DLT

arclight

arclight

Oooh that burglar's a cutie
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,633
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
Found guilty on one charge of indecent assault in 1995.
 
And it seems it's a new charge, not one of those facing re-trial.

Edit....Another example though (imo), where on the day a swift hard kick in the b*****ks would have been more fitting than a court case almost 20 years down the line.
 
Last edited:
It took a few goes but they got the b*****d!

Who's next?
 
Noel Edmonds?
 
As to who's next.......... a group of friends and colleagues regularly play "dead celebs" with varying points for age / cause of death / level of celebrity etc (yeah bad taste)

Maybe we should all put a name in for a fiver and 105 to next charged, 90% to next convicted (the latter would exclude those already questioned!)
 
stiff richard some say he has had a bum deal of the media lol
 
I still say they are just working their way through Jimmy Savils phone book.

Everyone that has worked for the BBC will eventually get their collars felt, Who's next David Hamilton, Tony Blackburn, the list just goes on and on.

I still cannot figure out how they are getting convictions with no actual evidence to present, its just a simple he said she said.

Yet a Photographer I know who was accused of child abuse by his own brother and sister and many of his step children, yet the police would do nothing and he is still a working photographer working with children and young girls, I dread to think what he is getting up to in his studio these days
 
Last edited:
To be sentenced on Friday.
 
Paul-H said:
I still cannot figure out how they are getting convictions with no actual evidence to present, its just a simple he said she said.
Click to expand...

It would get far too complicated if the prosecution had to present actual evidence. This is a witch hunt, y'know ... they're trying to do as many as they can in the shortest possible time. They haven't got the time to mess about with evidence.
 
Nod said:
Noel Edmonds?
Click to expand...
Without wishing to be a 'party pooper' I would be very concerned at posting names on a public forum such as this - unless you fancy getting yourself on the wrong end of a libel case.
 
No Libel Laws on Scotland tho:D
 
Farce, found not guilty before, so just keep prosecuting till one sticks!

Yet again, we are judging people for things they did years ago by todays standards.

Did you touch anyone inappropriately in the last 40 years? Have you presented on BBC1 or Radio? BANG! It is nothing more than a witch-hunt! Trying to make up for Saville not getting caught.
 
I well remember DLT when he started his DJ career in Manchester in the early 60's. He was always a character. He used to drive around the city centre in an old Jeep. He was in right at the start of the "Beat" music boom then. He used to DJ at the Oasis and Plaza (amongst others). I remember a bit of a kerfuffle involving himself and a couple of bouncers one weekend at the Plaza in 1964. Interestingly (and if memory serves me correctly) in the early 60's he was a pro photographer as well as a part time DJ.
 
This country had a reasonably good and fair justice system. Something has gone vary wrong with this.

It appears to me that the failing in the legal system is that it is completely legal to defame, liable and slander a dead person and no action can be taken by friends or relatives(or anyone).

That is the mistake with the law that started this witch hunt.

It started with allegations about a dead man who made millions for charity in his lifetime and who had a little bit of an unusual celebrity style personality. Because no action could be taken by anyone to stop the allegations the media (who had an interest in selling papers) MP's (who wanted to appeal to public opinion to gain votes) and well known public figures who had previously spoken highly of him were weak and peddled the allegations as the truth, had he been alive I doubt they would have ever become involved.

The most disgusting thing about the start of all this, was that none of these people MP's, Media. and heads of charities who had taken his money in the past said " just a minute this man is dead and is unable to defend himself against these allegations, I as an MP, the media, head of a charity just because I CAN now legally defame,slander and liable this man without fear of reprisal am NOT going to do so as it would be unjust". They (the media,MP,heads of charities) all accepted the allegations as the truth and perpetuated them as the truth.

The situation was exacerbated when word went out to others that it was quite safe to make an allegation against a celebrity and not have to show your face,be named or identified in anyway, just go right ahead and tell all, no reprisal can made against you,in fact we (the legal system will go all out to protect your identity) With a high possibility of compensation payments being available also.

An absolutely terrible legal system. A system that actively rewards false allegations with rewards. Not justice at all.

