FabSwingers.com forum: Dave Lee Travis Charged

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Dave Lee Travis Charged with 12 offences

11 indecent assaults and 1 sexual assault. Ages of victims range from 15-29 years from 1977 to 2007.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

2007! Wow. Not so historical then.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cell next to Stuart Hall then

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then."

Yep...they just keep crawling outta the woodwork

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then."

yeah thats what struck me too...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *az1312Woman
over a year ago

Somewhere near Coventry

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then.

Yep...they just keep crawling outta the woodwork

Wonder what excuse the judge will give this time as he hands down a leniant sentence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

Innocent till proven guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *az1312Woman
over a year ago

Somewhere near Coventry

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then.

Yep...they just keep crawling outta the woodwork

Wonder what excuse the judge will give this time as he hands down a leniant sentence."

tut...lenient

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then.

Yep...they just keep crawling outta the woodwork

Wonder what excuse the judge will give this time as he hands down a leniant sentence."

He’s not been found guilty … he’s just been charged..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

To be honest I would like to see what the charges actually are. Indecent assault is a catch all charge for a very wide range of things.

These days patting an arse or pinging a bra strap would be classed as indecent assault, in the 70's it was commonplace.

At the moment DLT is innocent and a court will find him guilty or not. I just hope they will use a bit of common sense if the charges are trivial.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Who ?

Innocent until proven guilty or is it trial by media ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Not yet, he hasn't been found guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

He did a 'Stuart Hall' type interview after coming out of the court protesting innocence and looking forward to clearing name.

Hope that he doesn't live to regret that. He did stop himself from saying more.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To be honest I would like to see what the charges actually are. Indecent assault is a catch all charge for a very wide range of things.

These days patting an arse or pinging a bra strap would be classed as indecent assault, in the 70's it was commonplace.

At the moment DLT is innocent and a court will find him guilty or not. I just hope they will use a bit of common sense if the charges are trivial."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Britain has no Statute of Limitations on criminal prosecutions so soon we may well get bizarre sight of a very old man being taken from his care home to court to face charges of sexually assaulting someone in 1955. What purpose does it serve? Vengeance? Who are we protecting?

Other countries in Europe have such limitations because it is recognised that as time passes memories fade and evidence of innocence as well as guilt becomes unreliable.

Disclaimer - I do not in any way condone or support the illegal acts of assault that are the subject of this investigation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ngieandMrManCouple
over a year ago

hereford

I wonder if they have room in the cells for all the not famous people who by todays standards of conduct would be considered to be sex abusers based on how they behaved 20 or 30 years ago?

For a start you can lock up 30% of the men who had dinner at a certain club/restaurant where my ex-wife worked as a waitress in the early 70's

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Yeah, I'm really hoping Rolf Harris doesn't go the same way...

I know it's innocent until proving guilty, but 12 people are already saying he is... If it was just one case it could be said that it could be a spurious prosecution but for twelve different cases.It would seem they were not all underage by some way.

A 15 year old he might have mistaken for someone above legal age, these were not attacks on prepubescent children although obviously still not legal and without consent in all cases.

Link to BBC news story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23716575

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just suppose he is found innocent of one or more charges by a jury of his peers?

Should the false accuser(s) get the sentence he would have?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Posts like this make me sick, whatever happened to the right to a trial before announcing guilt?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Just suppose he is found innocent of one or more charges by a jury of his peers?

Should the false accuser(s) get the sentence he would have?

If it can be proved, then yes. ~Just because someone is found innocent doesn't mean they are. They may be innocent, obviously, there also just may not have been the proof or evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt...

Stuart Hall pleaded guilty so there was no need to prove anything. Knowing and proving are two different things.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Posts like this make me sick, whatever happened to the right to a trial before announcing guilt?

"
would you like me to bring you a bucket then because I haven't finished!.......

do you defend jimmy saville the same as he never went to trial and actually found guilty?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Posts like this make me sick, whatever happened to the right to a trial before announcing guilt?

would you like me to bring you a bucket then because I haven't finished!.......

do you defend jimmy saville the same as he never went to trial and actually found guilty? "

What right do you have to call ANYONE a paedophile before they have had the chance to defend themselves in court?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Let He/She who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't think I'll be chucking many rocks at him LOL. In some countries, what we people labled "swingers" do would be considered to be a crime and we would be stoned to death for it so before everyone jumps to conclusions and condemn the man before trial probably best to let judicial process take place.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By * Jay69Man
over a year ago

Bridgwater - Somerset

Have to say, bit of over reaction on this one?

One under age a 15 year old years ago, the severity of the assault unknown, plus numerous cases of being touchy feely with over age women - if it is all true then it is to be deplored, but as someone else said, thousands of men who are not high profile names are also guilty, but will never end up in court.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

What right do you have to call ANYONE a paedophile before they have had the chance to defend themselves in court?

Surely the ones that get prosecuted are the very thin edge of the wedge though. It's quite a hard crime to prove guilt on. Their word against the accused with usually very little in the way of physical evidence, and maybe some hearsay. One word against the other and hearsay don't make a strong case. I'm not a solicitor but to have 12 different accusers is probably the strongest 'evidence' the prosecution has without a confession in this type of case. If he is guilty it is quite a hard one to prove unless the accusers words are taken as gospel and any evidence is at best going to be circumstantial.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

"Innocent till proven guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hoosy_strumpetCouple
over a year ago

W S AREA

"Innocent till proven guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps we should all shout "I'm DLT" and then someone else can shout "No I'm DLT" and then I'll shout "No I'm DLT" and. Finally everyone on the hillside starts shouting "I'm DLT", and Roman centurian wont know which one to arrest.

