If the investigation has the parameter that if a person is named by at least two separate accusers then the accused will be brought in for questioning then I fully understand that approach. I do not agree with the inconsistent approach to publishing names but it may well be that some of the accused have gained temporary super injunctions. I prefer the tone of this thread, innocent until proven guilty, far more than the other threads with a hang em high mentality. I'm aware of the names of three individuals who have been questioned and I'm not sure if they were named they would be treated so fairly.
Though not a fan of his comedy, Jim Davidson is still a human being but why the hell do they keep naming these people anyone is innocent until proven guilty? Whether you like or loathe Davidson, the handling of this case and several proceeding it, following the shocking Jimmy Saville revelations, has been absolutely disgusting. This is a bad enough thing to be accused of without everyone knowing and many pointing the finger. How long before one of these men are beaten up in the street or commits suicide.The £'s are ringing. If the guy was broke would they bother? Either way people should not be named. I just hope that the people making the claims are made to cover all costs if they are so wrong.
As a woman I cannot understand why someone would take so long to come forward with allegations. If this is a case of women jumping on the bandwagon to get some form of compensation then this is awful. I can't see how you can prove something like this so many years after the event. JD should have a right to privacy unless actually charged.
I can completely understand why it woukd take a victim of any kind of sexual, physical or mental abuse so long to come forward. You have to understand how some victims may think they are the only one, possible threats made by the perpertrator or a lack of confidence becasue of the abuse. I think some on here underestimate the effects of these factors. Seeing cases being investigated by the police will give those victims confidence to come forward knowing the case will be seriously looked into.
This is a general comment by the way, not specific to Jim Davidson, although I do wonder if he would have as much support on here if he wasn't a Charlton fan.
As a woman I cannot understand why someone would take so long to come forward with allegations. If this is a case of women jumping on the bandwagon to get some form of compensation then this is awful. I can't see how you can prove something like this so many years after the event. JD should have a right to privacy unless actually charged.
I can completely understand why it woukd take a victim of any kind of sexual, physical or mental abuse so long to come forward. You have to understand how some victims may think they are the only one, possible threats made by the perpertrator or a lack of confidence becasue of the abuse. I think some on here underestimate the effects of these factors. Seeing cases being investigated by the police will give those victims confidence to come forward knowing the case will be seriously looked into.
This is a general comment by the way, not specific to Jim Davidson, although I do wonder if he would have as much support on here if he wasn't a Charlton fan.
I feel the same about the way Max Clifford and DLT have been dealt with an all and I ain't no fan of either.
Methinks the police and the CPS are going ultimitely going to come out of this looking a bit stupid at the end of the day. Sounds like a couple of chancers trying their luck to me.
Before we know it they'll be arresting Frank Worthington for blowing kisses at the crowd in the 1970's.
Why don't we all just wait until the facts of the matter are known before making any judgement, further comment or seeking to blame the police (for doing their job), the victims (or gold diggers as the view has already been expressed) or indeed JD himself?
This thread is in danger of straying into dangerous legal territory IMO when it should perhaps be only to provide some support to one of our own.
Most of all this celebrity's who have been bailed months later to return will be getting no further action . They have to act upon any claim however unbelievable it is .
Trouble is the tag is carried around with them in the shitty rags. Such-and-such who was once questioned about xx crime still gets printed even if no charges are brought.
I still can't understand why people are named before being charged with anything.
Trouble is the tag is carried around with them in the shitty rags. Such-and-such who was once questioned about xx crime still gets printed even if no charges are brought.
I still can't understand why people are named before being charged with anything.
I assumed it was to encourage other 'victims' to contact the police.
Why don't we all just wait until the facts of the matter are known before making any judgement, further comment or seeking to blame the police (for doing their job), the victims (or gold diggers as the view has already been expressed) or indeed JD himself?
This thread is in danger of straying into dangerous legal territory IMO when it should perhaps be only to provide some support to one of our own.
There is a common theme running through these arrests. Seriously, DLT, Saville, Clifford, Davidson. If you were asked to name 4 of the most arrogant public figures of the past 30 years these would go close. Arrogance isn't a crime, just pointing it out.
