DLT

Think the worst of people, then when someone does the right thing it comes as a nice surprise...
 
Lets be honest here, if there are any getting charged, then you probably wouldn't hear about it, simply because the press aren't interested. Not hearing doesn't mean doesn't happen.

As for what happened in the 60's/70's/80's...Albeit I was only really 'in play' from the mid 70's, I'm afraid I didn't see wide spread groping, fondling or any more rape and ravage than there is now. I do know I nicked a fair number for the above, and I didn't see much reluctance to prosecute, and we prosecuted all cases where the victim was happy to make a statement.

I think some are remembering selectively from the past.


i wonder if you could actually split that up into four different categories ,and just list the ones in the context of this thread i.e the first two you mention ,and how many convictions it actually caused .,your also talking about incidents that were reported and statements made at the time of happening NOT 30 years later
 
The majority would be scared and intimidated and, yes, I do know that for a fact, Chadders, because I understand psychology.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise an expert had joined the discussion.

And whilst we're about it "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.", has lawyer speak stamped all over it.*

*Apologies in advance to any expert solicitors and barristers out there.
 
Last edited:
Think the worst of people, then when someone does the right thing it comes as a nice surprise...

That would be rather sad if I thought you really meant it but, somehow, I don't think you do...;)
 
That would be rather sad if I thought you really meant it but, somehow, I don't think you do...;)

That would be quite charming if you really believed it but. somehow, I don't think you've ever met Nod ... ;) ... :whistle:
 
That would be rather sad if I thought you really meant it but, somehow, I don't think you do...;)

Well, it's better than thinking the best of people and being disappointed most of the time!
 
No Fox, what I am doing is showing that in spite of what some here think, groping fondling etc was not something that happened, with no recourse, nor was it seen as acceptable behavior.

It happened then as it happens now, people didn't accept it, it wasn't 'normal' then, just as it's not now.
 
it wasn't 'normal' then, just as it's not now.

You weren't up the town on a Friday night in the '70s then.

It happened both ways, if you were lucky enough, or brave enough. Often resulted in a bruised shin or a cut lip.

Only a weirdo would have done it to a timid girl or boy though.


I don't believe for a moment that journalist's account.

As for the accusers in the DLT case - I've no idea.

Edit: Nearly forgot to say Bernie, I enjoy your posts on the legal stuff from the police point of view - very informative.
 
Last edited:
drinking in rhyl is bad enough lol

i used to own a fairly large B&B just behind the seafront ,and cut a deal with the manager of one particular club ,whereby i recommended the place to guests and visitors etc taking them there and ensuring they never had to queue to get in either ,i also used to take the manager out on my boat fishing all this ensured that i never paid for a drink in the club either .AH the good old days of yore :beer::beer::beer:
 
No Fox, what I am doing is showing that in spite of what some here think, groping fondling etc was not something that happened, with no recourse, nor was it seen as acceptable behavior.

It happened then as it happens now, people didn't accept it, it wasn't 'normal' then, just as it's not now.

i think bernie that you might well be perfectly correct in your version of events but applied to your own particular beat .as someone that has a long and hopefully full life AND moved around the country a lot with work and business interests i can assure you that what is considered normal for the sake of argument in a wine bar in surrey ,is laughed at and ridiculed in working mens clubs in rotherham ,there is/was only different degrees of normal behaviour depending where you lived and the type of people that frequented the place ,i grew up in the east end of london under the shadow of the krays .lots of stuff went on in them days that was never ever reported if you saw it you just never saw it let alone went squealing to the old bill about it ,most of whom were on the krays payroll anyway .
i lived a charmed life as i used to babysit for a certain person who later went on to marry a famous british actress before having to flee to spain .but i have fond memories of him strapping on a pair of colt 45's like john wayne before going out on his knight rider duties .as i said it did afford me a certain level of "leave the gobby git alone" or else .
so groping a bird at the secret policemans ball might well get reported ,weighing a birds tits at a northern working mens club either earned a slap or punch or a kiss or a shag .these days though it would probably be all over Facebook first though :exit:
 
The Streets of Bermondsey were although higher class than those of Poplar, were 'ruled' by equally unpleasent charaters, and so called codes of silence, but I doubt the reactions of the Norf London 'ladies' were any different from their souf London sisters.
While the locals were admittedly more keen on their own form of justice, which only involved the Old Bill turning up to the blood stained mess and making a vain attempt to find out what happened from a suddenly blind deaf and dumb population. That's not and wasn't always the case. Tower Bridge Magistrates, I can report, often sat in horror at tales of a grabbed boob and unwanted hand up skirt only to find the giggle gap ...wasn't.

So back to English, of course some weren't reported, just as some aren't reported now. Was it more acceptable then? No, not in my experience, certainly our crime books had plenty of such allegations. It's easy to think how you do when you don't see the other side, which I did, hence why I don't agree with you.
 
The world has changed.
Society has changed.
The police have changed.
The justice system has changed.
Attitudes to the justice system have changed.
Social media has changed everything.
Interpersonal relations have changed.
Sexual relationships have changed.
Youth tribal cultures have changed.

All references to the past, including the one I made earlier, are pretty much redundant.
 
Last edited:
The world has changed.
Society has changed.
The police have changed.
The justice system has changed.
Attitudes to the justice system have changed.
Social media has changed everything.
Interpersonal relations have changed.
Sexual relationships have changed.
Youth tribal cultures have changed.

All references to the past, including the one I made earlier, are pretty much redundant.

....Society has only modified its taboos.
The Police have only changed their equipment.
The justice system has merely added more precedents and still refers to history.
Attitudes to the justice system have changed inasmuch that too many people are too disrespectful.
Social media has bust apart how we can all communicate and therefore, I agree, has influenced lots of things.
Interpersonal relationships have changed?.... Not really.
Sexual relationships have changed?.... [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]! No they haven't!
Youth tribal cultures haven't changed, they just follow different fads and have different toys.
 
i used to own a fairly large B&B just behind the seafront ,and cut a deal with the manager of one particular club ,whereby i recommended the place to guests and visitors etc taking them there and ensuring they never had to queue to get in either ,i also used to take the manager out on my boat fishing all this ensured that i never paid for a drink in the club either .AH the good old days of yore :beer::beer::beer:

used to spend all my summers in Rhyl at my grans house. I know the place well
 
DLT's sentence is to be reviewed following four people complaining to the Atorney General that it was unduly lenient.
 
DLT's sentence is to be reviewed following four people complaining to the Atorney General that it was unduly lenient.

So 4 people with nothing better to do with their lives.

Actually, I thought it was a bit harsh. Comparing sentences isn't a good idea, but I don't recall anyone getting a term of imprisonment, suspended or otherwise, for the first offence.
 
So 4 people with nothing better to do with their lives.

Actually, I thought it was a bit harsh. Comparing sentences isn't a good idea, but I don't recall anyone getting a term of imprisonment, suspended or otherwise, for the first offence.

Any first offence??
 
Back
Top