Also the attitudes of people were vastly different to what they are now. There has been a sea change in terms of racial and sexual discrimination between the seventies and now.

Dave Lee Travis faces retrial over sexual assault allegations

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... llegations

I believe there's a phrase involving the words 'good money after bad'.

Is it really in the public interest to carry on? If he was acquitted on the majority of the cases there is a very high probability that the same will apply to the other cases.

Equally, if it was alleged to have happened to someone you knew...

??? What?

I was responding to the guys' posts above about whether the retrial should go ahead.

He does actually make an interesting observation.

Amidst all the talk of realistic chances of prosecution and cost, were it a close relation of mine pursuing a case, I'd be spitting feathers if someone asked them, 'What's the point?'

However, I don't anyone in that position and so I ask the same question that, in another life, I would have found so very objectionable.

But that's probably because I've had many years' practice at being a hypocrite.

It's an interesting thought experiment but I'm not sure it's that realistic a notion. We can't all have everything we want. That's just a fact of life. Society as a whole has to consider what is best for society as a whole, not just what is best for any one individual (or small group of individuals) within it. That means if, for example, the cost/benefit analysis of attempting a second prosecution against someone wasn't favourable, those who are the alleged victims of the accused probably won't get 'justice' in the terms they wish to have it.

That's not hypocrisy, it's putting the collective good ahead of the individual good. We all do that hundreds of times every day, in small ways. This is just a bigger more obvious way.

Everyone who has been a victim of a serious crime wishes the people they hold guilty to be pursued to the ends of the earth. That's a perfectly understandable emotional reaction. But as a society, we simply can't afford to do that.

This is entirely separate to the notion as to whether in principle it is morally acceptable to attempt to retry people who have already been acquitted i.e whether it is 'fair' to put someone - who has already been found innocent in front of a court of law remember - through the whole process again, simply because some people didn't agree with that verdict. Until quite recently, double jeopardy rules prevented that from happening at all. Whether removing double jeopardy improved the UK legal system or not is a matter of some debate.

I don't think there's anything all that novel about a retrial when a jury fails to reach a verdict. It's certainly not double jeopardy.

Exactly - when my motorcycle was stolen I wanted the whole of the police force, MI5, the CIA and MOSAD mobilised to find it and then put the people up against the wall and shoot them

However I know that in the great scheme of things its not that major a crime, no one was hurt and Im insured so the police will provide me with a crime Ref No and then forget all about it

DLT charged again

http://news.sky.com/story/1243239/dave- ... nt-assault

Ex-Radio 1 DJ Chris Denning charged with 41 sex offences

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27525751

Don't fancy his chances.