Quack, Quack, Oops….!
The rolling stock on the Yewtree branch line hits the buffers again. Dave Lee Travis found not guilty on 12 of the 14 charges in respect of the 11 women – including a 15 year old girl (mustn’t forget the 15 year old girl, for she is the only reason the new moral guardians were ever interested, a chance to work the word paedophilia into their headlines, however inaccurately).
There will be an outcry, naturally; those who support this modern day witch-hunt will point to the jury asking for direction on the issue of whether if they ‘believed a witness’ did they have to bring in a guilty verdict.
The airwaves will be groaning exponentially with every moment as the #Ibelieveher sisters, and their token male counterparts wail in disbelief: Mark Williams-Thomas ‘surprised at the verdicts’ – you have to wonder just why a man who is ostensibly interested in child protection should have routinely sat in the Travis court room day after day, since this was a case essentially about adult behaviour – especially during the four days when the jury was out and it must have been monumentally boring for anyone whose entire life and career were not hanging in the balance. Maybe DLT was not the only person whose entire career was hanging in the balance.
Had a guilty verdict come in, there would have been just as much of an outcry by those who felt that, even assuming the allegations had any vestige of truth in them, that they didn’t amount to anything that should have been considered a criminal offence. Therein lies the rub. It is true that any pat on the bottom, if done with sexual intent can, in law, amount to an offence – whether it should do would have been the burning question in the event of a guilty verdict.
Those who disagree with this verdict on the grounds that they ‘believe’ the evidence of the women forget one vital thing. One of the essential qualities of a jury is that it distils the opposing voices that shriek on social media into just 12 randomly selected persons. It is the majority opinion of those 12 persons that count.
Nobody, not even a judge, can direct a jury to find a man guilty if they don’t want to. That is an aspect of the jury system that is often overlooked. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that an offence has been technically committed – they can register their opinion that charges should never have been laid by bringing in a ‘not guilty’ verdict. We can never know what their reasoning has been.
In past years they have brought in such ‘obstinate’ verdicts when, for instance, a penniless woman with seven children to feed, has been shown comprehensively to have stolen a loaf of bread.
Those who crow tonight that ‘the women have been proven to be liars’, are as wrong as those who would have been triumphant if a guilty verdict had been reached. Neither side will ever be party to the discussion in the jury room.
It is entirely possible that this verdict is an indictment of the Crown Prosecution Service trying to use the judicial system to further modern day feminism.
Which is something the CPS need to consider carefully before deciding whether to demand a retrial of Dave Lee Travis on the remaining two charges.
- Ho Hum
February 13, 2014 at 4:21 pm -
A jury refuse to convict, eh?
It’s all the fault of you Quakers
http://www.spectacle.org/0600/heicklen.html
- rabbitaway
February 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm -
Thomas removed his tweet but not before others captured and re tweeted It
Louis Barfe @LFBarfe 30m
Blocked by Mark Williams-Thomas at last. I feel a sense of achievement. Oh, and he’s deleted that tweet. Funny, that.
Reply
Retweet
FavoritedExpand
Retweeted by Rabbit Away
Small Thunderdog @smallthunderdog 27m@LFBarfe @ChrisWBarratt deleted this ? @mwilliamsthomas pic.twitter.com/pcPjD8KXCg
Hide photoReply
Retweeted
FavoritedEmbedded image permalink
Retweets 2
Favorites 2
Emma Rabbit Away7:58 AM – 13 Feb 2014 · Details
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 7:43 am -
Poor MWT can’t win :
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwillimasthomas
I fully respect the decision of the jury-but having sat through a lot of the evidence I am very surprised at the verdicts.eric hardcastle @EricHardcastle
@EricHardcastle @mwilliamsthomas
I felt the same when you were found not guilty of blackmail
- SamBest
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 4:29 pm -
Agreed – I’ve said it before the question of “belief” (as in “Ibelievethevictims” or “Idon’tbelievetheso-calledvictims”is the largest, fattest, fleshiest red herring to have come up the pike since Noah noticed a smell of rain in the air. A jury may well “believe” a witness or even “believe that a witness believes what s/he is saying” but still refuse to convict because there is not enough evidence apart from the witness’s unsupported testimony. Alternatively they don’t think the facts as presented them should be treated as an offence even though they accept those facts. Or many, many other reasons which we’ll never get to hear about unless a pal “spills” to us over a beer. I even know of a case where a jury sought direction from a judge to see if they could find for a more serious offence than the accused was actually charged with. That’s juries for you.