Anyone seen Jim's picture on the BBC website? Looks more like Mrs Brown (from Mrs Brown's Boys) every day! Jim: you can use that for future comedic value. Best Wishes.
Women in their mid twenties at the time. So why not report it then. This, in my opinion, is becoming more like a witch hunt by the day. Anyone can step forward and make an accusation and drag someone's name though the mud. In my opinion if it is found there is no case to answer the women involved should then be named likewise.
This one's pretty straightforward. Women (and men) did not and still do not report sexual crimes largely because of the shame factor and fearing that they will not be believed. By going public they know they will face ridicule, finger pointing, verbal abuse and a cross-examination in court which will include a pretty vigorous attempt at character assassination. Worst of all, they have to face the possibility that there is insufficient clinical evidence to convict and the abuser will walk free. Women will often say that the way in which they were dealt with feels worse than the actual sexual offence. As the years roll on, the sense of injustice can mount and the fear and shame feelings become replaced by anger and a determination to get some form of justice. Attitudes today have changed substantially and society in general is more sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, both male and female. There are years of pent up frustration being vented generally at the moment and maybe for the first time in the women’s lives, they sense a chance that the wrongs they have suffered may finally be partially righted.
I have no idea what the truth is behind the allegations made in respect of Jim Davidson and I believe that we should leave discussions on this for the legal process to deal with. I do know that there are victims and it is already clear that Jim’s son is one of them. I feel for him very much.
There is a common theme running through these arrests. Seriously, DLT, Saville, Clifford, Davidson. If you were asked to name 4 of the most arrogant public figures of the past 30 years these would go close. Arrogance isn't a crime, just pointing it out.
But you could say that about most public figures, arrogance is part of their make up, albeit maybe a small part. But you have to have self belief to stand on stage, be a DJ, appear on TV etc, this can eventually over spill into arrogance.
Though not a fan of his comedy, Jim Davidson is still a human being but why the hell do they keep naming these people anyone is innocent until proven guilty? Whether you like or loathe Davidson, the handling of this case and several proceeding it, following the shocking Jimmy Saville revelations, has been absolutely disgusting. This is a bad enough thing to be accused of without everyone knowing and many pointing the finger. How long before one of these men are beaten up in the street or commits suicide.The £'s are ringing. If the guy was broke would they bother? Either way people should not be named. I just hope that the people making the claims are made to cover all costs if they are so wrong.
This does seem a bit absurd. Firstly, it didn't involve children and happened 25 years ago. Was it not investigated then? What new evidence could possibly have come to light? Serious questions have to be asked of the Police- frankly, I have no confidence in them at all.
Have no comment on the Davidson case, we don't know anymore than that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Have to agree with others though that the way this is being handled is pretty disgraceful. It's turning into some kind of police endorsed witch hunt. I completely understand why it might take victims time to come forward and also why the police need to follow up on serious allegations, I can't for the life of me see why the police are encouraging the media circus surrounding this though. It's simply not fair to keep naming those brought in for questioning without charge. If they're truly guilty then name and shame them by all means, prove it first though.
I'm very much torn on this one. I can see that in naming Jim Davidson there must have been some kind of tip off which I do not feel is right. To set against that is the fact that public figures, and I'm thinking of my own former GP at the moment, tend to be trusted and believed. One woman went public and she suffered a lot of humiliation from other patients. But eight other women then felt brave enough to come forward. The former GP was found guilty and also struck off by the GMC. It's not a black and white issue IMO and I really can't make up my mind on it.
It's a good point. Maybe I'm being a little simplistic in my view on this. There must be a better way though? If one of these guys is innocent then they're going to be tarred with this forever and completely unfairly so.
If guilty punish them ,fair enough.This being able to name some one that is being questioned in connection with a case is wrong.It doesn't matter if these people are not charged or found innocent after a trial some stigma will remain and as is probable in this compo crazy country there will be some genuine cases but also some bandwagon jumping.The bandwagon jumpers should be named shamed and made to pay for any costs incurred by innocent people.
