Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS

how far would this have gone if, a, the innocent until proven guilty persons name had not been released, or, b. it was a guy called kevin that stacks shelves for Aldi in blubberhouses. and don't give me the "it may help other victims come forward" what if its all made up and the womans done it before why not release her name "so her other victims" can come forward and yes I know 2 men this has happened to, and no I'm not one of them

 

It depends though how you define "all made up." If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that what she said was made up ******** then yes, she should be prosecuted. However these cases will be relatively few, and just because it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged victim is guilty it doesn't automatically mean that the accuser made it up.

 

Re: Has the name of the victim been released - I don't think it has .... maybe someon

I have no concern at all - far from it - but knowing how "sensitively" this site can be policed at times I think it's quite strange that it's not been picked up on by Site Admin - maybe if you said something against "Football Friend" Ben it would have disappeared as quick as you posted it.

 

I think that having served his sentence he should be allowed to make a living.

 

It's a cheap tactic often deployed by those who choose to occupy the moral high
ground on this issue to accuse those who do not share their view of 'minimising' the gravity of sexual offending.
Your seemingly deliberate misconstruction of my comment as to 'laxity of past times', clearly a reference to the failure of the authorities to act properly at the time, is a prime example, as tedious as it is typical of those who seek to apply the broad brush rather than exercise proper, informed scrutiny of individual cases.
Your contention that Travis should be sent to custody for maintaining his innocence in the face of the verdict is equally crass.
All defendants who fight trials do so in the knowledge that they will not be afforded the credit and reduction in sentence available to those who plead guilty.
It does not follow, however, that all those convicted must go to prison.
As for your point regarding those in positions of trust who abuse that position, I agree that this aggravates the offence, but observe that this would apply equally to Joe Bloggs, office manager, who gropes his secretary.
I'm not convinced that he would have been subjected to what Travis has been through, nor whether in the event of an identical result, we'd be looking at an AG's reference and the clamour for blood such as you endorse.

 

It's far cheaper to play the man, rather than the ball, with insults. I haven't deliberately misconstrued anything. I'm sure you can see how I construed your point - and if it was not intended to convey the message I received, well that is for you to address (probably better done without insults).

My point is not - as you may or may not realise - that all guilty offenders who fail to show remorse should go to prison. Genuinely - accept my apologies for misleading you in that regard. My point was that, with regard to offences under the sexual offences act, those who are found guilty and do not show remorse and do not accept that they have broken the law - should meet a custodial sentence. Yes - i include Joe Bloggs the office groper in this category.

Again I accept that this is out of step with the majority of opinions in this thread. I also accept that it is out of step with sentencing guidelines. I even accept that this might be seen to be hard-line or even harsh by yourself and others (crass? That's your opinion and while I'm slightly offended, you are entitled to it).

You know I'm not clamouring for blood - in my reply I even stated explicitly to the contrary. While you disagree with me, the least you could do is accept that I'm clear in my opinion and forthright in what I think - you just don't agree.

 

My dear BRF, apologies if I caused offence.

It was not my intention to insult you. I operate in an adversarial environment and have said a lot worse about the arguments of friends and colleagues before enjoying their company out of court at the end of the day.

I welcome forthright debate but cannot abide the professional PC brigade who choose to hide behind mock outrage at supposed slights, be it of a sexist, racist, homophobic nature, when they have no answer to common sense, straight forward argument. I felt that your insinuation that I was minimising historical sex offending trespassed into those realms but accept your assertion to the contrary.
It does seem your dislike of the 'Hairy Cornflake' has coloured your view of the wider issue and I wonder whether in the unfortunate event of you being wrongly convicted of a sexual offence you would be happy to take it, and automatic imprisonment, on the chin rather than continuing to protest your innocence.
I'm not saying that was the case here but it does happen and I take no issue with those who maintain their innocence and refuse to show remorse for something they know they have not done.
By way of aside the verdict must have been a body blow to the defence team who had seen off one trial and the majority of the second wave of allegations only to be hit with a 10-2 majority mixed verdict outcome - akin to losing in the last minute of extra time to ten men in a replay. Or supporting Barnsley.
Anyway, no hard feelings and happy to agree to disagree.

 

Just to be absolutely clear - I didn't 'insinuate' that you had minimised historical sexual offences - that is what I accused you of. I accept that what you were actually referring to was the failure of the institutions and authorities to deal positively with such offences when they occurred. An easy misunderstanding - but I'm much happier to be reassured about your actual meaning.

I accept two further things - firstly my dislike of Dave Lee Travis is genuine and I imagine this has coloured my perspective on his case. Secondly, that a genuinely innocent person, wrongfully convicted, should never be coerced into 'remorse' by the prospect of simply avoiding a custodial sentence. If I was wrongfully convicted in a miscarriage of justice I would go to my grave without showing 'remorse' for something I hadn't done (and probably resenting the system that convicted me). I dare say a custodial sentence would insult to injury in this (hopefully) unlikely situation.

However - if someone has been convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt, majority verdict or otherwise, last minute of extra time in a replay or otherwise - we must have the courage of our convictions. If a man convicted of murder is ever going to get parole he has to show that he is no longer a threat to society, that he has confronted his demons, and that he is remorseful. Otherwise he will serve his full sentence. What about people - such as Barry George - wrongfully convicted? Do we give them parole - just in case? Let's not be wet.

If you are an unrepentant sex offender I don't think it's extraordinary (as some do) that you should face a custodial sentence - ranging from a low level custodial term (three months) to something far more substantial in the appropriate cases (not hanging or bleeding or cruel and unusual punishments).

I dare say that your objectivity is possibly stronger than mine - but also if I was to appoint you to prosecute my argument you could challenge yourself to make it compelling?

All the very best and thank you for the exchange of views. As you say - no hard feelings, and happy to to agree to disagree.

 

Just to add some sobriety and gravity to the discussion. Worst DJ name ever.