I am deeply switched off by the magical-thinking on all sides here: that because they want something to be so, it is so.
- GildasTheMonk
February 13, 2014 at 4:47 pm -
To proceed further would be insane. Clearly the Crown presented a case based on similar fact evidence. Since most of that similar fact evidence is no longer evidence and the house of cards falls down.
- SpectrumIsGreen
February 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm -
When the requirement for a guilty verdict is “beyond reasonable doubt”, it is difficult to see how any jury could convict on one persons word against another without any corroborating evidence. Regardless of how many separate allegations are made.
- Moor Larkin
February 13, 2014 at 5:07 pm -
We have thousands of people in prison right now – on exactly that basis spectrumisgreen, so in fact juries seem to find it very easy.
That figure was guesstimated by the UK Home Office in 2002 btw, not by me.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/2002-and-all-that.html - Ho Hum
February 13, 2014 at 5:24 pm -
And Scotland’s politicos are doing their utmost to do away with the requirement that there must be corroborating evidence before a conviction can be obtained, despite the opposition of most of its legal establishment and the public
Mind you, if you saw Alex Salmond swinging through the jungle singing ‘I want to be like Yoohoohoo’, at a distance he could just about pass for King Louis, so it’s maybe not too surprising
- GildasTheMonk
February 14, 2014 at 6:27 am -
I completely agree
- Moor Larkin
- Carol42
February 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm -
It is high time there was a statute of limitations in these cases, especially as most of the allegations were trivial, I doubt there is any women who didn’t experience them at one time. As I said before I was quite seriously attacked about 40 years ago , I escaped actual rape by keeping my head. It certainly didn’t ruin my life in fact until all this came up I had forgotten about it. I am getting really annoyed about the constant Jimmy Savile is guilty, what happened to alleged? He has not been found guilty of anything. There seems to be a lot more evidence on Cyril Smith but we don’t hear much about that, wonder why? the police did know about him and did nothing.
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 8:00 am -
especially these ‘grope’ type claims. Anyone who spent time in a nightclub as a youth must have been groped at some stage (by either sex). Do we prosecute half the nation or just ‘celebrities’?
- SamBest
- Ian B
February 13, 2014 at 5:46 pm -
Just on the issue of jury nuffilication, it does occur to me that there is a long history in English law of juries nullifying when sentencing is too severe; this was the main reason for getting rid of the death penalty. Juries just didn’t like hanging people. I suspect this is also part of the reason in the USA for constantly acquitting guilty as hell female murderers; nobody will sleep easy having sent a woman to the electric chair. It may be that by ramping up this to total ruin of the accused, from what ought to be a bored magistrate levying a hundred pound fine and saying “and in future Mr Bloggs, *do* keep your hands to yourself. I don’t want to see you again”, they’re actually heavily reducing the chance of a conviction. Most ordinary people have more sympathy than the Wytchfynders.
Also, I wonder if this pantomime will result in future juries in hysteric sex cases being more reluctant to convict- so I’ve read, for all the “non-famous” cases we haven’t all heard of, up to now it’s been almost certain conviction. Yewtree were probably expecting the same.
And now of course we’ve got Rolf up next. It’s eerie, like a national sport or a game show or something, place your bets ladies and gentlemen.
- Ho Hum
February 13, 2014 at 6:05 pm -
I wonder if anyone has asked how many legs he has to stand on?
- Andy
February 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
Well at least we can be thankful that it doesn’t involve two little boys
- Frankie
February 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm -
No one has thus far mentioned Max Clifford.
He must be the next one up ‘before the beak’ after Rolf.
Statistically, surely the Yewtree Mob must be due to get a home win on one of their celebrity defendants? Perhaps it will be Max. That would be a shame…
Anna is right in what she says – that at the end of the day it is down to the jury. There does not appear to me to be a whole lot of evidence thus far, against any of these defendants, so they were, rightly, acquitted. DLT has had to sell his house to pay his legal costs thus far, so it is not as though there has been no cost to him personally, either financially, or in terms of loss of reputation and having to bear the shadow of the accusation. It will haunt him to his dying day. Same for Roache, Le Vell. As Hall pleaded guilty, one has to wonder at the quality of evidence against him. If it was much the same as portrayed against the three defendants previously named one has to wonder what his defence team were doing.
MWT can make foolish comments on Twitter if he (unwisely) chooses to do so about the quality of the evidence and the evident thickness of the 12 just men and women of the jury – I have often opined that those who use such mediums to foist their opinions upon their public appear to do so without engaging their brain first… Cue Sally B!
