DLT

daveproctor said:
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.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. By definition a physical act does not have to be a violent act. But hey, you know best, you are obviously experienced in this field of legal definitions and interpretations, who am I to argue with such a refined authority on the subject.:rolleyes:
 
Rape is by definition unconsented physical assault so how can it not be violent?

I am trying to have a reasoned discussion but all you come back with is childish sarcasm so I think I'll bow out now and let you win the debate.
 
viv1969 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have got that wrong"Rape is not a sexual act" it is. It requires penetration of the penis into the Vagina ,that is a sexual act.
You have got mixed up here with what you say, because in fact what you state as rape(the violence ect) is to most people what rape is or should be .But the legal definition of rape is non consensual penetration.There is no requirement for violence at all and sex with a girl under the age of 16 is immediate rape even if she consents.No violence or force required at all.

viv 1969.I don't know where the rape issue comes in as regards my post as I was not referring to rape in anyway.

My point was about identifying the victim.
 
daveproctor said:
Rape is by definition unconsented physical assault so how can it not be violent?

I am trying to have a reasoned discussion but all you come back with is childish sarcasm so I think I'll bow out now and let you win the debate.
Click to expand...

No, this is the definition of Rape (in England).

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

............and the Scottish definition is very similar.
 
@shapeshifter Did you get past the first line of my post?
I used a rape victim as an example of victim identification, and then agreed with you that yes, I believe the system should change. I just don't believe identifying the victim is the way to go.
NOT identifying the ACCUSED would stop wrongly accused defendants being vilified for the rest of their lives, and it was stop a great many of the gravy train riders having the opportunity to extort money from someone who may have patted their bottom 30 years ago.
 
daveproctor said:
Rape is by definition unconsented physical assault so how can it not be violent?

I am trying to have a reasoned discussion but all you come back with is childish sarcasm so I think I'll bow out now and let you win the debate.
Click to expand...


I could ply you with drink or drugs and then have sex when you are passed out - non violent.

Rape and similar crimes need to change, either both parties are named or both remain anonymous. It is simply not right that a guy can have his name made public as mud sticks.
 
cambsno said:
I could ply you with drink or drugs and then have sex when you are passed out - non violent.

Rape and similar crimes need to change, either both parties are named or both remain anonymous. It is simply not right that a guy can have his name made public as mud sticks.
Click to expand...

http://gov.nl.ca/VPI/types/

See the definition of sexual violence.

I absolutely agree with regards to a change in the law and believe that both parties should be granted complete anonymity during a trial.
 
daveproctor said:
http://gov.nl.ca/VPI/types/

See the definition of sexual violence.

I absolutely agree with regards to a change in the law and believe that both parties should be granted complete anonymity during a trial.
Click to expand...

Sorry but even I think that keeping it relevant to English / Welsh Law would be better.
 
viv1969 said:
Sorry but even I think that keeping it relevant to English / Welsh Law would be better.
Click to expand...

Very fair point - I hadn't noticed the source of this :)

I was merely using it though to try and support my PERSONAL view that rape ALWAYS involves violence of some nature.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
I could ply you with drink or drugs and then have sex when you are passed out - non violent.
Click to expand...

And non-consensual, so there's no need to consider the question of 'violence'.
 
Last edited:
daveproctor said:
Very fair point - I hadn't noticed the source of this :)

I was merely using it though to try and support my PERSONAL view that rape ALWAYS involves violence of some nature.
Click to expand...


I rest my case. Your personal view and not what's written in Law.
 
Erm, excuse me, but rape is NOT always a violent act.

It is usually the result of petting that gets out of control. That makes up the majority of rape allegations. So for example, boy meets girl, boy and girl have a nice time, boy and girl go back to one or others for 'coffee'/back of car to look at the stars/Any other place usually after much alcohol. All gets very intimate, until to be a delicate as I can on entry she says no. He's lost in the moment and carries on, she doesn't put up a fight. Thats rape, no violence involved.

As I said thats pretty much the majority. Yes, the others involve what Viv described, but thats very rare.

Both are treated much the same by the courts, rightly or wrongly, and I am not commenting on that. However, lets stop exaggerating the types of rape that happen and trying to attribute the cause of most to something that it isn't.

