Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-20 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Feb 2014 16:04:26 GMT
eric rambler says:
So he's just an irritating bore, not a sex offender.

Posted on 13 Feb 2014 16:24:27 GMT
He says he's a victim << I've been screwed backwards>>.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2014 16:40:06 GMT
Spin says:
Eric; DLT and Roache have had their lives, and the lives of their families, ruined because of false allegations. I do see how that is a matter of mirth.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2014 16:54:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Feb 2014 17:03:35 GMT
eric rambler says:
Yes you are probably right, but I once worked in a factory where his dreadful radio show was pumped out at full volume so I'm probably not as sympathetic as I should be.

Edit: Or did you actually mean what you wrote?

Posted on 13 Feb 2014 17:15:55 GMT
Justice....ha ha...he he....gomsy wants to have a pee!

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2014 17:25:08 GMT
Spin says:
eric: Even today radio and TV thinks it must have a presenter interrupting the music. So I understand your point. Unlike you, I switched off when the DJs started waffling =) But, all seriousness aside, yes I meant what I wrote. In todays world the easiest way to get ones own back on a person is to accuse them of sexual abuse. The problem is that if our legal system is filled with false claims, then genuine claims of sexual abuse will be looked upon with scepticism....Cry "Wolf"...

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2014 17:33:59 GMT
Weak bladder?

Now then DLT was just <<tactile>>, no sex pest, honest. Justice was done according to legal process.

Posted on 13 Feb 2014 17:52:33 GMT
Looks like there's dozens of malicious mischievous women out there queuing to make false claims against innocent celebrities...thank God for the UKey justice system.

Posted on 13 Feb 2014 21:32:47 GMT
MC Zaptone says:
Hold your horses folks the police and the CPS are discussing a retrial, as the jury didn't return a clear verdict on two charges.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2014 17:38:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Feb 2014 17:59:53 GMT
I don't think DLT was just a big daft teddy bear with women. Indications are that only 7% of the women who make the sort of accusations that were made against him and Roach are lying. On the other hand it could just be, against all the odds, that in these two cases all of their 20 odd accusers were liars.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2014 18:20:36 GMT
The 'hairy monster'...sugar puffs anyone?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2014 21:22:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Feb 2014 21:27:24 GMT
Now then, DLT was no monster, none of his groping at women, touching their bums and breasts, shoving his hands up their underpants and rubbing his crotch against them as he held them tight against their will, was indecent assault, he was just being friendly, 'tactile', affectionate in a totally non threatening or sexual way. The jury believed him, the word of one famous DLT (oh, plus a team of expensive defence lawyers, the poor sugar puff had to sell his 1.5m farmhouse to pay their invoice) was worth more than that of twelve ordinary women. Accordingly, justice was done.

No hairy monster but a hairy cornflake, bless him.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2014 21:41:21 GMT
gille liath says:
I think you're right, there is usually something in accusations like that; but I'm not that comfortable with someone being convicted purely on someone's say-so from 30 years ago. And, though what he did wasn't great, I'm not sure I want to see people go to jail for stuff like that even if proven.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 14:55:37 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Feb 2014 14:57:18 GMT
<<Someone's say-so>> is regarded in law as direct evidence, strong evidence, and in sexual assault cases often the only evidence. This was not just the word of one accuser but of eleven, all for separate offences, and they all told similar tales, describing the same MO, and some of them had reported the assaults to others at the time who appeared as witnesses to confirm this. The jury, on ten of the twelve charges, chose to believe the accused not his accusers and in the eyes of the law he's not guilty.

Will his accusers be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Will DLT sue them for slander?

Will the CPS be silly enough to try him again on the two charges on which the jury could not reach a majority verdict?

And the logic of what you say is, a statute of limitations for sex offences the same as for many other crimes, would you be <<comfortable>> with that?

Posted on 15 Feb 2014 15:48:02 GMT
Spin says:
It was the accusations against Jimmy Saville that sparked a "witch-hunt". Since the law could not bring a dead man to trial, it decided to keep the public satisfied by referring to past allegations against other celebrities,; allegations which were at the time dismissed due to lack of evidence. The Law, the police and the media are all guilty of bowing to the ignorance of public opinion. Time and money were spent on trials the police and the legal establishment knew were unjustified, but they went ahead simply to please the public and the media from which the public take their moral direction from...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 18:17:48 GMT
Garscadden says:
You can't be tried for slander for anything said in a court of law.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 20:02:49 GMT
Thank you.

Do you expect any of the witnesses who accused DLT of sexual assault will now be prosecuted for perjury?

One of the women who testified against DLT repeated her accusations in the press after the verdict can he sue her for libel now and do you think he will?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 20:29:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Feb 2014 20:53:40 GMT
gille liath says:
I don't understand the point of those questions. 'It's not fair!', you cry. Possibly not - welcome to the real world, kid. Just because he wasn't found guilty does not, of course, mean that he was slandered. It doesn't work like that. It's important though that, for anyone to be convicted of these things, there needs to be a rigorous standard of proof. I don't think accusations are enough. Sometimes that may work to the detriment of a genuine victim; nevertheless it's essential the principle be upheld. Clearly the jury agreed; you, or any of us, could one day - who knows? - have cause to agree, too.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 20:30:20 GMT
gille liath says:
Yeah, I think there's something like that - like the drug busts of pop stars in the 60s.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2014 21:29:15 GMT
Where did I cry<< 'it's not fair'>>?

You don't think <<accusations are enough>>, accordingly, no accused in such cases should be found guilty or even brought to trial.

Although, from what you posted earlier you appear to believe he committed sexual assault, or do you believe he was just being cuddly? -<< And, although what he did wasn't great...>>.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  20
Initial post:  13 Feb 2014
Latest post:  15 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions