personally any reputational accusation like this in my view should be confidential until proven guilty, if any risk to the public can be demonstrated that of course is a different matter but in that case they should be remanded anyway
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.
Yes, we know that. So why do the media keep mentioning Savilles name, if everyone seems clear there is no connection. A very dangerous game to be playing.
The more I hear about the Old Bill in this investigation the less confident I am about them doing anything like a competent job. This obvious briefing of the media off the record just has to stop. These are people's lives they are fucking with.
personally any reputational accusation like this in my view should be confidential until proven guilty, if any risk to the public can be demonstrated that of course is a different matter but in that case they should be remanded anyway
It's a tricky one - there were two people detained by the plod in this particular investigation, one was not arrested the other was (Jim D) so he gets named while the unarrested individual retains his confidentilaity. You can argue given the seriousness of the allegations that he should retain his confidentiality until formal charges are laid against him, but I disagree that he should retain that confidentiality until he has been found actually guilty.
Not directly about the above case...................
If it's a case of being named by the press rather than the police, then (assuming nothing comes of it) they should be held accountable for destroying a mans reputation.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but they also have to live by the law and should face the consiquences if they don't.
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.
Never thought of diaries to be honest. Not sure I see Jim as "Dear Diary" sort of person.
Just to be clear, I believe the police have NOT named anyone. It is the press who have reported JD's arrest.
Scotland Yard do not appear to be denying it - and neither have his legal team.
Not the same thing at all though is it? It's been suggested more than once on here that the police have named him because it's in some way in their interests to do so as a part of their 'witch hunt'. I'd argue the opposite actually.
It is likely the info leaked from the police I agree but 1.it's not the official line is it and 2. it's also possible the info came from another source such as those present at the airport for example.
Not directly about the above case...................
If it's a case of being named by the press rather than the police, then (assuming nothing comes of it) they should be held accountable for destroying a mans reputation.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but they also have to live by the law and should face the consiquences if they don't.
Firstly they haven't destroyed his reputation because they have said he has been arrested in connection with and not implying that he is guilty. Second, they have simply reported the fact that he had been arrested. There is a clear defence to libel if you are reporting the truth. I would suggest in this case there is also a secondary defence of reputation. Jim Davidson has a reputaiton for being rude and crude and making derogatory comments about women. Could you really argue that an unproven case of rapping a 20 year has in any way affected his reputation? It would be for Jim to prove the damage, not for the papers to prove he already has a bad reputation.
Again just reporting how it is, not my peroson view on whether he is or isn't guilty.
Not directly about the above case...................
If it's a case of being named by the press rather than the police, then (assuming nothing comes of it) they should be held accountable for destroying a mans reputation.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but they also have to live by the law and should face the consiquences if they don't.
If the media report the arrest of a specific individual (or for example accuse somene of a crime that they didn't commit) when it hasn't actually taken place then they will be liable for defamation. That has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. In this case while the media appear to have announced the story it has not been denied by the plod or JD's legal team who have protested his innocence, so I think you can take it as read that he was arrested, no charges have yet been laid and it may be that no charges will ever get laid.
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.
Not directly about the above case...................
If it's a case of being named by the press rather than the police, then (assuming nothing comes of it) they should be held accountable for destroying a mans reputation.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but they also have to live by the law and should face the consiquences if they don't.
Firstly they haven't destroyed his reputation because they have said he has been arrested in connection with and not implying that he is guilty. Second, they have simply reported the fact that he had been arrested. There is a clear defence to libel if you are reporting the truth. I would suggest in this case there is also a secondary defence of reputation. Jim Davidson has a reputaiton for being rude and crude and making derogatory comments about women. Could you really argue that an unproven case of rapping a 20 year has in any way affected his reputation? It would be for Jim to prove the damage, not for the papers to prove he already has a bad reputation.
Again just reporting how it is, not my peroson view on whether he is or isn't guilty.
Bit of a difference in having a bad reputation as a male chauvinist pig to allegations of sex offences in my view.
I've no comment on guilt or otherwise but mud sticks.
I suspect that the reason they brief the media is to prise out new victims/evidence. Of course this happened with Saville, with many coming forward who hadn't previously, but if they don't get any new leads, I suspect the investigation won't be pursued. Whilst this approach has some logic, there is also an unsavoury element to it as it can affect people's careers.
I would suggest in this case there is also a secondary defence of reputation. Jim Davidson has a reputaiton for being rude and crude and making derogatory comments about women. Could you really argue that an unproven case of rapping a 20 year has in any way affected his reputation? It would be for Jim to prove the damage, not for the papers to prove he already has a bad reputation.
It doesn't work like that, if someone makes an allegation then it is up to them to produce evidence to substantiate that claim, it is not not for the person who is being defamed to have to prove themself innocent.
