DLT

Yves Geza said:
I think you've been practicing witchcraft, Suz, and I think we should test that!
Click to expand...

If all the accusations are confined to one location where the accusers know each other again it is more questionable compared to when a number of allegations appear from various locations. I read about the Salem witch trials and similar.

I'm stuffed anyway as I have more than one cat ;)
 
See! The rumours are true! :p

Actually me and the lynch mob might be able to let you off the ducking if you take a couple of our cats off our hands ;)
 
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...

Surely thats up to the police and/or the defence team - not the media
 
Yves Geza said:
I think you've been practicing witchcraft, Suz, and I think we should test that!
Click to expand...

Given the number of 'familiars' you live with Jon , she may not be the only one ;)
 
big soft moose said:
Surely thats up to the police and/or the defence team - not the media
Click to expand...

The police generally supply the media the information they wish to be released. They already decide on who they name and who they don't.
 
I think he should have been prosecuted for what he did but sometimes we need a statute of limitations - if someone groped me and I wasn't in a position to defend myself at that time (ie it might have ruined my career) then I would have made a complaint the next day (for example) but 30 years later? Nope, shouldn't happen. This kind of thing needs to be outed at the time, not least to save other girls from going through it.

having said that - society at that time did not frown upon groping, and if you were famous and powerful (as we've since discovered) the victim would have been laughed at and called a silly girl - by the police that is.

I'm just glad we've become more enlightened, although, there is that stuff in Rochdale *sigh*
 
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...

That is the root of the problem. Social media and the Internet now allows people to air their views during the trial. Irrespective of that in itself being sub Judice, and can cause a trial to be halted. So not a clever idea from the start. In any case, whatever people might think, they don't have access to all the evidence, much less understand the law on the subject, as people show on here on a regular basis, so the opinions are meaningless.

Before expressing an opinion, pre or post trial people need to understand that they can and often do commit liable.
 
Bernie174 said:
That is the root of the problem. Social media and the Internet now allows people to air their views during the trial. Irrespective of that in itself being sub Judice, and can cause a trial to be halted. So not a clever idea from the start. In any case, whatever people might think, they don't have access to all the evidence, much less understand the law on the subject, as people show on here on a regular basis, so the opinions are meaningless.

Before expressing an opinion, pre or post trial people need to understand that they can and often do commit liable.
Click to expand...

....I agree. That is exactly the problem. Fair justice can never be carried out if we merely follow what is popular. Everyone of course is entitled to their opinion and it is indeed meaningless but it can very unfairly trash someone's reputation.
 
but it can very unfairly trash someone's reputation.
Click to expand...

Whic is where liable comes in. The sites can be compelled to hand over the identity of people who make comments. One day someone is going to wake up to be served with proceedings and end up very out of pocket, all for ill informed and ill judged comment.
 
Bernie174 said:
Whic is where liable comes in. The sites can be compelled to hand over the identity of people who make comments. One day someone is going to wake up to be served with proceedings and end up very out of pocket, all for ill informed and ill judged comment.
Click to expand...

....And ignorance of the law doesn't get you off!
 
Bernie174 said:
Before expressing an opinion, pre or post trial people need to understand that they can and often do commit liable.
Click to expand...

very hard to commit libel by expressing an opinion though - unless you are silly enough to state it as a fact, and even then wouldn't they have to prove malicious intent ?
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find it is 'libel'.
'Liable' is likely to do something.
:)
 
good point well made - its been a long day (though i notice bernie made the same typo)
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That applies to any crime it is not unique to The DLT case. Are you are happy with the way the law has worked in the DLT case and do you think justice has been done?
 
good point well made - its been a long day (though i notice bernie made the same typo)
Click to expand...

I plead the same!

That applies to any crime it is not unique to The DLT case. Are you are happy with the way the law has worked in the DLT case and do you think justice has been done?
Click to expand...

It's not for me, or anyone else not connected to say. I didn't see the evidence, I didn't see the victim or him give that evidence. The only people who should are those involved, DLT, the victim and the Jury. Everyone else is a side show whose opinion isn't relevant.
 
Bernie174 said:
I plead the same!



It's not for me, or anyone else not connected to say. I didn't see the evidence, I didn't see the victim or him give that evidence. The only people who should are those involved, DLT, the victim and the Jury. Everyone else is a side show whose opinion isn't relevant.
Click to expand...
Well that's your opinion but anyone who wants to can say it is just or unjust.The stance you are taking is to say that no one can say if they think it is fair just or unjust because it has gone through the due process of law.

If that were the case, all the cases of injustice in the past would never have been rectified. Derek Bentley,the Guildford four,Birmingham six and the list could go on.

If you don't have an opinion or don't want to voice it I understand. But please don't say." It's not for anyone else not connected to say".

If the celebrity witch hunt were simply an issue about the truth of evidence alone, maybe it would simply be for a court to decide but this is a far more complex issue than that, involving identity issues and charges being brought 20-30 yrs after an alleged event along with an attack on a particular group of individuals alone ( Male celebs).

As I say if you don't have an opinion I understand. I do and I think it is a witch hunt and DLT should never have been charged.
 
shapeshifter said:
I do and I think it is a witch hunt and DLT should never have been charged.
Click to expand...

....I'm afraid that this is a perfect example of what @Bernie174 is saying - You (and I) have a right to our opinions but they mean diddlysquat in the eyes of the law and ONLY an appointed Court can decide a final judgement. And only a Court of Appeal (or perhaps The House of Lords?) can challenge that judgement. The judgement is what stands on the record as truth.

It doesn't matter what Jo & Joanne Public think - They simply do not know all the facts and details of a case and neither do the vast majority of them know the technicalities of the law nor its established processes. In the best interests of fair justice it is right that this is the way that the law of this land operates.

Just as you can be served with a summons for publicly commenting in what might be interpreted as in a libelous way, did you know that it is technically an infringement of someone's copyright to even view the author's work online without written permission!? That's how technical it all can get.
 
Last edited:
Ok Shapeshifter, you have an opinion. But based on what? What you have read in the papers, or been fed by TV News?

That's hardly complete is is it, and in reality, you are condoning trial by media/internet which is the real problem here.

I don't and have not said that said that no one can complain because this has followed due process, I have said that people are not qualified to comment because they have not had access to the evidence, nor do they have any idea on the legislation on the matter. Unlike the Jury who had the law spelt out to them, after having heard and seen the evidence delivered.

OK, so you claim that it's a witch hunt. And you have expressed that as factual not opinion, please show us the evidence that supports that.
 
Bernie174 said:
OK, so you claim that it's a witch hunt. And you have expressed that as factual not opinion, please show us the evidence that supports that.
Click to expand...

DLT was originally tried on 12 charges of whatever sexual impropriety. The accusations, even before that trial, were accompanied by huge amounts of negative publicity.

He was acquitted of nine of the original twelve charges and the jury could not reach a verdict in the other three so the CPS resubmitted them [??] for retrial along with one additional allegation that had come to light since the original charges.

That new allegation was the one that was successfully prosecuted. DLT has now noew been found not guilty of all the original twelve charges that destroyed his reputation and which initiated the fishing expedition that produced the one charge that stuck.

That sounds like a witchhunt to me!
 
Last edited:
IN 2012 before all this came to light, I remember reading a Sunday Times Article by the respected journalist Camilla Long, in which she interviewed DLT (because he was about to meet Aung San Suu Kyi), the opening lines of the article were 'I spent 90 minutes with the former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis and I don’t think there is a part of my body that he didn’t grope, he fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me, he copped a feel of my hips when I foolishly asked for a tour of his studio, stroked my chin and my back and gave me a full body hug as I left.’

There was no consent, he just did it, and for me it left a very bad taste, the sheer arrogance of the bloke , assuming he could just assault folk with impunity, without any consideration for the other person, with the assumption that nothing would be done about it.

I'm pleased he got his comeuppance.
 
Les McLean said:
IN 2012 before all this came to light, I remember reading a Sunday Times Article by the respected journalist Camilla Long, in which she interviewed DLT (because he was about to meet Aung San Suu Kyi), the opening lines of the article were 'I spent 90 minutes with the former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis and I don’t think there is a part of my body that he didn’t grope, he fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me, he copped a feel of my hips when I foolishly asked for a tour of his studio, stroked my chin and my back and gave me a full body hug as I left.’

There was no consent, he just did it, and for me it left a very bad taste, the sheer arrogance of the bloke , assuming he could just assault folk with impunity, without any consideration for the other person, with the assumption that nothing would be done about it.

I'm pleased he got his comeuppance.
Click to expand...

The fact that she's a respected journalist is immaterial.
It happened, she wrote about it, she addressed it neither to DLT nor to the authorities it would appear, so it couldn't have bothered her that much.
As a grown woman she could have taken control of the situation and put and end to it. She clearly didn't.
 
Jonathan

Jury's acquit on a regular basis, it does not mean there's a witch hunt against the defendant, or that the charge was incorrect. They acquit for many reasons, and again, that does not mean the original allegation is wrong.

A charge is made out because there is sufficient evidence to support a charge being put before a Court for trial. It isn't the CPS, or Police deciding guilt. If the public want to imply in their minds that means guilty then it is the public that are wrong, and are doing so without the evidence or the knowledge of law. It's as simple as that.

No one in the Criminal Justice System has said he was guilty, until a verdict was announced, so that implication cannot be laid at the door of the 'system'.

What you have said, is not evidence of a witch hunt at all. It's your opinion, nothing more. You have formed that opinion on the basis of the end result, you have not formed it on the basis of the evidence in the case.

So, I issue the same challenge as I did earlier, provide some evidence, that's real evidence not what you think based on an end result that there's been a witch hunt?
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
The fact that she's a respected journalist is immaterial.
It happened, she wrote about it, she addressed it neither to DLT nor to the authorities it would appear, so it couldn't have bothered her that much.
As a grown woman she could have taken control of the situation and put and end to it. She clearly didn't.
Click to expand...

And of course, all the adult victims of Saville, Clifford, Harris et al, should have taken control of the situation and put and end to it.

I agree the fact she is a respected journalist is immaterial, it would leave just as bad a taste if she was an unrespected journalist, or not a journalist at all.
 
Les McLean said:
And of course, all the adult victims of Saville, Clifford, Harris et al, should have taken control of the situation and put and end to it.
Click to expand...

The adults, yes.
 
Yves Geza said:
all the original twelve charges that destroyed his reputation !
Click to expand...

Given that he already had a reputation for doing thigs like this

Les McLean said:
IN 2012 before all this came to light, I remember reading a Sunday Times Article by the respected journalist Camilla Long, in which she interviewed DLT (because he was about to meet Aung San Suu Kyi), the opening lines of the article were 'I spent 90 minutes with the former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis and I don’t think there is a part of my body that he didn’t grope, he fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me, he copped a feel of my hips when I foolishly asked for a tour of his studio, stroked my chin and my back and gave me a full body hug as I left.’
.
Click to expand...

What exactly has been destroyed ?
 
@big soft moose Pete, the destruction of his workplace or similar 'local' reputation, irrespective of the verdicts, went national or even global. Newspaper front page headline coverage does that and especially if it's tabloid with big pictures etc. Sometimes you don't bother to read the fuller story as reported inside the newspaper.
 
RedRobin said:
@big soft moose Pete, the destruction of his workplace or similar 'local' reputation, irrespective of the verdicts, went national or even global. Newspaper front page headline coverage does that and especially if it's tabloid with big pictures etc. Sometimes you don't bother to read the fuller story as reported inside the newspaper.
Click to expand...

but by all accounts on this thread his work place reputation was that of a 'bit of a lad' or a 'dirty old lech' depending on whether the person asked thinks that touching up female colleagues is a bit of a laugh or sexual assault . So being accused and eventally convicted of seual assault hasn't 'destroyed his reputation' merely confirmed it. THe same is true of most of the other celebs highlighted recently , its not like a complete innocent has been accused and falsely convicted.
 
DLT - 3 months suspended (for 2 years) sentence.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
but by all accounts on this thread his work place reputation was that of a 'bit of a lad' or a 'dirty old lech' depending on whether the person asked thinks that touching up female colleagues is a bit of a laugh or sexual assault . So being accused and eventally convicted of seual assault hasn't 'destroyed his reputation' merely confirmed it. THe same is true of most of the other celebs highlighted recently , its not like a complete innocent has been accused and falsely convicted.
Click to expand...

....Yes, but his reputation at the time was relatively acceptable and therefore not so destroyed as it is in this current era.

Society's morals change. Although of course, Jimmy Savile's alleged behaviour goes across time and is beyond most levels of acceptance. Roman Empire, anyone?
 
arclight said:
DLT - 3 months suspended sentence.
Click to expand...

....Which refects the relatively minor offense which the court, having heard and seriously considered lots of detailed evidence (unlike a gang of blokes on an internet forum), decided was the appropriate sentence. End of! Except that his national reputation has already been destroyed by media coverage of the other 12(?) cases of which he was found to be innocent.

Personally I do not and cannot judge DLT - I leave that for the courts and not the media nor popular opinion.
 
RedRobin said:
.... Except that his national reputation has already been destroyed by media coverage of the other 12(?) cases of which he was found to be innocent.
.
Click to expand...

and will be completely forgotten by this time next year anyway - he's an ex DJ who no one cares much about anyway, not an A list celebrity.
 
big soft moose said:
and will be completely forgotten by this time next year anyway - he's an ex DJ who no one cares much about anyway, not an A list celebrity.
Click to expand...

No, but can you see him getting a slot on radio anytime soon? Career over with. Now that may be his own fault, but if only the police went after the knife crime, violent offenders etc... with the same energy. We have all seen the oxygen thieves on the Cop shows on TV, they to me are a far bigger menace than someone who may/may not have touched a boob 20 years ago!
 
Hmmm, I have just seen on TV what Camilla Long looks like. She's hot! I would love to grope her and much more! But only with her permission :banana:
 
Les McLean said:
IN 2012 before all this came to light, I remember reading a Sunday Times Article by the respected journalist Camilla Long, in which she interviewed DLT (because he was about to meet Aung San Suu Kyi), the opening lines of the article were 'I spent 90 minutes with the former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis and I don’t think there is a part of my body that he didn’t grope, he fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me, he copped a feel of my hips when I foolishly asked for a tour of his studio, stroked my chin and my back and gave me a full body hug as I left.’

There was no consent, he just did it, and for me it left a very bad taste, the sheer arrogance of the bloke , assuming he could just assault folk with impunity, without any consideration for the other person, with the assumption that nothing would be done about it.

I'm pleased he got his comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Well if that was actually her experience and she didn't kick him in the goolies then she is an affront to women everywhere. As for being a "respected" journalist I think the jury will be out along time on that one. Hatchet jobs are her stock in trade.

http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/menace-that-is-camilla-long.html

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/?article=NzUxNw==
 
Last edited:
chadders said:
Well if that was actually her experience and she didn't kick him in the goolies then she is an affront to women everywhere. As for being a "respected" journalist I think the jury will be out along time on that one. Hatchet jobs are her stock in trade.

http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/menace-that-is-camilla-long.html

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/?article=NzUxNw==
Click to expand...

That wasn't quite the point I was making, I'm sure Camilla Long is a big enough girl that she can handle herself, the main issue for me was the way DLT thought he could assault any woman, without any consequence of his actions.

Concerning the assault he was convicted of, the victims impact statement was ' I was a naive and trusting 22-year-old when I was subjected to an unprovoked and terrifying physical assault at my place of work. I was too paralysed with fear to confront my assailant.".

Some would maintain she should have taken control of the situation and put an end to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top