In my mind two things need to change:

1. It should be made legal for someone to take legal action against false allegations made against dead people in some way.

2. The system of naming the accused and not the accuser needs to change to a balanced approach where both the accuser and the accused are named or neither are named. It is probably more realistic to name both as to protect the identity of both the accused and accuser would be difficult.

That way justice will be served.:runaway:
 
Last edited:
shapeshifter said:
It is probably more realistic to name both as to protect the identity of both the accused and accuser would be difficult.

That way justice will be served.:runaway:
Click to expand...

Do you think...getting away from the "celebrity" (it's-ultimately-about-how-much-compensation-we-can-get) cases for a moment...that naming the victim of a brutal and prolonged rape, where there is clear physical evidence but a plea of not guilty has been entered by the accused, is the right thing to do?
 
viv1969 said:
Do you think...getting away from the "celebrity" (it's-ultimately-about-how-much-compensation-we-can-get) cases for a moment...that naming the victim of a brutal and prolonged rape, where there is clear physical evidence but a plea of not guilty has been entered by the accused, is the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Why not? Firstly we do not know in a case like that if the person accused is guilty or not because they have plead not guilty.

I do understand what you are saying though because there could be such individuals who plead not guilty even when there is a lot of evidence against them.And do it on badness.

But why should someone in a case like you have mentioned not have their name known. If a crime had been committed against them I certainly would have sympathy with them and nothing other than that. I would feel very sorry for them. I honestly am at a loss at the way the law operates as soon as sex comes into it. We name victims of arson, murder, grievous bodily harm,acid attacks and more.Their seems to be some skeleton in the cupboard about sex crime in the UK.
 
shapeshifter said:
Yes I do. Why not? Firstly we do not know in a case like that if the person accused is guilty or not because they have plead not guilty.

I do understand what you are saying though because there could be such individuals who plead not guilty even when there is a lot of evidence against them.And do it on badness.

But why should someone in a case like you have mentioned not have their name known. If a crime had been committed against them I certainly would have sympathy with them and nothing other than that. I would feel very sorry for them. I honestly am at a loss at the way the law operates as soon as sex comes into it. We name victims of arson, murder, grievous bodily harm,acid attacks and more.Their seems to be some skeleton in the cupboard about sex crime in the UK.
Click to expand...

Rape is not a sexual act.
Rape is an act of supreme violence, of power, of the degradation and utter humiliation of one person caused by another.
And yes, some cases have been irrefutably proven even before a court appearance, but everyone in this country is entitled to protest their innocence, no matter how futile.

For example, say your daughter is grabbed off the street and taken to an isolated location where she is passed amongst a group of men and repeatedly beaten and raped. She survives, and video of at least on assailant has been clearly caught on her mobile phone, which is left behind by the attackers.

The footage is clear, audible, graphic, irrefutable and admissible in court. This man is going to prison, but before doing so is exercising his right to trial by a jury of his peers.
Under current rules, your daughter cannot be identified as the victim.
She does not have to appear in court – her testimony can be given via video link from a separate location.
With those rules in place, after the trial, she will never forget her ordeal, but neither will she have to endure the endless pitying stares of people who can easily pick her out because her image has been splashed across the news.

You’re right, the current system does need to change, but perhaps non release of the alleged offender’s identity would make more sense (ie still protecting the alleged victim). This would also perhaps go a long way to preventing compensation seekers from jumping on the bandwagon in the celebrity cases.
 
It is not necessary to use violence to commit Rape.
 
viv1969 said:
Yes it is.
Perhaps not physical; but yes it is.
Click to expand...


Utter pish, violence is not a requisite for Rape. You have contradicted yourself there, violence is physical.
 
BRASH said:
Utter pish, violence is not a requisite for Rape. You have contradicted yourself there, violence is physical.
Click to expand...

You've no clue what you're talking about and I'm not about to beat my head against your particular brand of brick wall, so lets simply agree to disagree.
 
BRASH said:
Utter pish, violence is not a requisite for Rape. You have contradicted yourself there, violence is physical.
Click to expand...
Utter pish back at you!

