Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS

1995 according to my calculator is almost 20 years FFS

 

So what's the cut off point ? Think we should ignore Orgreave because it was 'a different time' ?

 

All for copping a feel at Lucy Porter's tits

Hang the b@st@rd!

The law isn't interested whether he's a nice person or not, it doesn't care about the other allegations it considers were proved false, it takes the one allegation that a jury upholds (albeit not unanimously) and passes an appropriate sentence guided by precedent. Bearing in mind he's lost his house, his savings and his livelihood through this I think justice can be considered to have seen to be done.

 

Lost me now ..clearly you are a very intelligent person good day.

 

Re: All for copping a feel at Lucy Porter's tits

Agreed lets hang everybody that is accused of anything.. bring back the ducking stool burning at the stake... good old conservative values...PMSL

 

Leave it. People like Extremely Northern are either fresh out of diapers or are close to sainthood. I hate the idea that some of these posters may be called for Jury service a their comments are highly subjective and prone to personal viewpoints. None of them have addressed my main points which you echoed in that times and attitudes have changed and many if not most red-blooded males from those times (including me and you would be on the SOR) . Why come forward after 20 years. If it was rape I can understand the trauma reluctance until now, but a grope on a corridor?? FFS....Possible civil action or compo coming on possibly??

Addenda! Actually a good sentence would have been to allow the victim to give him a good hard Slap!! What we would have got if we overstepped the mark in that era

 

Your use of inverted commas does seem to imply that you don't think 'enlightened attitudes' are a positive thing.

I don't actually agree that sentencing was wrong in law, but to dismiss this as something insignificant is completely wrong. It was a man in a position of power who thought it was acceptable to grab a woman's breasts. And make humorous comments whilst doing it. In his place of work, and her place of work. Are you telling me that has ever been acceptable, and I'm only judging it through modern values?

Personally I don't think everyone did use to think it was acceptable to grope women or see them as subservient to men. But if that was the case I'm pleased I wasn't an adult back then.

 

Okay so when was it acceptable to grab a woman's breasts in the workplace ? To view them as lesser people to be abused and their protests dismissed

Because that was what the DLT trial was about - not Sid James style innuendo.

 

Word.

Nailed it IMO.

 

Not at all, but I DO think PC has gone too far. "Groping women" just shows that your choice of language is emotive. Adolescent teenagers generally think of sex and that has nothing to do with men feeling women are subservient to men. It is human nature and society -rightly or wrongly- deemed such behaviour wrong but not so 'evil' or 'vile' Besides most girls could handle themselves and were more than capable of doling out instant retribution. If she had such an issue at the time, why did she not complain if , as you say, that behaviour was not seen as acceptable (I agree it wasn't) and she felt she would not get a fair hearing?
My reference to enlightened attitudes relates to the over correctness and prissy behaviour of some which results in the ' we are all victims' and blame culture in society.

 

I think you are right... dont waste your time trying to educate where its never going to register..

 

I don't know which I find funnier, the idea that Extremely Northern is a bairn or that he's some kind of saint. Both make me laugh. He's a right old, miserable lovely person. I'm not sure if I agree with him either like, but then I haven't read the article he refers to and I'm a 6'3 bloke who has never had to contend with this sort of thing. I do know one thing, referring to folk as kids or saints because they hold a different opinion to you is a pretty shitty way to conduct a discussion.

 

Please explain what in particular was bizarre about the comments I made?

 

I'm not sure how 'groping' is an emotive term. It's definition is to fondle (someone) for sexual pleasure roughly or clumsily, or without the person's consent. It doesn't even have to be an unwanted act to be termed grope so I if anything the term is underplaying what happened.

I don't see how you can contrast the actions of a man in postion of power, grabbing the breasts of junior member of staff at his place of work when there was no element of reciprocation prior to it, with those of a teenager feeling a girl up who he's copping off with.

Unless your suggesting that teenagers in the past could have grabbed the breasts of another teenager when it wasn't during some kind of already consented act? Because walking up to a girl and groping them out of the blue isn't acceptable whether your 13 or 50. I'd add I was 13 at the time of this offence in question and me and all my mates knew it wasn't acceptable to grope a girl whilst walking down a corridor.

No-one is saying a kid talking it a bit too far with his girlfirend, being told to stop and then stopping, has done anything wrong. That's because its in no way comparable to what we are discussing. I haven't seen any proposals to make touching a woman's breast in any situation a crime.

 

All this is a bit off my original point in that the severity of the crime and 'inadequate sentence, compared to what is going on in the world seems to be being over exaggerated. How does a woman's personal space being invaded and a specific part of her anatomy being handled compare to say, being assualted in a nightclub, or 'glassed' or mugged. If people are being sentenced to community service, suspended sentences for ABH etc. how does it justify a prison sentence (as some are calling for) for a man, who even the judge said had not been shown to be a 'serial offender'? All I am arguing for is a sense of perspective. Funny how some men on here are so eager to rush to the aid of the poor defenceless women. How is that for regarding women as subservient?
I think we will have to agree to disagree here as I think there are far more important things that an over-stretched CPS and criminal justice system need to deal with.

 

Remorse is for people who admit guilt.

 

You didn't make any bizarre comment and I apologise as I somehow mixed your name with some the poster whose posts do find illogical and emotive Sorry again.

 

As I said earlier I don't have an issue with the sentence. But at the same time I don't think his actions should be trivialised.

 

Firstly, you are condoning sexual assault by trivialising it in numerous ways - it went on a lot in Greece, Italy etc it's not as bad as abuses in Somalia, it didn't even leave a bruise, "what 'injury' has this woman suffered?" ('injury'?)

Saying 'God help her if she had to live in Rwanda or under IS rule' - God help anyone in such circumstances.

"i had my wallet pinched"
"feel grateful you're not a woman in Rwanda"

It doesn't even make coherent sense. It's just minimising the crime by any and whatever means is available.

Secondly, your lack of understanding about the law is significant. Back row of the cinema is not a valid comparison. A bloke and a woman go on a date to the cinema. The circumstances are such that he reasonably believes she would consent to him 'trying it on'.

The law around sexual assault by touching has a key part to it: that the victim did not consent and the offender knew that the victim did not consent or did not reasonably believe that the victim was consenting.

So a more accurate comparison in the back seat of the cinema would be some bloke sitting next to a perfect stranger, and gropes her.

Now if you're saying 'come on we've all been there and got our faces slapped' - no sorry, not me mate. If you have touched an ex partner sexually knowing or believing that she didn't consent, the chances are that you have committed a crime.

That is what Dave Lee Travis has been convicted of. He approached a woman - knowing or believing she didn't consent to him touching her breasts - and he did so for a sexual purpose.

The victim was in her place of work, her offender was a senior figure in her industry. She was working in an organisation which we now know was notoriously turning a blind eye to child abuse, allegations of rape, what hope for her? Should she quit her job? How would she feel moving forward? Did she fear escalation? Did it change her view of the world around her?

Bruising is the least relevant point.

Thirdly this case was convicted because it wasn't one word against another. There were witness testimonies.

Finally, the 'witch hunt' theory is the very best way to cloak an offender. No let's not address any of these offences. Tell these victims to go away. Leave the poor sex offender alone.

Bottom line: he has been convicted - the question is, was a suspended sentence sufficient? You think so. I don't. I can cope with your opinion. That's fine.