- Ian B
February 13, 2014 at 8:20 pm -
Hall and his team probably thought there was little chance of acquittal as there usually isn’t in these cases, so they took a plea bargain. Once even the plea bargain was spannered by doubling teh sentence, then more cases being larded on, nobody was going to fall for that one again, hence Roache had to go to trial. Yewtree, Stammer and the assembled harpies didn’t think their strategy through properly.
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 8:05 am -
Hall also had the prospect of a rape charge which was not taken to court- a sort of plea bargain. Although how the prosecution has the power to withdraw such a serious charge on the strength of him pleading guilty to lesser charges is a mystery and somewhat nullifies what the whole case is all about.
- Ian B
- Frankie
- Andy
- sally stevens
February 13, 2014 at 9:35 pm -
Ian, we don’t acquit guilty as hell female murderers here, we put them away for life, and some of them are executed. The death penalty is off the table in many states, but not all. There is no compunction on the part of a jury to sending a female offender to Death Row if the state she is from still has the death penalty.
- Corevalue
February 13, 2014 at 10:47 pm -
Remember the show “Chicago”? Well, it was loosely based on real events.
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/chicago-murderesses-express-their.html
- Corevalue
- Ho Hum
- IlovetheBBC
February 13, 2014 at 6:12 pm -
The best response by far to MWT’s tweet was from someone who said ‘I felt just the same about your trial for blackmail’.
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 8:07 am -
yes I saw that and perhaps the reason MWT deleted his original Tweet is because it was bloody well libelous of DWT.
Which is why the Starr libel case will be fascinating.
- SamBest
- sally stevens
February 13, 2014 at 7:11 pm -
What’s going on with Freddie? I bet his lawyer was dancing on the desk at these results with DLT. Another jury doing its job as expected. Are the CPS. plods, etc., really going to keep this up while the juries are sending a clear message?
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 7:29 pm -
You’d be surprised. They kept up a monstrous catalogue of anti-obscenity cases from the 1920s right through to the late 1970s, some of which they won and some of which they lost and they never learned one thing from the cases they won or the cases they lost. Until finally Parliament had to grasp the whatever by the whatsit and legislate.
You could stop this right now by imposing a limitation period on “historic” sex offences. The UK is the only country in Europe not to have one. But that would take cojones, the same sort of cojones Parliament showed when they abolished the death penalty. I won’t hold my breath.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Moley
February 13, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
I have personal knowledge of a case where the accused had been having “a nice relaxing poo” (copyright Vic and Bob) in a public toilet when he was surprised by the sight of an erect penis being presented in front of his face through a hole in the partition from the cubicle next door. He reacted to this intrusion by getting his lighter out and applying the flame to said penis. His barrister (who was very nearly hauled up before the bar) presented no defence and merely explained the sequence of events. Result, not guilty. Ya gotta love those juries!
- MTG
February 13, 2014 at 7:30 pm -
On the steps outside the court, Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Niven screamed “We worked tirelessly altering statements until the bundle of evidence was far too large to be ignored by CPS lawyers. In the case of Mr Griffin a prosecution was brought; he was tried and the jury reached the wrong decision. In our support for anyone who has been subjected to sexual abuse we look to reinstatement of traditional justice. Mr Griffin now faces Trial by Water and a zero possibility of live acquittal. We continue to work closely with our partners and dedicate resources to investigate crimes of this nature and ensure all victims have a choice.”
- sally stevens
February 13, 2014 at 7:30 pm -
I liked this quote from the link you provided, Anna. And so say all of us, “Mark Williams-Thomas is a pest who goes about his trade as a purveyor of completely unwarranted fear. He is – literally – profiting from the confusion of a society which knows not the difference between sh*t and putty. I’m not saying he should be behind bars, but I do think he should be outed and condemned as a damned nuisance who exists purely for the pointless purpose of easy money for Mark Williams-Thomas.”
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 9:27 pm -
MWT is a chancer and not a very bright one.
He won’t last long.
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 8:12 am -
I believe he is an accident waiting to happen and his Tweet about the jury decision was a perfect example.
It was defamatory of DLT and basically said he was guilty as charged and it was defamatory of the jury by claiming they went against the evidence- although of course we do not know who the jury are. Removing that tweet absolved him this time.
Someone who makes such mistakes will do it again.