Police left with an "evidence bag" !!!!!!!!!! After 25 years. Yeah ok.
They could easily have found diaries from the year of the allegaiton. I have all my diaries dating back years and I suspect anyone who might someday write a biography would keep them. With old rape cases half the case is proving that intercourse took place. If the diaries prove he was where the lady in question said he was when they met that would be evidence.
Not saying its true or not, just pointing out what the evidence could be without giving it much thought.
As for the arrest, I agree that it had to happen if a complaint has been made. The poice cannot decided which crimes are worthy of their attention. The issue of naming is one that has be around for years, people love reading scandal so the pressure to change the rules is not there. Leveson is having trouble getting papers to admit phone hacking and paying police is wrong, they are never going to back down from something which is publically available.
I wonder if they are including it under the same umbrella in case it is widespread/wholesale, rather than just individuals, this would fit in with the searching of the premises which seems to occurr each time.
I wonder if they are including it under the same umbrella in case it is widespread/wholesale, rather than just individuals, this would fit in with the searching of the premises which seems to occurr each time.
There are three strands to Operation Yewtree, the first is focusing on Jimmy Saville. the second on "Jimmy Saville and others" (presumably this includes allegations where Jimmy Saville and was involved in alleged sexual assualts with other people) and thirdly there are allegations of sexual assaults that are unconnected to Jimmy Saville. It seems that Jim D has been arrested/questioned in this third category.
Comments
I prefer the tone of this thread, innocent until proven guilty, far more than the other threads with a hang em high mentality.
I'm aware of the names of three individuals who have been questioned and I'm not sure if they were named they would be treated so fairly.
I can completely understand why it woukd take a victim of any kind of sexual, physical or mental abuse so long to come forward. You have to understand how some victims may think they are the only one, possible threats made by the perpertrator or a lack of confidence becasue of the abuse. I think some on here underestimate the effects of these factors. Seeing cases being investigated by the police will give those victims confidence to come forward knowing the case will be seriously looked into.
This is a general comment by the way, not specific to Jim Davidson, although I do wonder if he would have as much support on here if he wasn't a Charlton fan.
I can completely understand why it woukd take a victim of any kind of sexual, physical or mental abuse so long to come forward. You have to understand how some victims may think they are the only one, possible threats made by the perpertrator or a lack of confidence becasue of the abuse. I think some on here underestimate the effects of these factors. Seeing cases being investigated by the police will give those victims confidence to come forward knowing the case will be seriously looked into.
This is a general comment by the way, not specific to Jim Davidson, although I do wonder if he would have as much support on here if he wasn't a Charlton fan.
I feel the same about the way Max Clifford and DLT have been dealt with an all and I ain't no fan of either.
Before we know it they'll be arresting Frank Worthington for blowing kisses at the crowd in the 1970's.
This thread is in danger of straying into dangerous legal territory IMO when it should perhaps be only to provide some support to one of our own.
I still can't understand why people are named before being charged with anything.
I have no idea what the truth is behind the allegations made in respect of Jim Davidson and I believe that we should leave discussions on this for the legal process to deal with. I do know that there are victims and it is already clear that Jim’s son is one of them. I feel for him very much.
Good thread; nice to see everyone taking it in the right spirit.
Have to agree with others though that the way this is being handled is pretty disgraceful. It's turning into some kind of police endorsed witch hunt. I completely understand why it might take victims time to come forward and also why the police need to follow up on serious allegations, I can't for the life of me see why the police are encouraging the media circus surrounding this though. It's simply not fair to keep naming those brought in for questioning without charge. If they're truly guilty then name and shame them by all means, prove it first though.
With old rape cases half the case is proving that intercourse took place. If the diaries prove he was where the lady in question said he was when they met that would be evidence.
Not saying its true or not, just pointing out what the evidence could be without giving it much thought.
As for the arrest, I agree that it had to happen if a complaint has been made. The poice cannot decided which crimes are worthy of their attention. The issue of naming is one that has be around for years, people love reading scandal so the pressure to change the rules is not there. Leveson is having trouble getting papers to admit phone hacking and paying police is wrong, they are never going to back down from something which is publically available.