DLT re-trial(104 Posts)
Is this a constructive use of public funds?
We do have needy families without incomes to consider. The cost of one court trial could supply several families with food for decades.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
and column that is all very well but it ain't going to happen is it? court funds diverted to feed hungry families? so it is a specious argument.
Yes. Would like to see what another jury thinks.
How do you think budgets get allocated? In Cabinet, that's how. So, yes. The funds could perfectly well get re-allocated. IDS needs to get off his backside and feed some families.
well if you think that is going to happen you are living in lala land
Just about any use of the funds is going to be better than this. What happens if they can't decide next time? Do courts operate a refund policy?
How about a no win no fee trial?
actually to be honest i think DLT is another one 'thrown to the lions' to help cover up the extent of Savile's network - which reached to the highest echelons.
The Great Unwashed never gets to find out what goes on in the higher echelons. All we get downstream is muddy water.
But if I'm going to get muddy water, I'd rather not pay through the nose for it.
Does the CPS even have a value for money consideration? How about a civil trial where the burden of proof is lower?
Maybe the director of the CPS should be asked to stump up a bit of personal cash each time. Make speculative trials a bit rarer.
Sex trials are a relatively a new phenomenon aren't they, and I'm glad that sex offence are taken seriously these days. They must be a buggar though for prosecutors to evidence and get burden of proof. But I expect through trial and error they will get there in the end, as with anything else. And it will be costly I agree.
I like to see justice done.
Isn't it standard practice that if the jury fail to come to a conclusion about a charge then a retrial is ordered?
This happened with two of the charges. Why should the rule not be applied in this instance?
On its website the CPS states public interest as being a major factor in any normal decision to seek a retrial. I think they're saying there's nothing automatic involved.
Speculative trials? The court system isn't used speculatively. There has to be a case to answer and a reasonable prospect of conviction. The defendant gets the chance to rebuff the allegations. It's called justice.
reasonable prospect of conviction: And in any particular case where the judge directs the jury to return a verdict of not guilty I suppose the prospect looks less likely each minute. I suppose it all depends on one's view of what's reasonable!
Incidentally, which part of the public needs to be interested for it to be in the public's interest? I'm not.
How about all the women he assaulted? Or all the women who have historically endured sexual assaults at work? Surely it is in the public interest to prosecute these cases to demonstrate this behaviour is not acceptable in today's society?
If he assaulted them, I'd agree. Clearly the issue is whether or not he did.
Could it not be argued that the public interest is much better served by rounding up some altogether more guilty characters and trying them instead? The CPS has had a bite at the DLT cherry and come off much the worse for it.
There is no shortage of criminals out there. Why not put that supply to good use. Badly defining the public interest isn't better utilising public funds.
"The CPS has had a bite at the DLT cherry and come off much the worse for it."
Well you have a point collumngollum. And if he's guilty it's a shame they couldn't get a conviction first time round - but the jury just couldn't agree. I hope in future the legal teams get better at this and that these cases get wrapped up more efficiently.
the women he assaulted? have I got it really wrong, I thought he nipped a few bums and squeezed a few boobs?
there were no children involved were there?
I am disgusted that charges dating back 40 years are given any credence.
how old are you if you don't mind me asking slug?
and yes it's not acceptable in today's society - but it was then and because of that alone it is outrageous that women can make allegations now
One of the allegations which will be retried is from 2008, the other 1990, so only one could be described as 'historic' and neither allegedly occurred 'in a different era'
there were 12 allegations in the first trial
Is this a constructive use of public funds?
I don't think so.
Having been a teenager through the 60s and 70s I'd not be surprised at all if this was true.
Gymbob......it was NEVER acceptable to sexually assault someone. Not even 40 years ago.
but if someone wants to press charges they do it within a reasonable time frame. 40 years is a joke. are you telling me that the so called victims memory is recalling every detail as it happened and the passage of time hasn't altered it at all. just because society has changed doesn't mean you should be able to rewind your life and make allegations against people because you didn't like it at the time.
all the girls in my friends office in the 50's used to have to run past the bottom pinching boss and try to get thru each day with their suspenders still intact, though they rarely did. do you suggest she presses charges?
I agree with you both, Gymbob and Brandy.
I'm a bit uncomfortable discussing this on a thread that refers to something will be subject to a retrial.