- SamBest
- Eyes Wide Shut
- sally stevens
February 13, 2014 at 8:27 pm -
Latest tweet from Our Lad (3 mins ago) “Not a single victim that I dealt with either before – during or after making Savile expose has been after any financial compensation.” Once I got up from laughing so hard I fell off my chair, I responded “oh come ON, Mark! If that’s the case, what’s up with Liz Dux, etc.? All those dodgy clients of hers don’t want money???” Unbelievable.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 9:29 pm -
I blame the recession. I read somewhere that these sorts of claims have increased 3-fold since 2008.
- Moley
February 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm -
Oh foohey!
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm -
Straight-up, they have.
The entrepreneurial spirit is still alive.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Moley
- SamBest
February 14, 2014 at 8:14 am -
how would he know ?. It’s all kept confidential. None to bright is MWT.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Jonathan Mason
February 13, 2014 at 9:08 pm -
Of course when you are a media celebrity on trial, you have the advantage that you can usually bring other well-known media stars in as character witnesses to address a star-struck jury, which somewhat evens contest against the lying accusers who do not have the professional acting experience necessary to be convincing. In the case of Travis, there is some reason to think that he was excessively touchy-feely by UK standards, but whether it ever reached the level of criminal behaviour remains a bit doubtful to a reasonable person like me who has never groped anyone or had the opportunity to jiggle the breasts of a female BBC disk jockey. (Perish the thought!)
But remember also that in the case of Stuart Hall most of the charges were incredibly trivial by international standards, but the Court of Appeal still threw the book at him simply for publicly denying his guilt at an earlier stage of the proceedings before some of the charges had even been brought. The interesting legal precedent here is that a public denial of guilt outside of court negates any sentencing reductions for a later change of plea to guilty.
- Carol42
February 13, 2014 at 9:11 pm -
The only thing I noticed about the Stuart Hall case that was different was that the original complaint did have a ring of truth about it. If what I read is true she wrote anonymously to Yasmil A. Brown, whom I can’t stand, but who was so concerned she traced the woman and persuaded her to go to the police. She didn’t want to and does not seem to be after money as far as I know. Don’t know anything about the others who came out of the woodwork and I could be totally wrong but her account was very different from all the others. Anyone know more about it?
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 9:25 pm -
Do you happen to know how old the “original” complainant was at the time the alleged offence took place?
I haven’t read this. It’s interesting but not conclusive. Why write to Alibhai-Brown? What was the context?
I’m tempted to treat this with scepticism, but I could be wrong.
- Carol42
February 13, 2014 at 9:36 pm -
I think she was 14 at the time and in a choir I can’t remember all the details now but it will be there online somewhere as YAB wrote about the girl. I think he made friends with her parents and was able to take her to a studio or somewhere . I know when I read it, it was very different from the other cases, seemed like a rather young for her age girl from a normal, if trusting, family. She had never told anyone what happened but I think YAB had been writing about Savile and it seems she decided to get it off her chest, so to speak, anonymously. It made disturbing reading. I will see if I can find the article. As you say not conclusive but it certainly sounded right.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm -
If that is indeed the case, it would go a long way to explaining why Hall entered a guilty plea. I was always puzzled why he did that, and wondered if he had been “badly advised” – but this is not the USA where plea bargaining has been institutionalised as means of clearing the court back-logs. The devil is in the detail.
On an earlier thread, I commented that DLT’s case was different from Roache’s: Ken Balow was accused of sex with underage girls and the issue really turned on whether or not the alleged acts took place. That’s all you had to convince the jury of – after that there would be no question of “consent” or “those were the times, m’lud”. The jury wasn’t convinced. In DLT’s case, the issue was whether his ar@sing around amounted to sexual assault or sexual harrassment (yes – on some charges there was a question regarding “Did this actually happen?”) but basically, I feel the jury didn’t find “intent”. But as Anna says, hey, you weren’t on the jury: you don’t know
Thanks for your reply.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Carol42
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Rob
February 13, 2014 at 9:18 pm -
Expect much growling about the Jury system in the ‘Progressive’ media over the next few weeks. You can’t have ‘justice’ if ordinary people are allowed to go around finding people not guilty.
- Carol42
February 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm -
Just google YAB Stuart Hall the original letter and article is there from the Independent. On second reading perhaps not quite a straightforward as I thought but it has a ring of truth the others don’t. Be interested in what you think.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 13, 2014 at 10:25 pm -
@Carol42. Found it. Plus the redacted letter.
Initial thoughts: you can definitely see the “therapy speak”, but there is a genuine note here. It reminds me of a (gay) friend of mine who was courted at a very young age by a very serious figure in the world of classical music and had his poor little head turned in much the same way. There was the same self-loathing when he began to fear that he had been complicit with his own abuse, because he thought it meant he also had a great career ahead of him – with all the connections his “friend” had. I would point out to him that he couldn’t blame himself: he was 13 when he embarked on this relationship with a much older man and no matter how much he felt the balance of power was equal, it couldn’t be.
This sort of thing is very complicated: quite frankly, in my friend’s case, it shouldn’t have happened and he would have been better off without it. He could have had his first sexual experiences as a gay lad at much the same age with someone he was genuinely attracted to and who didn’t have the sulphuric whiff of power and influence about him, which ultimately screwed up my friend. He alluded to the sheer unpleasantness of the sexual act with Mr Classical Music Director, but more to the fact that he’d thought he was “special” and “on his way” only to find that he was Last Summer’s Boy. This kind of damage can’t ever really be dealt with in court.
- Carol42
February 13, 2014 at 10:43 pm -
Yes it does sound similar to your friend, despite the therapy speak, I guess they pick that up, there was a ring of truth about it to me. If true he deserves all he got and more and maybe that is some satisfaction, wonder why he pled guilty though, maybe they had more on him than we know.
- Moor Larkin
February 13, 2014 at 10:52 pm -
In the Daily Mail much the same story seemed to be told sans anonymity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318565/Stuart-Hall-Two-girls-reveal-spoke-40-years-bring-justice.html
The next day the Mail published the Grauniad’s letter and pointed out the similarity of the stories. I’ve never been quite sure if they were suggesting corroboration or having a sly snigger about something behind their inky cuffs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319247/Stuart-Hall-victims-Chilling-letter-reveals-presenter-plied-young-teenager-drink-lured-bed.html
This second link needs the http://www thingy adding to the front.- Jonathan Mason
February 14, 2014 at 2:49 am -
These cases, even if every word is true, seem awfully trivial by the normal standards of sex offenses to even think of bringing to court decades later. The women were not underage, nor threatened, physically injured, raped, nor did Hall seriously try to have sexual intercourse with them, nor did they become pregnant or acquire a venereal disease, nor did Hall expose his penis, remove his clothing, or make them touch him with their hands nor do anything with their mouth. One girl became aware that her large breasts were of interest to men, but surely she would have soon discovered this anyway. Yes, Hall’s behaviour was rather unpleasant, but presumably for every girl like these two, there must have been others who welcomed the approaches from a famous figure.
He may have had a drinking problem.
- Ian B
February 14, 2014 at 6:53 am -
Well, the last link’s story- the Alibhai Brown letter- does have a claim of sex occurring, several times. There doesn’t seem to be anything in it that was not consensual though, so it would hinge on the claimant’s age at the time, which is (suspiciously?) omitted; all we are told is a vague “more than 25 years” age gap. Hall was born in 1929, so add 25 years for the birth of the allegator, that’s 1954+”more than”. Since the alleged story occurs “in the 1970s” it’s a close run thing on age.
- Moor Larkin
February 14, 2014 at 10:47 am -
Susan Harrison was a looker wasn’t she. I can quite see why Stuart was so unable to control himself and risk the loss of his life and career for a piece of ass like that.
Sometimes you should say what you see – not what you think you should say.
Jeezus.
- Ian B
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 14, 2014 at 10:02 am -
That’s why these cases are complicated: it’s not beyond the skill of a good writer to fabricate an account of events which closely echoes real-life, and if decades have passed since the alleged offence, we come back to the lack of any evidence other than the plausibility of the witness’s testimony.
Which is why I favour a statute of limitations in line with the rest of Europe. If we cannot be satisfied that a verdict rests on secure foundations, the matter is not best dealt with by the courts.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 14, 2014 at 10:54 am -
Woah, Moor! All sorts of people get sexually assaulted: you don’t have to be a stunner. Not saying I credit any of these stories: I hae me doots about unsupported testimony which emerges 40 years after the alleged offence, but the “cuteness” or otherwise of the complainant isn’t really a material fact, y’know.
- Moor Larkin
February 14, 2014 at 11:19 am -
In the ordinary world, but this isn’t the ordinary world is it. I have frequently read comments about Jimmy Savile stories with the vox-popper saying, “Eeuw… why would any girl even want to go with THAT…” People are shallow as hell, and celebs no different. Rich, powerful men seeks good-looker (SOH optional). That’s how it works and it’s a two-way street. This idea that rich, powerful people come dipping into the prole pool is as laughable as the idea that they are involved in paedo rings. It’s a notion plucked from some kind of historical notion of the local squires raping the village maidens.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Mr Ecks
February 14, 2014 at 3:56 pm -
Halls problems is his guilty plea. It will be much easier to get more guilty verdicts on a man already convicted (bogusly) by his own ill-advised plea-bargaining. The lying bluebottles will have promised him the Earth and he was the first into this mess and prob naïve about what dross todays pc PCs are. He is a man of a time gone by.
- Daisy Ray
February 14, 2014 at 4:49 pm -
This case is so odd. Although the original letter describes Hall in the most derogatory terms, it doesn’t accuse him of anything illegal (the girl must have been at least sixteen in the 70s. Yet once the police investigate, somehow the result is multiple charges of child sex against other individuals. The case received no publicity until Hall’s arrest, so where did those victims come from? Was there an element of trawling?
I will be very curious to see how Hall pleads re the new charges against him.
- Moor Larkin
February 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm -
* Was there an element of trawling? *
Moor like an element of internet interconnectivity. The willful naivety of the legal authorities in not accepting the reality of a bunch of specialists in child abuse launching corroborative raids on the legal process is especially baffling in light of the fact they are trying to tell us the internet must be policed because of terrorist cells doing much the same thing. Facebook, Friends Reunited, Voy, Careleavers Reunited, 70’sDuncroft…………. They’re all hiding in plain sight. The cops are like bunnies a dual carriageway. Ignore and die in this lane. Move and die in that lane. The law is a mess and so is British society as a result.
- Carol42
February 14, 2014 at 5:28 pm -
Yes it is strange, I found the circumstances of the original complaint quite credible though I thought she was younger at the time. Even so 16 then was probably equivalent of 14 now. After reading the other two stories I don’t know what to think , maybe the Mail running a spoiler and the alleged offences were less serious. If the first girl was over 16 where was the crime? It is horrible taking advantage but not criminal as far as I know, can’t help feeling there is more to this case than we know. He had so much to lose by pleading guilty and being open to claims by unscrupulous lawyers there must have been a reason. By standing trial he would have had a chance of being found not guilty.
- Ian B
February 15, 2014 at 10:26 am -
@Carol42-
Even so 16 then was probably equivalent of 14 now”
I’m not myself entirely convinced of that. People talk as if the 1970s was an age of innocence with everyone blundering around not knowing about the birds and the bees and wondering how babies come out of a lady’s bottom, or something. I can only speak personally, but I was at ordinary middle England comprehensives in the late 1970s/early 80s, and there wasn’t this mythical naivete. From pretty much the end of middle school there was much gossip (some of it possibly even true) about who had done it and who hadn’t (that was me, then) and it was routine that the more developed girls from 13 or so onwards had (invariably, quite a bit older) boyfriends and were not chaste, so to speak.
So okay, people didn’t have smartphones and internets, and exposure to porn was the occasional tatty smuggled copy from somebody’s dad who’d been abroad on holiday, and so on, but unless my experience was atypical, the idea of teenage girls wandering around in a naive haze regarding sex and what blokes are after seems to be something of a mythology, like the other current idealisation that nobody used to get drunk.
- Carol42
February 15, 2014 at 6:45 pm -
We were not totally naive in the 60s either but I very much doubt if any of my classmates had full sex, there was always a bit of gossip but I would be surprised if there was really anything to it. At around 14/15 we were all mad about pop stars and boys of course but I would have run a mile if it was any more than kissing and mild petting. Then I was never faced with an older man in a position of authority or why was offering me a chance of stardom who knows how I would react, I can see how sheer embarrassment might make you comply. Certainly when my teenage step grandson was that age the girls he hung around with were more mature than I was at that age. I just don’t know what to think about the Stuart Hall case and wonder why he pleaded guilty, I wonder what will happen if he goes to trial on the new charges.
- Jonathan Mason
February 15, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
The birth control pill became available on the NHS in 1961, but the big change was when it was made legal for clinics to prescribe it to single women in 1974. However, the sexual revolution was already underway in the sixties and it is well known that pop performers like The Beatles and Rolling Stones had many willing takers. This was also the age of Swinging London, Carnaby Street, cannabis and LSD, Jimi Hendrix, the Isle of Wight pop festival, Up The Junction, Edna O’Brien, Cosmopolitan, Penthouse magazine, and so on.
Middle class provincial girls may have been a bit more backwards until they got away from home and went to college or university, but in my memory this was also a massive age of underage drinking in pubs, in which I participated, and in working class areas there were numerous young women, or “slags” or “scrubbers” as they were then known, out on the streets, getting drunk, fucking, getting pregnant, and so on.
