[Closed] Dave Lee Travis...Guilty!

If that girl was your daughter how would you feel?

I think people need to bear in mind the world was a very different place in the '90 and what was acceptable then, and what is acceptable now.

cock a doodle doo pop pickers, there's only one place that man is going and it isn't where women are, let's rock!

There are now even fewer re-runs of Top of The Pops from the '70s that will get shown.

I doubt it was really acceptable 19yrs ago, it's just fewer people gave a shit.

richc - Member

I think people need to bear in mind the world was a very different place in the '90 and what was acceptable then, and what is acceptable now.

Nah.
Things had pretty much changed by the time I started work in the mid 80's I reckon.

Don't remember indecent assault being acceptable behaviour in any of the places I've been at.

There's no way that was acceptable in 1995.

If that girl was your daughter how would you feel?

groping a womans breast was never acceptable hence why it was a crime

FFS like we did not know this was wrong in the 90's

Face palm

Stoner - Member
I doubt it was really acceptable 19yrs ago, it's just fewer people gave a shit.

^^ this.

I feel for all those who have had a media by trial, before a trial in court.

Dreadful. 😕

[i]Don't remember indecent assault being acceptable behaviour in any of the places I've been at.[/i]

This.

Sentence shouldn't be based on how public a downfall someone has had but the crime they committed and the impact on their victim.

Lots of people end up losing their houses to pay court costs for crimes they're found guilty of - not just rich famous ones.

I doubt it was really acceptable 19yrs ago, it's just fewer people gave a shit.

Depends on where you worked I guess. I had some shitty part time jobs in factory's the 90's to fund myself through college and this wouldn't have surprised me at all.

It's not right, but it did happen.

Burn the dirty paedo! 😀 there may be some errors there.

Well its definitely a crime and it shouldn't have happened 19 years ago or indeed 29 years ago. I suppose we will find out a bit more about what happened but there must have been more evidence than his word against hers.

I'm guessing that not one of you has been groped by a man (DLT is a big chap) when it wasn't welcome.
Believe me its a very unsettling experience.

Make up another bed in the BBC wing of Wormwood Scrubs.

He has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on 1 charge. I am not naive enough to think that means that he was only guilty of being a sex pest once.

If he hadn't wanted to drag this through the courts for 2 years and near bankrupt himself he could have pleaded guilty.

Wack-Wack oops!

Bunnyhop - Member
I'm guessing that not one of you has been groped by a man (DLT is a big chap) when it wasn't welcome.
Believe me its a very unsettling experience.

I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees with you, things are better now than they were. Still not great, but much better than it was.

I used to work in a really busy pub many years ago.
Collecting glasses meant I had both hands full.
Many times the local drunken hockey girls would grab my balls while taking the glasses to the bar.
Correct Bunnyhop, not a very nice experience.
My boss didn't care as they spent so much money there.

If anything it was probably more unacceptable in the mid 90s than it is now!

I had my arse felt many times as a young man.but I did not feel threatened by it so I won't be going to the police any time soon.

I would not dream of unsolicitedly groping a woman's breasts.
So I can say what he did was not acceptable.
But I have a mate who had the shit kicked out of him and the fella who did it did not get jail time so I don't see how coping a feel would see someone put behind bars.

The Flaky Cornflake

indecent assualt.. call a spade a spade.. he squeezed a womans breasts, is that a hanging offence? possibly something you would nt do to your mother in law but whilst engaged in a jokey conversation i can imagine it been done.

punished by the law.. is it worse than taking 30 quids worth of booze from the supermarket? caution. is it worse than punching your wife once (first offence) caution. is it worse than burglary whilst someone is in the house community order. ( you d have to have been caught and punished for three different burglarys before a custodial sentance. not paying your VED 40 quid fine? placing wood on a railway line ASBO?

the offcial line is this
Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than the genitalia)

starting points: Community order if the victim is aged 13 or over
Sentencing ranges: An appropriate non-custodial sentence

'Non-custodial sentence' in this context suggests a community order or a fine. In most instances, an offence will have crossed the threshold for a community order. However, in accordance with normal sentencing practice, a court is not precluded from imposing a financial penalty where that is determined to be the appropriate sentence.

indecent assualt.. call a spade a spade.. he squeezed a womans breasts, is that a hanging offence?

No, but it's an offence. Perhaps you could post where you work so women can avoid that as clearly you don't seem to see a problem with this sort of thing.

Simon Bates next please.

If you were cracking on with a young lady in a night club and got ahead of your self the correct response would be a slap around the chops or a knee in the groin.

But to walk up to a woman in a work capacity and cop a feel is completely out of order and I can understand the police getting involved.

But I still think prison would be an over reaction.

I think the point that a few on here are trying to make rather clumsily is that on a sliding scale with Jimmy Savile at one end and an unwanted peck on the cheek under the mistletoe at the Xmas party at the other, then what DLT did was wrong, unpleasant for the victim, especially if she felt unable to complain at the time, but he isn't Jimmy Savile.