Has there been a MN discussion about historical allegations?
I'm only referring to the charges from the first trial
gymbob I am disgusted that charges dating back 40 years are given any credence
So all those DCs raped and assaulted by priests and nuns over the last 50+ years just need to forget and move on? Your an eejit.
get real these charges are not on the same scale and you know it. how does pinching the bum of an adult compare with the rape of a child by a priest. you are the eejit
I guess it may be uncomfortable for some women who put up with this sort of behaviour because it was 'just what happened' to find out that in fact it isn't nor was it ever OK to sexually assault a woman. You can do one of two things, either a) accept that you too have been sexually assaulted as a matter of course then have to process this difficult emotion and come to terms with the way it was normalised and swept under the carpet to protect the abusers or b) continue to assert that that was just the way things were and that women should just put up and shut up and stop making a fuss.
Sexual assault is sexual assault, whether it happened 40 years ago or 5 minutes ago.
you never told me your age slug?
Nipping bums is sexual assault then is that what you're saying? Someone who is accused of it should be treated the same as sexual assault of a child?
tell me nipping a bum is sexual assault?
oh and in the 70's and 80's it WAS normal. you gave them a slap and it was dealt with. you can't drag it back up 40 years later. that was life then.
I'm not saying it was right at the time because it wasn't but the politically correct world we live in now isn't either. you can't fart without s someone taking
Well Gymbob, when I worked in the 80's (yes, I'll never see 40 again either) it was most emphatically not acceptable to have your bum slapped, nor breasts groped, nor legs felt.
Bum nipping is sexual assault whether you are prepared to admit it or not.
"The outstanding charges relate to an allegation of indecent assault against a woman in the early 1990s along with an alleged sexual assault on a journalist in 2008."
These are the charges that the jury couldn't decide on. We're not even in the 1970s/1980s here. Looks serious enough to me.
Well it was certainly comon place in the 70s when I started work. Things started to change I'd say around the early 80s.
I'm not saying it's acceptable whether it happened yesterday or 40 years ago. I lost a job because I refused to let the Woolworth's delicatesan manager grope me each week when I worked as a Saturday girl. When I reported it to the management all I got was 'Oh not another one leaving because of Mr x'.
But things were very different then. I don't condone that behaviour, hell no, but I am very uncomfortable about trying people by today's standards for things they may have done in a very different historical period.
I think we are making scapegoats of people in a pathetic attempt to atone for turning a blind eye to the behaviour of Saville.
tell me nipping a bum is sexual assault
Well, obviously it is if it is not wanted.
You really have no idea, it's the fact that people had your outdated attitude and that they the victims were laughed at and told to get on with it if they objected that was THE PROBLEM. It means a woman's body is there for anyone, ANYONE, any sleazy, dirty, old, young, learing, ANY man to toy with for a bit of sexual thrill, and she has no say whatsoever and worse, NO RIGHT TO OBJECT.
I think we are making scapegoats of people in a pathetic attempt to atone for turning a blind eye to the behaviour of Saville
It's not that simple, names have come into the limelight, as they do when men are accused of rape, and the upshot is that others come forward. Once the CPS has decided to prosecute I doubt they can pick and choose which accusations go ahead or not.
As far as I can see in the other cases of old celebs being accused is that it is not girls who were 'up for it' having revenge for past grievances but young innocent girls in early and mid teens (and we were unbelievably innocent then compared to nowadays) being molested or raped.
There is no justification in saying society has changed and these should be left to rest because the celebs were cruelly taking advantage of their powerful positions to take sexual advantage of young girls in the confident knowledge that no one would care and their word would always be believed, they weren't just innocently getting embroiled in relationships with women who are now being vindictive for no reason. Thank God things have changed and good that they are getting their comeuppance. And imo the media coverage will make a huge difference to men's attitude to the risk of being prosecuted for sexual assault, which in turn will reduce the propensity.
And it wasn't just celebs that behaved this way, it happened with men in powerful roles or just physically powerful all over the country, and still happens in many countries today, it is only the celebs that hit the headlines and thus the women involved come forward. There are no doubt many old men in the UK sleeping a little less comfortably now than they did in the past. Good, I say.
And imo the media coverage will make a huge difference to men's attitude to the risk of being prosecuted for sexual assault, which in turn will reduce the propensity.