- Moor Larkin
February 15, 2014 at 8:22 pm -
This is a graph which I “adapted” from a scientific paper. It’s from one of my blogposts, but this is just the image. It relied on what women told the surveyors and obviously doesn’t relate to underage sex, but rather just how the rates of first having sex before the age 20 changed between 1949 and the 1990’s. I’ve never found any comparable stats for men.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gb6IMWKaoVc/UPc0Xl5CbuI/AAAAAAAABBw/mffiisFT1Q0/s1600/P1130766.JPG
There’s also no way of knowing how many of these under-20’s were married at the time, but you can see the sexual revolution was happening pretty steadily since the war, but there is a clear later spike amounting to a further 20% change in the short period between approx 1971 and 1974. - Carol42
February 15, 2014 at 9:19 pm -
I think most of it was only going on in London, when I went there at 18 it was a different world and I loved it. Mentioning these programmes brought back memories. You could get the pill then too before 1974 and that was the real liberator .
- Moor Larkin
- Jonathan Mason
- Carol42
- Ian B
February 15, 2014 at 10:29 am -
Plus, the sister of one of my close circle of friends ended up living with her English teacher, which nowadays would be all over the Daily Mail with “paedo” splattered everywhere.
- Moor Larkin
- Jonathan Mason
- Carol42
- Eyes Wide Shut
- sally stevens
February 13, 2014 at 10:03 pm -
Rob, I’ll bet you’re right, unfortunately.
- Royal
February 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm -
August last year on Slater & Gordon blog…
“Slater & Gordon currently act for a number of Travis victims and welcome the CPS decision to prosecute…”I’m guessing a prosecution costs Slater & Gordon (Liz Dux) nothing, that’s why they welcome it?
- Moley
February 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm -
I seem to have put my comment in the wrong place. Sorry me dear!
- sally stevens
February 14, 2014 at 12:30 am -
MWT has now modified his statement that none of the victims are seeking remuneration to note that none of the people he had any contact with were seeking remuneration. Unfortunately, some of the 70s Duncroft women were certainly taking money from the press for their ‘stories,’ so that takes care of that claim. They admitted to it on a message board, which has now shut down. Been having some interesting exchanges over on Twitter, I must say!
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 14, 2014 at 10:08 am -
One of these days MWT is going to say something he can’t take back or delete. Mark my words.
Am I the only one to detect an increasingly panicky air about MWT’s pronouncements? I think he might need to take Bob Dylan’s advice: “Don’t speak too soon/For the wheel’s still in spin/And there’s no telling who that it’s namin’/For the loser now may be later to win …”
- Moor Larkin
February 14, 2014 at 10:41 am -
He’s got friends in high places, or should that be – people in high places have given him the nod. His programmes are rubbish and full of quite evident fabrication. That he is getting away with it suggests he is a mere sock puppet for those who wish to control public opinion. Not so long ago he told blatant lies that were published and then the Daily Mail took the rap for him, when facebook got the hump. Yet he continues to sell the same story on the internet as if none of the events had ever happened.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/who-are-you-who-who-who-who.html- Eyes Wide Shut
February 14, 2014 at 10:45 am -
Wait till the tide turns and they’ll drop him so fast his head will spin.
That’ s what happens to sock puppets. Comes as a huge shock to them, too, but as I’ve said before, he’s none too smart.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Moor Larkin
- Eyes Wide Shut
- JuliaM
February 14, 2014 at 5:45 am -
“Maybe DLT was not the only person whose entire career was hanging in the balance.”
He’s certainly the only poor bugger to have been financially ruined by it…
- Wigner’s Friend
February 14, 2014 at 8:34 am -
So far!
- Wigner’s Friend
- right-writes
February 14, 2014 at 7:55 am -
We can ensure that DLT is found guilty if we prosecute him for his proven criminality…
i.e. That disgusting beard.
- GildasTheMonk
February 14, 2014 at 9:52 am -
How much has this cost the public? Would a FIA request expose that?
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 14, 2014 at 10:34 am -
Interesting headlines in the Jolly Old Daily Mail today: they’ve sat on the fence re the whole business. “Celebrity witch-hunt” … “to make us all feel better about Savile”. The heat is definitely on the CPS. Starmer appeals for “calm and rational analysis” (lol!): if they’d done that in the first place, they’d have saved themselves a lot of bother, wouldn’t they?
