www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a50711...tree-detectives.html

Dave Lee Travis charged with 12 offences by Operation Yewtree detectives
Published Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 15:50 BST | By Mayer Nissim

Dave Lee Travis has been charged with 11 counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault.

The broadcaster was first arrested by Operation Yewtree officers on November 14, 2012 and the CPS today confirmed details of the charges after a file of evidence was passed over on July 31. Travis has been charged under his birth name, David Patrick Griffin.

Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London Alison Saunders said: "We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Griffin to be charged with 11 counts of indecent assault and one of sexual assault.

"These date from 1977 to 2007 and relate to nine complainants aged between 15 and 29 at the time of the alleged offending."

She added: "We have also decided that no further action should be taken in relation to seven separate allegations against Mr Griffin as we determined that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."

Travis will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on August 23, 2013.

The full details of the charges are as below:
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1977.
•Two offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977.
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978.
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 28, on a date between 1981 and 1983.
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1983.
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 19 and 20, on a date in 1985.
•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 22, in 1990.
•Three offences of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 29, from 2000 to 2003.
•One offence of sexual assault relating to a woman, aged 23, in 2007.

"They are nothing to do with children" squealed both Travis and Clifford before the charges were made. Hmm...

Where is the proof and concrete evidence ?

JK2006 wrote:
"They are nothing to do with children" squealed both Travis and Clifford before the charges were made. Hmm...
And Travis' other squeal "Don't Tar ME with the same brush as Savile"

Wonder what supposeably happened in 1977, that suddenly (apparently) changed his view of women? I mean, he was on German TV Pop Shows in the 60s (pre his UK Top Of The Pops days). So, how come there are no complaints before 1977? Seems a bit fishy...

Such things are not needed in our broken justice system Andrew, as I discovered to my cost.
Even less so if you happen to be dead.
Though one would have thought that the police would be more obviously fair. "Worst paedophile in history" when nothing has been proved? Oh Commissioner, karma is coming.

The "on a date" bit is also a mystery here (especially the one) between 1981 & 1983...Obviously they couldn't put a date to this one, 30 years on (not surprisingly). In anycase why was he on a date? He's was married.

JK2006 wrote:
Though one would have thought that the police would be more obviously fair. "Worst paedophile in history" when nothing has been proved? Oh Commissioner, karma is coming.

The amount of time its taken to bring the "charges" - they must have been waiting for the sticky paper (holding them together) to dry !!!!

One loony - oops man - made allegations against me. As a result of the massive publicity, 27 others came forward. The judge threw out the majority of these and split the trial into 5 parts. After I was (wrongly) found guilty in the first trial (five men involved), I managed to get totally acquitted in the second trial and the judge ordered the remaining trials and claims abandoned , sentencing me on the first verdict as samples for all other historical claims, whether heard, filed or not. The guidelines for the offences was 2 years. He gave me seven years.

I reckon 27 is the usual quantity of false allegations provoked by such publicity (I gather John Leslie and Matthew Kelly, both investigations abandoned without charge, had 27 false claims made against them both).

When the publicity about Jimmy Savile was so much greater, hundreds came forward.

I reckon the only thing proved is... publicity about famous people gets huge coverage and provokes enormous quantity of claims - some true, some false, most simply exaggerated. Fame=media=claims.

All fine as long as the requirement for solid evidence and proof remains in place. It doesn't. The law considers similar claims mean they must be true.
Wrong. They simply echo the media coverage. and sometimes (dare I say this?) police interview "assistance". Check out the "blue door" incident in my movie Vile Pervert: THe Musical.

New Tricks Season 1 end of series final was shown last night, it showed the power of media
to get victims of rape to come forward.
Kinky Doctor who abused his patients trust lost the first trial, but police then made
a fake arrest live on TV, and as a result previous victims came forward.
In this case (although fictional tv show) the Doctor did the dirty deed but it was a good
example of how the media can lead to allegations of rape.

Forget previous post i sent, wrong programme i meant Law & Order UK not New Tricks.

Law & Order UK Season 1 end of series final was shown last night, it showed the power of media
to get victims of rape to come forward.
Kinky Doctor who abused his patients trust lost the first trial, but police then made
a fake arrest live on TV, and as a result previous victims came forward.
In this case (although fictional tv show) the Doctor did the dirty deed but it was a good
example of how the media can lead to allegations of rape.

JK2006 wrote:
Such things are not needed in our broken justice system Andrew, as I discovered to my cost.
Even less so if you happen to be dead.
Though one would have thought that the police would be more obviously fair. "Worst paedophile in history" when nothing has been proved? Oh Commissioner, karma is coming.

Lets say for argument sake if he did this on this on his pirate ships would they still of arrested him even though there are no laws on international waters ?

Yewtree has become a 'pissing contest'.
At first they thought this vile pantomime would be a doddle, as the operation (if you call it that - in real terms it's a conspiracy) attracted criticism from people who's brains still worked.
As Rolf got his standing ovations and people began to sniff the bullshit, so the conspirators - in this case the main news organisations, the two largest UK police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service and their vile foot-soldiers like Doubtful Thomas - decided they needed to piss the highest. They were dictating the agenda to the public, not the other way on.

DLT's statement in November was nothing more than a man being rounded on by the pigs responsible for stitching him up in the first place. Yewtree has served to silence those who want to speak up but do not want to be stitched up like Dave Lee Travesty, Maxed Clifford, Jim "Still on Sky though" Davidson and Bill Roached.
I have my contacts and I have complete confidence in my own judgement.
I am not famous and I will speak out.

Once this precedent is fully set it will spread to ordinary schmucks too - and with publicity and someones computers and telephone contacts and 9 months of hassling and digging, they could probably get 12 allegations of sexual assault on a 50 year old virgin. Especially you promise people complete anonymity and a few grand compo at the end of it, plus whatever publicity they can drum up.

Interesting way to deal with the pensions crisis though isn't it - stick all the ones with cocks in jail.

Something springs to mind in some of the years mentioned...How many of these accusees know each other? Is it feasible? Possibly.

So basically the guy was a bit of a stupid flirt and probably didn't realise what a pain in the arse he was being and now years later their trying to publicly paint him as the devil incarnate.

If this bothered these people so much, why didn’t they say something about it years ago?

That's if most of the allegations are even true.

It's obvious this lot are being penalised because they've been on tele and no one else, who hasn't been on tv, will be made to go through this...

"Three offences of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 29, from 2000 to 2003."

these claims are of the 'groping' type. How on earth did an adult woman return to the vicinity of their alleged groper 3 times to be assaulted?

how could these alleged claims possibly be defended ? the only 'evidence' could only be one person's word against another.

note in the report : the law firm Slater & Gordon who are famous for class actions has made the usual "brave victims" etc statements and appear to eb acting for them all....a clear invitation to anyone who walked through the same room as a high profile celeb to make a claim.

How outrageous a law firm be able to make such statements before a trial.

Now I see why Stuart Hall chose the lesser of 2 evils.

andrew wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Such things are not needed in our broken justice system Andrew, as I discovered to my cost.
Even less so if you happen to be dead.
Though one would have thought that the police would be more obviously fair. "Worst paedophile in history" when nothing has been proved? Oh Commissioner, karma is coming.

Lets say for argument sake if he did this on this on his pirate ships would they still of arrested him even though there are no laws on international waters ?

Probably, I don't think that the law seems to stand for much at all were this Yewtree nonsense is concerned...

Let's take a quick look at 2 specimen charges -

MCR Media wrote:

•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1977.

•One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 28, on a date between 1981 and 1983.


Why has the 18 year old not previously complained?
Why wait 36 years ????
Does she really expect to be taken seriously after such a delay? (a delay which has - deliberately? - allowed any possible DNA etc to disappear?)

Poor woman ! She doesn't even know how old she is LOL !
Can she not even give us a clue?
Did the "assault" happen in daytime or at night (that alone would narrow the time period by about 50% !)
Was it in summer or in winter?

Is DLT really expected to have an alibi for every minute of every day for three years? How absurd.

Of course, DLT doe not have to prove his innocence - it's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would suggest that as the complainant doesn't appear to know whether the "assault" happened in daytime or night, in winter or summer, and not even know which year, there is clearly considerable doubt as to whether the "assault" ever happened at all!

If Travis has a good brief, he could be the one to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down; jurors would say "no, she should NOT be believed"; judges should say "these cases are ludicrous; even if true, they cannot be proceeded with"; the CPS should own up and say "this is wasting our time and encouraging crime" and the police should be instructed not to pursue such manifestly constructed cases. Then, most vital of all, the Government should change the law. Sorry, "similar cases" are NOT evidence.

The judge he say, 'Whack Whack Oops'.

Anon wrote:
So basically the guy was a bit of a stupid flirt and probably didn't realise what a pain in the arse he was being and now years later their trying to publicly paint him as the devil incarnate.

If this bothered these people so much, why didn’t they say something about it years ago?

That's if most of the allegations are even true.

It's obvious this lot are being penalised because they've been on tele and no one else, who hasn't been on tv, will be made to go through this...

From what I can gather the first complaint was from someone reading news items on the radio. As was the habit with some idiots of the time, DLT "apparently" touched her breasts while she was reading the news as a joke and she said she "couldn't do anything to stop him because they were on air"
(Well I jolly well would)

I am sorry if she was disturbed by the bust grabbing, but if you dont stop someone then you are allowing it, and if you allow it it isn't assault.

When the first claim is a ridiculous non event I cant believe any of the ones that follow.