And that's the crux of the matter. You would never have seen a prosecution for groping in the 70s. You might have seen rape prosecutions or prosecutions of homosexuals for approaching men (a neighbour of mine was prosecuted for this). So men could sexually harrass women in those days safe in the knowledge that they would not be prosecuted for it because it wasn't seen as a serious offence. If I had reported my Woolworths experience to the Police I would have been laughed at - by them and also by my friends, both male and female.
Sexual molestation / assault in those days was just something that happened and you dealt with it by removing yourself from the situation. I agree that girls were less 'worldly-wise' then but they also had a lot less freedom than their teenage equivalents of today. Parents protected them more - probably because they too knew that molestation happened.
If he assaulted them, I'd agree. Clearly the issue is whether or not he did.
I know! I know! Let's have, like, a trial thingy like on TV, and everyone can here like evidence and decide if he did it or not. Yeah? What d'you think?
Or let's spend some public money on catching some really bad people, you know, the ones who rob, rape, murder , kidnap, traffic and sell drugs
and stop pissing about with this pointless rubbish. Then some people can go back, you know, like, to like, watching TV!
How many girls from care homes are being abused while police time is being spent on rubbish like this?
The Sexual Discrimination Act was made law in 1975. This made sexual harassment illegal.
I can still remember office parties in the 80s that could have had several employees in jail.
in the 70s. You might have seen rape prosecutions
But very very few, let's face it there are very few now!
It's not either/or. Let's retry DLT and prosecute "the ones who rob, rape, murder , kidnap, traffic and sell drugs".
Really??? You think women should just put up and shut up because in the grand scheme of things having your bodily integrity invaded is just not worth worrying about? Is this what you have been told all your life about small sexual assaults? Does the fact that you just expected to put up with sexual assault mean nobody else has the right to stand up and say "This is wrong"?
I really wonder what sort of cognitive dissidence is going on here.
I think in the grand scheme of things you need to use common sense and see a nip on the arse for what it is.
Call it a small sexual assault if you want. I'll call it high jinx.
Anyone 'high jinxes' me and I'll rip his fucking hand off. Then call police.
So it's common sense to tell women not to complain about sexual assault?
This is why it's so prevalent. People like you are telling women they have no right to complain when they are assaulted. It's trivialised, it's minimised and the victims are blamed for complaining. Over 75,000 women disagree with you
How on earth do you think men are ever going to stop feeling they have the right to women's bodies if we don't stand up and say 'stop this, it's unacceptable'?
Men shouldn't think they have a right to women's bodies of course not. In today's society we are under no illusion as to what is and isn't acceptable.
But the world has gone mad. Why can't women deal with trivial matters like bum pinching themselves? Slap him and tell him to piss off and he will get the message he's picked on the wrong woman. He's just a joker, a chancer.
I wouldn't dream of wasting police resources on such trivia.
I think you are in a time warp, Gymbob, if you slap someone nowadays you can be convicted of assault. Ok, the judge might let you off but, on the other hand, they might feel that assaulting someone is not a let offable offence.
Gymbob - are these two outstanding cases about bum pinching? I thought one of them was a sexual assault and the other an indecent assault. I assume the former is more serious?
if you slap him for bum pinching he's hardly likely to do you for assault is he?!
Assuming he didn't loudly announce he was going to pinch my bum it would have been done surreptitiously, anyone in the vicinity would hear or see the slap, then it is his word against mine.
Come on, Gymbob, admit defeat
How old are you Gymbob ...if you don't mind me asking??
Since you're obsessed with everyone's ages GymBob, I'm 34. Don't know what its got to do with the price of eggs though. You're talking a load of victim blaming, misogynistic crap. Please move with the times. Of course 'bum pinching' is sexual assault if its unwanted.
I will be really interested to see what a second jury makes of the case
It isn't justice for the thousands of victims of unknown non celebrity abusers.
The CPS aren't going to bring their cases to cort at great expense.
There are a variety of crimes that qualify as sexual assault and this is reflected in the variety of sentences that are set. So child abuse would of course attract a harsher penalty than groping, although both are crimes of sexual assault.
Gym bob, you do understand that typically this kind of assault is committed by someone who has more "power" than the recipient - older , higher up the chain of command, an important client etc. So turning round and slapping them would likely have serious professional consequences.
Noco, the CPS already decided to bring the crimes to court. It's unfortunate no verdict was reached but it's reasonable for there to be a retrial unless some factor in the trial led to the CPS changing their view of the evidence base
Gym- his charges were not all "just a bit of bum pinching". Do you know in detail what he was charged with? Maybe you should before you spout such a lot of rubbish?
yes I do know and none of it is acceptable in society today. but 40 years ago (which one of the charges he was cleared of dates back to) such behaviour was dealt with by the women involved. it was just part of the era we lived through.
my point was initially regarding that.
I do like a debate though thanks
such behaviour was dealt with by the women involved but they often were girls who had no clue how to 'deal' with it, you are just being obtuse.
Was it dealt with by all women? Or by some who felt strong enough and the rest were upset, felt unlikely to be heard, maybe changed job etc etc?
Since plenty of the latter goes on today (there's a recent thread about someone who was groped not feeling bold enough to either have a word or report and agonising over what she did wrong) - I am guessing lots of women did not "deal with it"
I'm 50 and I love you all
I did have an unwanted encounter when I was a naive teen. He
was at least twice my age and frightened me to death but it happened in a different era.
I have wondered if he was a celeb would I do anything about it now
It was 'dealt with' by the woman in those days, or, if she told her father, brother, or other male relative, they would 'deal with it' for her.
I dealt with it by leaving my Saturday job. You really need to be over about 50 and to have been in the workplace in the 70s to understand just how prevalent it was. Which is not to say it was acceptable then, just as it is not acceptable now.
But someone who perpetarated that sort of behaviou nowadays could (and should) expect to be investigated for assault, whereas, in those days, the perpetrator would have no expectation whatsoever that criminal charges may be brought.
So, just as once upon a time, in the dark ages, people did not challenge slavery, or capital punishment, or the fact that a woman was the chattel of her husband, or that homosexuality was once illegal, or that smoking opium was once acceptable , society has moved on and holds these things quite rightly in abhorrance. We should not try people for historical crimes by the very different standards in today's society.
I do however think that war crimes, for instance, or murders should be prosecuted relentlessly to the end of the perpetrators life. These were heinous crimes when they were committed and continue to be so.
in those days, the perpetrator would have no expectation whatsoever that criminal charges may be brought
I just don't get that that makes it ok and not prosecutable, I made the point earlier - are you saying all the priests who abused children should get away with it, they def did not expect to be charged?
It was a crime then, and it's a crime now. mycat talks as though it was legal. It wasn't. And broadly accepted. It wasn't. More prevalent, more excused perhaps, but still illegal and wrong. Stop reinventing the 70s to support victim-blaming now.
Yes I was just coming back to make this point.
If it was illegal at the time, it was prosecutable at the time and is prosecutable now, assuming no statute of limitations..
If you'd been caught drink driving in the 80s, it would have been prosecutable but it was a lot more common before public awareness campaigns.
If a man raped his wife in 1990, he couldn't have been prosecuted; if that same man raped his wife in 1992 then he could have been. Same man, same "society" broadly, different law and citizens are obliged to know the law.
The child abuse by priests was mentioned earlier. It is and was a heinous crime and bears no relevance to the discussion here.
Gym bob, for the record I'm 48. In my first job post graduation I dealt with a man who fondled the young girls by firing him and by being clear about why I did this when asked for a reference.
Some poeple on here are talking nonsense with their facile attempts to make this 'victim-blaming', If that's the case I must be blaming myself as I was clearly a victim - but I am not blaming myself. Hell no.
You cannot equate the abuse of vulnerable people by preists to a quick grope in the workplace - which is what we are discussing here. Serious sexual assaults and other serious crimes have always has been investigated, in the 70s and now. It's just that in the 70s a quick grope was not seen as 'serious' at all. Criminal, but not serious.
There are things that we accpet these days that would have been prosecuted then, just as there are things we no longer see as acceptable which were seen as very minor transgressions in thise days.
You are the ones trying to rewrite history. I am telling you what women experienced in the workplace in the 1970s. If you were working in the 1970s then I expect you too encountered it. If you didn't you were lucky. Yes, it outraged and distrssed me. But it was a quick grope and I dealt with it, as did thousands of other women in those days.