And certainly things were said and done in the workplace in the 80s and 90s that were technically offences but no one bothered.

I'm happy to let the courts punish him rather than going to the effort of sharpening my pitchfork.

And the evidence at the trial from a lot of people suggested that he was often "tactile" but not "inappropriate". He was not guilty on the other charge remember.

I think people need to bear in mind the world was a very different place in the '90 and what was acceptable then, and what is acceptable now.

Must be a very different world to the one I lived on in the 90s, certainly wasn't ok to go groping a woman like that especially at work wasn't acceptable.

The behavioural rules of the workplace have barely changed since the 90's, the big changes happened in the 70's and continued through the 80's, but by the 90's we had pretty much arrived at where we still are now.

I never groped any women at work etc but honestly is this all really necessary? I mean can I sue the guy who punched me in the Pub in 1980 for assault? It happened, I didn't enjoy it but surely if we all thought back we could think of dozens of situations you could now sue for. But would/will you?

Of course not!

Should people get away with crimes they performed years ago because it was along time ago let's let bygones be bygones? The woman in question now felt brave enough to come forward, maybe she tried before but no one took notice now because of other incidents that went on it's now being taken seriously. If he got away with it once then he'd carrying on doing it, if he gets punished then maybe it'll stop him from doing it again or if he does encourage those he does it to come forward so he can be sentenced.

Drac, I doubt he is doing it any more. Mrs INVG is sitting next to me saying that this happened to her on a number of occasions when she was younger. It's wrong, it should be stopped, it was illegal then & now but a 20 year old offence of this nature to be prosecuted? smacks of hysteria provoked by Saville to me.

Many times the local drunken hockey girls would grab my balls while taking the glasses to the bar.
Correct Bunnyhop, not a very nice experience.

Oh I don't know. As a red blooded male that's the sort of thing I often dream about. Tell me, what was the name and location of the pub you worked at again?

I wonder what tangible evidence was introduced in this case. Surely it boiled down to her word against his? I'm surprised, and concerned that could be a basis for conviction. I'd certainly expect an appeal.

Easy targets all these celebs. If they were just plain old Joe Bloggs the women who were assaulted probably wouldn't know who they were. I mean if you squeezed some random womans boob 20 years ago at a party or a nightclub would they be looking for you now, unless you'd suddenly come into the limelight somehow? Doubt it.

So what you're saying is its fine to grope women as long as you're averagely anonymous.

Not that I'm condoning it, but given the man has had his name dragged through the mud for 2 years, lost his house to pay defence costs etc, I think it would be a bit harsh for him to be locked up for what, in the grand scheme of things, isn't really the crime of the century....

He could have just admitted it, done less time than the case has taken, and saved his house, but no, he decided to call all the women accusing him liars, and hire top lawyers to try and discredit all of their testimony. He's been found guilty and now needs to do his time while being rehabilitated to better understand that what he must still think is acceptable behaviour is really a sexual offence.

Of course what he will do is appeal, and look for further opportunities to use his fame and wealth to avoid justice.

Easy targets all these celebs. If they were just plain old Joe Bloggs the women who were assaulted probably wouldn't know who they were.

Dead easy that's why it's taken 20 years to prosecute him and why Saville served such a long jail sentence.

Drac +1

I think people need to bear in mind the world was a very different place in the '90 and what was acceptable then, and what is acceptable now.

Not that that is true, you might have to go back earlier for that to be true. But whenever it happened, it was 'acceptable' because the people who were the victims were not the ones in the position to say whether or not it was acceptable.

when I first read richc's comment I thought it was a brilliant and insightful satirical comment on the apologists for Jimmy Savile etc who said "well, he shouldn't be prosecuted because it was a different time and people had different values about molesting children".

[i]So what you're saying is its fine to grope women as long as you're averagely anonymous.[/i]

When did I say it was fine? Another way of putting it is that if YOU had done the same thing at the same time as he did then you wouldn't be facing the music now. (unless your'e famous)
& just to reiterate...It's anything but 'fine' & as has already been said, people weren't so bothered 20 years ago (or just didn't speak up for whatever reasons) but they are now.

I think what Essel is saying is if a woman walked in to a police station today and said twenty years ago a man held her breast for 15 seconds in the office she worked at, and she knew who he was and where he lived.

Would the police and cps have invested as much time and resources as they did in the dlt case, or have they gone out of there way as part of a backlash for not doing anything about jimmy saville in the past.

And how many woman would have been so distressed about having there tit felt would have gone through all the hassle of this trial after twenty years if it had been Dave who works on the tills at budgens.

He could have just admitted it, done less time than the case has taken, and saved his house, but no, he decided to call all the women accusing him liars, and hire top lawyers to try and discredit all of their testimon

Eh no...you see if you had even slightly followed the case you'd know that he was up on about 13 charges in total and was found quilty of one of them, arguably the least serious.

So in fact he lost his house defending himself against allegations that the jury believed were either false or couldn't be proven.