Going back to DLT, a Jury heard all the evidence. They made their assessment of that evidence having seen both him and the victims giving their sides. No, there's no corroboration, at least as far as I saw, but even without that a Jury is perfectly entitled to make a decision on the say so of one person, having taken account, not only of their evidence, but the way it was given and the way the defendant behaved to that. They also are entitled to not believe the defendant for much the same reasons.

What we are not entitled to do is to second guess a jury, with no knowledge other than what's reported in the press. Trust me I have sat through a great many trials, and heard a lot of evidence that was never reported in the press. In fact whats reported in the press is often very inaccurate.

Now, I will accept that it does not seem very just that a person can be convicted in these circumstances, but thats the Judical system that has grown up over many years. It has checks and balances in it, and the onus is very much on the side of the prosecution.

I can see the argument that the prosecution decisions seem unjust in the first instance, and I am concerned that a number of these cases are resulting in a Not Guilty finding. But an independent Judge and Jury have heard the evidence where the result is a conviction, and they alone are the arbiters.

Of course there is scope for malicious allegations, and they are made every day, some are caught and prosecutions stopped, some aren't. It has to be said that, and this is probably more in the past, when a defendants refusal to answer questions before charge couldn't be commented on, but defence solicitors are guilty of causing a fair number of convictions. In many cases I either knew someone didn't commit a crime, or strongly believed they didn't. If I am not giving direct evidence of the offence and there's nothing to contradict the victim, then I couldn't help. So when a clever dick solicitor said "Say nothing", he was in some cases hanging his own client. I, and most police officers worked (in spite of what some of you wrongly believe), on the basis of I wasn't interested in convicting the innocent, but if the evidence is there, and evidence of rebuttal is withheld, I have nothing to work with.
 
Bernie174 said:
Erm, excuse me, but rape is NOT always a violent act.

It is usually the result of petting that gets out of control. That makes up the majority of rape allegations. So for example, boy meets girl, boy and girl have a nice time, boy and girl go back to one or others for 'coffee'/back of car to look at the stars/Any other place usually after much alcohol. All gets very intimate, until to be a delicate as I can on entry she says no. He's lost in the moment and carries on, she doesn't put up a fight. Thats rape, no violence involved.

As I said thats pretty much the majority. Yes, the others involve what Viv described, but thats very rare.

Both are treated much the same by the courts, rightly or wrongly, and I am not commenting on that. However, lets stop exaggerating the types of rape that happen and trying to attribute the cause of most to something that it isn't.

Going back to DLT, a Jury heard all the evidence. They made their assessment of that evidence having seen both him and the victims giving their sides. No, there's no corroboration, at least as far as I saw, but even without that a Jury is perfectly entitled to make a decision on the say so of one person, having taken account, not only of their evidence, but the way it was given and the way the defendant behaved to that. They also are entitled to not believe the defendant for much the same reasons.

What we are not entitled to do is to second guess a jury, with no knowledge other than what's reported in the press. Trust me I have sat through a great many trials, and heard a lot of evidence that was never reported in the press. In fact whats reported in the press is often very inaccurate.

Now, I will accept that it does not seem very just that a person can be convicted in these circumstances, but thats the Judical system that has grown up over many years. It has checks and balances in it, and the onus is very much on the side of the prosecution.

I can see the argument that the prosecution decisions seem unjust in the first instance, and I am concerned that a number of these cases are resulting in a Not Guilty finding. But an independent Judge and Jury have heard the evidence where the result is a conviction, and they alone are the arbiters.

Of course there is scope for malicious allegations, and they are made every day, some are caught and prosecutions stopped, some aren't. It has to be said that, and this is probably more in the past, when a defendants refusal to answer questions before charge couldn't be commented on, but defence solicitors are guilty of causing a fair number of convictions. In many cases I either knew someone didn't commit a crime, or strongly believed they didn't. If I am not giving direct evidence of the offence and there's nothing to contradict the victim, then I couldn't help. So when a clever d*** solicitor said "Say nothing", he was in some cases hanging his own client. I, and most police officers worked (in spite of what some of you wrongly believe), on the basis of I wasn't interested in convicting the innocent, but if the evidence is there, and evidence of rebuttal is withheld, I have nothing to work with.
Click to expand...
So what point are you making?
 
cambsno said:
I could ply you with drink or drugs and then have sex when you are passed out - non violent.
Click to expand...

Still using a physical act to cause harm to the other party though - so violent by definition

on the name/not name thing - IMO both parties should remain anonymous unless there is a conviction , after which the perpetrator can be named.
 
So what point are you making?
Click to expand...

I thought that was obvious. There are 3 points
1. Rape isn't always an act of violence, its often lust and alcohol
2. The Internet isn't a mode of trial. A Jury have heard the evidence and made a decision.
3. False allegations are sometimes made against people, and while they are mostly discovered by investigation, the accused certainly in the past and possibly still, are not always helped by legal advice to say nothing.
 
It may be an act of lust for the rapist, but not for the victim.
 
BRASH said:
I rest my case. Your personal view and not what's written in Law.
Click to expand...

It is you who now miss the point - I have NEVER stated that I was arguing my point on a legal basis. It has always been about responding to your comment that 'rape does not always involve violence'.

My apologies if I did not appreciate this was a legal statement of fact as you did not indicate so. However, if it was I would still argue my OPINION.
 
Last edited:
Pfffft.
 
Apologies for the Daily Mail link but... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vate-cases-prosecutors-decide-not-action.html

7 other cases that the police wouldn't pursue.

DLT was known about and there always was a rumour about him mauling a female radio presenter on air.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...allegedly-groped-women-in-his-BBC-studio.html

It was a work place. This type of behaviour is not even acceptable in a club when everyone is hammered. You don't go around mauling and grabbing anyone you feel like.
 
[QUOTE="

DLT was known about and there always was a rumour about him mauling a female radio presenter on air.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...allegedly-groped-women-in-his-BBC-studio.html

It was a work place. This type of behaviour is not even acceptable in a club when everyone is hammered. You don't go around mauling and grabbing anyone you feel like.[/QUOTE]
Things have changed A LOT since the 70's. Back then, it was a game, for people who had access to radio stations, to try to put off presenters who were live on air, and if possible get them to collapse into a fit of the giggles, by doing funny things, pulling faces, throwing paper darts at them etc. If DLT really did come up behind her and feel her breasts then that was probably just a variation on the above - maybe slightly naughty by the standards of the day, but nowhere near as serious as if it happened now. The standard response to this kind of behaviour was a sharp rearward movement of a sharp elbow, not a complaint to the bosses, or to the police, neither of which were likely to be interested anyway.

I don't know DLT but have met him a few times. Always a larger than life character, very very friendly and very touchy feely. I fully accept that he has been convicted on evidence that I haven't seen/heard, therefore he is guilty - but it seems to me from what I know of him that these "sexual assaults" were probably no more than him being himself. I can assure you, he didn't need to grope strangers to get sexual contact, he was constantly chased by women.

It seems to me that his conviction is nowhere near as safe as that of Rolf Harris, where there was evidence by a number of different women that showed a clear and consistent behaviour pattern, i.e. spitting on his fingers before inserting them into a young girl.
 
srichards said:
Apologies for the Daily Mail link but... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vate-cases-prosecutors-decide-not-action.html

7 other cases that the police wouldn't pursue.
Click to expand...

I do not know whether Dave Lee Travis was a nice or a nasty radio DJ character but I'm very nervous about a society where the Crown Prosecution Service don't pursue a conviction for an alleged historic paedophile attack, but after the accused has been convicted of one very, very different and infintely less serious offence and hugely publicly villified for that, he should now face a civil action for the unprosecuted allegation, seeking financial compensation!
 
If someone being themselves is an excuse for any kind of bad behaviour then that's not going to work out well! Hoodies complaining they're being arrested for mugging people. That's ok. It's them being themselves ;)

The media version of the evidence and the evidence itself is often very different. Also there are other credible people from the time that saw this woman not longer after the assault took place. These things are always he said/she said. The identity of the woman isn't known. She is now a tv person and they haven't said who it is.

Private prosecution can only have financial compensation as a result. I don't think you can take out a private prosecution and have another form of restitutition eg community service etc?
 
Private prosecution can only have financial compensation as a result. I don't think you can take out a private prosecution and have another form of restitutition eg community service etc?
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing issuing civil proceedings, which is usually in an attempt to get compensation, and private prosecution, which is a person applying to a Criminal Court to start criminal proceedings.
The 2 things are different. In the second, the CPS now 'take' over private prosecutions, usually then discontinuing it. I haven't heard of any being taken since the ill fated Mail attempt with the Lawrence case, where there really wasn't any evidence at that time to support the charges. At that time you could not be tried twice for the same offence, and it was only after the legislation changed the defendants came into play again.
 