One of the reasons for having a jury system is that the experience of 12 people is used to judge whether a person is guilty or not and those 12 views come from a cross-section of people who are local to the area so they bring that local knowledge and understanding of acceptability/seriousness to bear in making their judgement. Just because someone broke a law doesn't mean it is always appropriate to prosecute.
And yes, if someone touched me inappropraitely now I would report the matter because that's what society expects.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
The jury make a judgement on crimes which are prosecuted, they do not decide what is prosecuted.
The CPS decides if it seems that the law has been broken and if sufficient evidence has been gathered to prosecute.
In the past, possibly police didn't take the first step in evidence gathering for various crimes that society found "acceptable" - couple violence being dismissed as a domestic springs to mind - doesn't mean they weren't crimes.
FYI the matters being retried are the allegations of sexual assault - seizing a journalist's breasts in his own home in 2008 and asking her to pose for photos and indecent assault - on a stage hand when he had a starring role in a panto in the early 90s,
I am not giving an opinion on his guilt or innocence but in either of those situations the "recipient" was clearly in a less powerful position compared to the homeowner in his own home/the low paid worker to the production's star. If the allegations are true, would a slap have been effective in either case, do you think, Gymboy?
Slug - well done you regarding the reference.
I lived through the 70s. I started work in 1974. I suppose that makes me as much of 'an oracle' on things 70s as anyone else who lived through that decade. I can claim a first hand perspective. I have never watched Life on Mars - I didn't need to, the real deal was shitty enough.
Exactly Doctrine In those days there was no CPS. The Police prosecuted crimes. That's why I said upthread that, had I gone to the Police and reported the groping, they would have laughed - just as they did with some of the more serious allegations the Saville accusers reported to the Police.
I'm not a victim either. I dealt with what happened to me as society expected me to at the time. Of course it's not right by today's standards, but it was right then. And there it should stay.
Yes, the 70's was like Life on Mars! But rather than accept being a called a tosspot, I'll call it life experience thanks.
I lived through and worked during the 70s and disagree totally with your views. It's sad that you can brush aside things that destroyed some girls/women's lives just because you 'dealt with it'.
Do not presume to tell me that I have 'brushed things aside'.
You have no right to say that as I have made it abundantly clear that I did not 'brush it aside'. I told you that I found it distressing. So how you can reach the conclusion that I 'brushed it aside' really surprises and shocks me. It shows quite a lack of comprehension and more than a little lack of empathy for someone who experienced a sexual assault. Or perhaps you are just determined to impose your own views in an attempt to belittle other people's actual experiences.
Sorry - I'm signing off. Discussion on this subject is impossible.
So illegal sexual assaults on girls and women, which result in distress and consequences like job loss, should not be prosecuted because.... erm... not sure what the argument is TBH.
Well MyCatIsFat and Gymbob don't think there should be a retrial with these 2 outstanding cases.
But be careful not to say MyCatIsFat 'can brush aside things' as that gets a strong reaction !
Waste of time and money, DPP et al just trying to make up for Savile cock up. There needs to be a time limit on accusations.
One of these accusations is from 2008 . Pretty sure that would fit into any statute of limitations.
This issue IS very important. We need this to be in the public consciousness, and it is crucial we have the debate. Wether DLT is innocent or not should be established in a court. It is not a waste of money. The wider issues wether or not one writes off minor sexual assault or not I think we have to realise it is on the spectrum of rape culture, and whilst it is not as severe and as such should not attract similar penalties as actual rape it still shouldn't be acceptable.
ABH is not as severe as murder, but we all broadly agree violence is wrong and unacceptable, so should it be with unwanted sexual advance of any kind. Yes the 70s were worse, but we're still not there yet.
It has been tried in court. The issue is whether or not it's good value for money to do it again.
My understanding is that retrials are the "default" (for any crime) and not retrying would be the exception.
"The presumption is that the prosecution will seek a retrial in the event of no verdict"
All roads led from The J saville failure to prosecute
These two women who haven't got a verdict are in limbo. Let them have a retrial.
I thought that one of the considerations made by the CPS in deciding whether to prosecute was that there was a reasonable chance of conviction.
So the issue has already been put to a jury, no decision could be reached so surely that test of a resonable chance has already been tested at the original trial?
Not really, Van, else there would never be a retrial in the event of a hung jury, instead of the default being that there would be unless various other factors came in - see link above.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.