Seemingly it was the passage of time and the lack of corroborative evidence which determined the verdict (statute of limitations anyone? I’ve been saying this all along: right or wrong, it’s practically impossible to prove, so these sorts of trial can’t be anything else except an exercise in showing “We really, really care”). But the courts aren’t there to validate anyone’s emotional pain. That’s not why they exist.
I was struck by the fact that one particular charge bit the dust when a member of the public contacted the court with an amateur video taken at a hospital event which proved that DLT never left his wife’s side and therefor couldn’t have carried out the alleged assault. All this mad filming we go in for nowadays can have its upside…
- Lucozade
February 14, 2014 at 4:42 pm -
Re: “Had a guilty verdict come in, there would have been just as much of an outcry by those who felt that, even assuming the allegations had any vestige of truth in them, that they didn’t amount to anything that should have been considered a criminal offence. Therein lies the rub. It is true that any pat on the bottom, if done with sexual intent can, in law, amount to an offence – whether it should do would have been the burning question in the event of a guilty verdict”
Just cos you technically *can* (legally) take it seriously – doesn’t necessarily mean you *should*. Prosecuting Dave Lee Travis for something he may or may not have done (it’s their word against his), 30 years ago, when it’s the sort of thing that has happened to just about everyone from time to time is ridiculous. Apart from anything else he could be a totally changed man from the way he was 30 years ago….
- Jonathan Mason
February 15, 2014 at 7:35 pm -
Hall was a very, very well-known figure in the North West in the early days of colour TV, long before It’s A Knockout. There will have been few people in the North who did not know (and like) him. More avuncular than sexy, and known for his huge collection of antique clocks. I have to admit that I personally liked him, but cannot say the same for Savile.
Perhaps he was having sexual problems in his marriage at this time and trying to cash in on his fame and the beginnings of the sexual revolution.
- Ian B
February 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm -
Jonathan, interesting graph, thanks.
“Middle class provincial girls may have been a bit more backwards ”
I always get this feeling that many of the people in public life, particularly the women, come from relatively abnormally closeted backgrounds who did their “growing up” years later than us plebs, and that in a sense is what they use, or need, the “elderly childhood” phase at University for. I remember reading this article about legendarily naff Home Secretary Jacqui Smith at university; nothing revelatory or (and this is perhaps the point) scandalous; but there was this bit about her and other girls playing some sort of childish truth or dare game in their footie pyjamas, and it creates a very juvenile, retarded image.
Hence, to me, their whole perception of life’s course; that you’re not an adult until you’ve left university, and it’s all several years delayed from where many other people are by various ages. Hence you’ve got a general tendency towards continuing parental dependence until 25 at the moment- with benefits policy and suchlike- and these dubious claims that the human brain is still juvenile until that age. I’d been a head of department in a West End theatre for several years by then.
- Ian B
February 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm -
^^^Errata: “jonathan” should read “Moor Larkin”, and this comment has appeared totally out of sequence.
- Jonathan Mason
February 16, 2014 at 4:52 pm -
Yes, and it seems to me that many of the allegators from the 60’s and 70’s fall more under the heading of “scrubbers”, “tarts”, and “slags” and though this may not be true in reality or seen in retrospect, the fact is that women who grew up in a working class environment, be it in a small town or a large council estate in a city will have been very familiar with clumsy groping passes from “lads” trying to “cop a feel”.
Many of the alleged sexual assaults by Savile and Hall, etc., even if true seem to fall into the category of failed seductions rather than true sexual assaults. Hall may have gr0ped the leg, thigh or groin of a girl while driving his car, but where are the reports of him kidnapping her, raping her, and then threatening her with her life if she talks, which is the kind of thing that real sexual predators do. Would he have delivered her safely to her parents’ home if he was really a sexual predator?
When I was 17 I was hitch hiking and was picked up by a man who, after a few miles of chit chat, placed his hand on my thigh, the obvious implication being that he wanted to have some kind of genital contact. I brushed him off and asked him to set me down, which he did. I was underage for gay sex at the time, so does he still have a prison sentence hanging over his head? I have no doubt that I was not the first or last person he approached and it is a fair bet that there are many elderly former hitch hikers and hippies who would be willing to come forward to claim compo for failed lives IF ONLY HE COULD BE IDENTIFIED, which would be the case if he had been an actor on Coronation Street or a BBC disk jockey, but probably not the case if he was a shop assistant or hospital porter.
- Jonathan Mason
- Ian B
- Wigner’s Friend
February 18, 2014 at 8:19 am -
Interesting post here:
{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }