If he gets away with it this time I think I'll have a crack, he opened a fete in our town years ago and he looked at me, got to be worth a few grand and some publicity not to mention the complete waste of tax payers money.
It appears that the youngest of the alleged victims was 15, and the charges all seem to be "Indecent assault" rather than anything worse than that (although I guess it can cover a fair range of things). What bothers me is that, so far, it seems that DLT has spent a huge amount of money on the legal costs of his defence, but that's out of his own pocket (maybe no decision can be taken regarding the prosecution picking up costs, until the retrial is over?); you can be sure that some of his accusers have been given assistance with costs.
I reckon he is going down this time. Someone in the cps' cock is on a block, if they were not 99.999% confident they would have not have risked the ridicule thats surely coming their way unless DLT goes down.
I'm sure that certain people in the CPS are very keen to see a conviction, but with all that's left of the case now, I don't think that DLT could "go down" in the sense of being sent to prison - as a taxpayer I'd be outraged if we had to bear the costs of that. What he remains accused of (just two allegations - one in 1990 and the other in 2008) is in no way comparable to some of the other high profile cases: Wife of Dave Lee Travis at court for first time as jury considers verdict - Telegraph
I hope he gets off personally , jesus how many women have I fingered in the past , and they loved it then , now I bet they'd be outraged . Unless of course hes guilty then hes a dirty old bastard. :biggrin:
There are certain politicians I would like to see in court first...much bigger fish that never faced any criminal charges despite their actions and lies.
I`m getting pretty sick of all these celebrity assault cases . Celebrity gets named , Loses his house protecting his innocence , gets off and then nothing more said . About time alleged victims , that must be guilty of false charges if celeb gets off , bore the cost of everything celeb lost. When did you realise you were raped miss X . When I found out he wasn't a premiership player . Springs to mind . If rape is proven then the perpetrator should be hung . If his only guilt is the thought of a free meal then accuser should pay for all and be named as a liar . IMO .
People have had an awfully long time to come forward. When the trail is stone cold and there is no evidence, it's not really the best time. What's the proof going to be? "Oh no I didn't". "Oh yes you did." "Oh no I didn't." Cue the crocodile with the sausages.
Acquittal means the jury was not convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not mean a prosecution witness was necessarily lying. A witness could be prosecuted for perjury - but then of course it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had deliberately lied under oath. The presumption of innocence applies to both sides.
Provided the defendant has applied for legal aid (note applied, whether he got it or not), after acquittal he could get his costs back from public funds; if convicted, not so much. Not sure what you mean by "accusers been given assistance with costs". If by accusers you mean witnesses, why would they have any costs? If you mean prosecutors, they would be paid from the Crown Prosecution Service budget.
Wow the CPS now there's a winner in a long drawn out case then . in a fair and just legal system working out of a democracy wouldnt the ideal be for people to be prosocuted and defended on a set reasonable sum of monies and for prosocution and defence lawyers to receive the same set sum per day of length of trial. Basically to stop the free for all snout in the trough money spinning we currently have.
Perhaps the term you are groping for is "equality of arms" which is a basic requirement for a fair trial.
I didn't think this through or express it very well, but whatever the situation is with witnesses' out of pocket costs and the CPS, the situation is that DLT is up against the full might of the CPS who have very deep pockets, and because he presumably has not applied for legal aid, and would not qualify for it (strict limits on income etc), he has to meet all his own costs, for now at least. There have been a number of changes in this area which I don't pretend to understand, but it does look as if a defendant who is acquitted, and did not have legal aid, may cometimes be able to seek compensation for some of the defence costs, but only at legal aid rates: Defendants' Costs Orders - The Law Society It's not easy to make sense of and I can only conclude that I definitely would not want to go there!
Yes, of course it can be discussed. There is nothing wrong with mentioning openly that a named person such as David Griffin (known as Dave Lee Travis) has been arrested, charged, and is soon to face trial on certain charges. However it would be totally wrong for anyone to publish material stating, or assuming, his guilt. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence just like the rest of us, and he is entitled not to have his trial influenced by people publishing prejudicial statements. This principle seems very simple and straightforward to me - are people really struggling with it, or just pretending to ?