What right do you have to call ANYONE a paedophile before they have had the chance to defend themselves in court?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

He would not be a pedophile. The term applies only to those attempting or having sex with children who are pre-pubsecent, and a 15yr old girl would almost certainly be post-pubescent.

If proved guilty, he would be a sexual offender though.

ted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

He would not be a pedophile. The term applies only to those attempting or having sex with children who are pre-pubsecent, and a 15yr old girl would almost certainly be post-pubescent.

If proved guilty, he would be a sexual offender though.

ted."
sorry,i stand corrected, I honestly thought it applied to anyone who was classed as a minor, under 16

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ashful BazMan
over a year ago

poole dorset

Quack quack oops!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"2007! Wow. Not so historical then.

Yep...they just keep crawling outta the woodwork

Wonder what excuse the judge will give this time as he hands down a leniant sentence."
he was always conducted himself like a true gent at the golf clubhouse

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ngieandMrManCouple
over a year ago

hereford

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

He would not be a pedophile. The term applies only to those attempting or having sex with children who are pre-pubsecent, and a 15yr old girl would almost certainly be post-pubescent.

If proved guilty, he would be a sexual offender though.

ted.sorry,i stand corrected, I honestly thought it applied to anyone who was classed as a minor, under 16

Not meaning to be pedantic but a Paedophile is defined as a psychological state that results in an adult being sexually attracted to children.

Quite a few years ago on a TV program I cannot remember the name of, subjects were raised in front of a public audience. The program host would play devils advocate between opposing bodies. This one time they took on the subject of Paedophiles and so they had representatives of say the NSPCC, the police, psychologists and yes they risked it, they had a couple of convicted Paedophiles.

The Paedophiles themselves and the psychologist tried their best to explain it, NOT trying to make excuses for it, but tried to get across the point that its a mental illness not a chosen or preferred perversion.

The Paedophile explained that he had been convicted quite rightly on 3 occasions and sent to prison for a number of years. He also explained that there was never any intent as such. What would happen is a female child would capture his attention and in his head, he would fall in love with the child and procure a relationship, essentially in the same way that adults fall in love with each other. Anyway, this guy in particular was very remorseful and had BEGGED the authorities to castrate him, but he was refused. Eventually he won his plea and he was castrated and from that point on has been perfectly safe as he no longer has the hormones to fuel the sexual desire.

Anyway a Paedophile just is, its not a chosen disposition and they only target children. A sexual abuser may sexually abuse anyone while age may have nothing to do with it as such.

Not that it really makes much difference, it still ends up with people being sexually abused by other people who I happen to think are just not right in the head. Yes of course if found guilty of such things they must be removed from society to protect society... Hate what they have done, but I'm not sure we should hate them for being mentally deficient.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one of my childhood favourites turns out to be a pedophile

Not yet

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Never liked that Hairy Cornflake

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orflondonerMan
over a year ago

Wood Green

"To be honest I would like to see what the charges actually are. Indecent assault is a catch all charge for a very wide range of things.

These days patting an arse or pinging a bra strap would be classed as indecent assault, in the 70's it was commonplace.

At the moment DLT is innocent and a court will find him guilty or not. I just hope they will use a bit of common sense if the charges are trivial."

Agreed.Isnt a famous dart player on the register for groping a girls bum in a pub?

Not decent behaviour, but does he really deserve to be along side sickos who rape 6 year olds?.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To be honest I would like to see what the charges actually are. Indecent assault is a catch all charge for a very wide range of things.

These days patting an arse or pinging a bra strap would be classed as indecent assault, in the 70's it was commonplace.

At the moment DLT is innocent and a court will find him guilty or not. I just hope they will use a bit of common sense if the charges are trivial.

Agreed.Isnt a famous dart player on the register for groping a girls bum in a pub?

Not decent behaviour, but does he really deserve to be along side sickos who rape 6 year olds?.

It is a thin line. I myself, luckily have a nice ass, I often have it pinched by women, but would never consider it an assault. I know someone, who met a 15 year-old girl, in a consensual relationship, yet was charged with being a paedophile, which was completely out of order.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At the time Gary Glitter was caught someone said you will be amazed by the people that will come out of the woodwork,and now it is being proven hand over fist.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Not meaning to be pedantic but a Paedophile is defined as a psychological state that results in an adult being sexually attracted to children."

No problem with you being pedantic, as this is one area where it is necessary to be so, but the term paedophile applies specifically to a person sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, normally (but not always) to the exclusion of pubescent or post-pubescent children. It is us who confuse the definition because we have added into the equation what the law says defines a child in this country (ie. under 16) and the much more recent term 'teenager'.

However, biologically (and I am prepared to be corrected by any Doctors on here!) there are only three states of development: pre-pubescent child, puberty and adult - the latter being split between early adulthood, roughly equating to the teenage years, and fully developed adulthood, where the 'over 16' law effectively kicks in.

ted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread