not competent to consent. The same applies to drugs, mental impairment and a couple of other things.

 

[nilagin]

But the young impressionable girls don't always need plying with drink or drugs. When my sister in law was 14 and 15 she was a nightmare, even in her school uniform she would go chasing after older blokes, thankfully because she was in her school uniform it never went any further, but her parents were frightened to let her out. From 16 onwards she had one boyfriend of 19 which fizzled out after about 6 months then she started seeing older blokes in their mid twenties, at 19 she met a bloke 18 years older than herself and married him 2 years later. I think Yv is right in saying some young women just prefer older men and don't really need any encouragement.