Violence can take various forms including mental violence/intimidation or the threat of physical violence
 
This is what makes me laugh at Threads like this. Clueless barrack room lawyers who spout crap thinking they know the law when its just their own interpretation of what they think or assume it is. Carry on, one is amused!!
 
daveproctor said:
Utter pish back at you!

Violence can take various forms including mental violence/intimidation or the threat of physical violence
Click to expand...


I am aware of that but none of these has to be present for a person to commit Rape. Very often they are but in Law none have to be.
 
cambsno said:
Farce, found not guilty before, so just keep prosecuting till one sticks!

Yet again, we are judging people for things they did years ago by todays standards.

Did you touch anyone inappropriately in the last 40 years? Have you presented on BBC1 or Radio? BANG! It is nothing more than a witch-hunt! Trying to make up for Saville not getting caught.
Click to expand...
When has it ever been okay to grab a woman by the tits and hold on for a good squeeze? You're living in a dream
 
BRASH said:
This is what makes me laugh at Threads like this. Clueless barrack room lawyers who spout crap thinking they know the law when its just their own interpretation of what they think or assume it is. Carry on, one is amused!!
Click to expand...

You really are special aren't you spouting your black and white nonsense on matters of which you are completely ignorant and then accusing others of 'spouting crap' - very intelligently and eloquently debated. I've not made any reference to knowing the law but stated a fact that violence does not always have to be physical. I'd love to see how you can reasonably argue that this is not the case without resorting to insults.

Perhaps you could spend some time speaking to women who have suffered mental abuse and then tell me how that is not violence. Try some reasoned argument to back up your contemptuous remarks or you'll get no respect from me - not that I suspect this will give you any sleepless nights.
 
The23rdman said:
When has it ever been okay to grab a woman by the tits and hold on for a good squeeze? You're living in a dream
Click to expand...

Nor should it be grounds for an evidenceless trial 20 years later.
As stated previously, a swift kick in the b*****ks at the time...job done.
 
viv1969 said:
Nor should it be grounds for an evidenceless trial 20 years later.
As stated previously, a swift kick in the b*****ks at the time...job done.
Click to expand...
I actually agree, but we're talking about scared girls and industry giants. Not everyone is as robust as you.
 
daveproctor said:
You really are special aren't you spouting your black and white nonsense on matters of which you are completely ignorant and then accusing others of 'spouting crap' - very intelligently and eloquently debated. I've not made any reference to knowing the law but stated a fact that violence does not always have to be physical. I'd love to see how you can reasonably argue that this is not the case without resorting to insults.

Perhaps you could spend some time speaking to women who have suffered mental abuse and then tell me how that is not violence. Try some reasoned argument to back up your contemptuous remarks or you'll get no respect from me - not that I suspect this will give you any sleepless nights.
Click to expand...


FFS, you've completely missed the point. All I was stating was it is not necessary for the perpetrator to use any type of violence to commit the crime of Rape. FACT!!!

I have spoken to and know many, many women who've suffered all types of abuse and have a pretty decent knowledge of the subject so I'm not as ignorant as you may think...................and to answer your original question, yes I am special (without needs!!).
 
By dictionary definition, 'violence' is the use of physical force - It's that simple.

Threatening behaviour and verbal abuse are not acts of violence, they are acts of threatening behaviour and verbal abuse. It's totally wrong to view acts of verbal abuse as being as serious as acts of physical violence. If the law views them both as 'violent', then the law is an arse and needs to change. I blame all the ridiculous 'political correctness'.

And how can anyone claim that rape is not a sexual act!? Rape involves the insertion of a penis into a vagina or anus against the will of the person with the orifice, or conversely an orifice enclosing a penis against the will of the penis owner.
 
BRASH said:
FFS, you've completely missed the point. All I was stating was it is not necessary for the perpetrator to use any type of violence to commit the crime of Rape. FACT!!!

I have spoken to and know many, many women who've suffered all types of abuse and have a pretty decent knowledge of the subject so I'm not as ignorant as you may think...................and to answer your original question, yes I am special (without needs!!).
Click to expand...


No I do not believe I have missed your point. The mere act of rape is violent, it is a physical assault on someone against their will. Therefore rape does always involve violence in the physical act itself.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top