I am not for a moment excusing any proven (in court) or alleged 'bad behaviour' of the groping kind, but society's taboos have changed since the days of young women in celebrity's dressing rooms and rock star backstage or hotel room antics.

There is an element of unfairness in judging people's long past actions by today's standards. Where does it stop? Racist language uttered last century? Enjoying recreational drugs last century? and so on.
 
I'm fairly sure recreational drugs were illegal last century ;) ( I take it you mean the century before that)

Thing is with the "oh fondling womens breasts in the work place was acceptablein the 70s" is that the behaviour was as wromg then as it is now , it is just that sexism/sexual assault in the work place was ignored by the powers that be -

I don't think it has ever been truly acceptable behaviour to assault a member of the oposite sex (or the same sex for that matter) - that it was brushed off and ignored in those days doesnt mean that it was right or that we should ignore suc instances when they are highlighted now.

IMO the " it was only a bit of fun" defence is as inexcusable as a rapist saying "hey she was asking for it"
 
Yes, I concede to your points, @big soft - It's more a matter of the degree of 'bad behaviour' and the principle or precedent being set by the example I gave of being taken to court for uttering language which is now not 'politically correct'. Where does it stop?
 
Last edited:
Yves Geza said:
I do not know whether Dave Lee Travis was a nice or a nasty radio DJ character but I'm very nervous about a society where the Crown Prosecution Service don't pursue a conviction for an alleged historic paedophile attack, but after the accused has been convicted of one very, very different and infintely less serious offence and hugely publicly villified for that, he should now face a civil action for the unprosecuted allegation, seeking financial compensation!
Click to expand...

And therein lies the ultimate goal, I fear.
 
Quite a lot of people have voiced their opinion that anyone questioned about a crime should NOT be named until formally charged. As matters stand now, the media and hence the general public (I mustn't write 'plebs'!) decide whether someone is innocent or guilty before it has been heard and decided in court. And in many cases the alleged criminal/perpetrator is forever tainted by a guilty reputation even when the court judges him/her as innocent.

If DLT had been found innocent of the charges he would still be treated as guilty by the majority of the general public. That is unjust in my opinion too.
 
RedRobin said:
Quite a lot of people have voiced their opinion that anyone questioned about a crime should NOT be named until formally charged. As matters stand now, the media and hence the general public (I mustn't write 'plebs'!) decide whether someone is innocent or guilty before it has been heard and decided in court. And in many cases the alleged criminal/perpetrator is forever tainted by a guilty reputation even when the court judges him/her as innocent.

If DLT had been found innocent of the charges he would still be treated as guilty by the majority of the general public. That is unjust in my opinion too.
Click to expand...
Anyone charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.
I know that.
The Courts know it
The police know it
And even the press know it
The problem is always the ignorant public, who either don't know it or don't accept that there can be "smoke without fire" and who therefore assume that someone must be guilty just because they have been charged, or even just because the police have spoken to them...

I don't have any answers (and nobody would listen even if I had) but there does seem to be something wrong with a system that names people before they have been proved to be guilty, but we must balance this obvious injustice with the need to keep everything in the open.
 
If you can't name people before then you cannot find witnesses for either side so easily. It works both ways.
 
srichards said:
If you can't name people before then you cannot find witnesses for either side so easily. It works both ways.
Click to expand...

Perhaps no easily, but it still can be done.
 
srichards said:
If you can't name people before then you cannot find witnesses for either side so easily. It works both ways.
Click to expand...
So you would have no problem if you or a loved one was named in the press beforehand?
 
srichards said:
No.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly would. Especially as I mainly photograph kids, the reputation would seriously knock business. The no smoke without fire brigade would mean life is very difficult.

I would not wish a false accusation on anyone. It does massively affect people's lives.
 
srichards said:
No.
Click to expand...

Really. No problem with press camped on your doorstep day and night. Cameras in your face. Hang up calls. Your kids / grandkids / siblings / spouse....all subjected to the same.
 
No smoke without fire for repeated similar accusations is a perfectly fine assumption to make. Making it for one offs with no supporting other evidence is something else.
 
I think you've been practicing witchcraft, Suz, and I think we should test that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top