On a second point, just because someone has a reputation for making sexist remarks/jokes does not mean that they have a reputation that suggests that they might be forced to defend themselves of far more serious charges regarding as here, sexual assault. However the law does suggest that if you you make alegations about a guilty person regarding a lesser crime than the one they have been convicted of then that is usually enough to act as a defence, (as they don't have a reputation to defend) but to do that you would first have to convict that person and of a reasonably serious charge. The example you use here is not in my view suitable or enough to base a defence on.
I suspect that the reason they brief the media is to prise out new victims/evidence. Of course this happened with Saville, with many coming forward who hadn't previously, but if they don't get any new leads, I suspect the investigation won't be pursued. Whilst this approach has some logic, there is also an unsavoury element to it as it can affect people's careers.
Tricky one this I knew Jim when he was Cameron many years ago, albeit not well he was a friend of a friend and frankly didn't like him very much but that is nothing to do with what is going on here. Clearly this is nothing to do with paedophilia as the woman in question were in their 20's at the time and you have to wonder why it has taken this long for them to come forward, although Mrs. Dave suggested that at the time he was a very high profile entertainer etc and the women may not have been believed. What I think is that, as in the case of Dave Lee Travis, whilst it is unacceptable if true to think you can grope a bird just because you are famous this is not the same as grooming 12-13 year olds for sex, sorry but it isn't.
And regardless of Jim's lack of political correctness, although I don't personally find him as offensive as Frankie Boyle just unfunny and dated, that doesn't make him a sex offender or a pervert so I would say let the evidence come out and he be judged on that but until then give the bloke some breathing space as it is quite likely he doesn't even recall the incident.
I would suggest in this case there is also a secondary defence of reputation. Jim Davidson has a reputaiton for being rude and crude and making derogatory comments about women. Could you really argue that an unproven case of rapping a 20 year has in any way affected his reputation? It would be for Jim to prove the damage, not for the papers to prove he already has a bad reputation.
It doesn't work like that, if someone makes an allegation then it is up to them to produce evidence to substantiate that claim, it is not not for the person who is being defamed to have to prove themself innocent.
On a second point, just because someone has a reputation for making sexist remarks/jokes does not mean that they have a reputation that suggests that they might be forced to defend themselves of far more serious charges regarding as here, sexual assault. However the law does suggest that if you you make alegations about a guilty person regarding a lesser crime than the one they have been convicted of then that is usually enough to act as a defence, (as they don't have a reputation to defend) but to do that you would first have to convict that person and of a reasonably serious charge. The example you use here is not in my view suitable or enough to base a defence on.
They would have to provide evidence to substantiate the claim of it being true. It is true, he was arrested. However Davidson would have to substantiate the claim of it destroying his reputation. And truth is only one defence to libel, there are others.
I know A doesn't equal B which is why I said 'I would suggest' - if I were a lawyer for the newspaper that is certainly A defence I would pursue if it needed it... As I say truth is not the only defence, it not 'making ordinary people think less of that person' is another.
However, thats a totally moot point as it is true and therefore he cannot sue.
I also suspect the reason that he can't do big brother is because he may be called back for further questioning and would have to be available to the police. BB probably don't want to risk him having to leave for a few hours at the police station and I imagine he wants to be avialable so that he can clear his name as quickly as possible.
I suspect that the reason they brief the media is to prise out new victims/evidence. Of course this happened with Saville, with many coming forward who hadn't previously, but if they don't get any new leads, I suspect the investigation won't be pursued. Whilst this approach has some logic, there is also an unsavoury element to it as it can affect people's careers.
Again, Mutley could you provide any link to the alleged briefing that the police have given the media other than for the original Saville case?
I'm really not following the logic that having the whole of the UK press following and second guessing your every move as an investigator is either desirable or that the police are unable to come up with their own 'leads' without their "help". There are cases where an appeal for witness, etc is made but I can't recall this happening with Yewtree.
They would have to provide evidence to substantiate the claim of it being true. It is true, he was arrested. However Davidson would have to substantiate the claim of it destroying his reputation. And truth is only one defence to libel, there are others.
I know A doesn't equal B which is why I said 'I would suggest' - if I were a lawyer for the newspaper that is certainly A defence I would pursue if it needed it... As I say truth is not the only defence, it not 'making ordinary people think less of that person' is another.
Truth is the best defence to libel, but newspapers can claim "Qualified Privilege" that is they can say they were passing on a public interest story, if they do so in a non-malicious manner that is enough of a defence. If you are interested then look at the recentish decisions from Reynolds v The Times and Jameel v Wall St Europe. The onus is on responsible journalism - if however they suggested that JD was actually guilty or made accusations that were separate to the circumstances of his arrest then they would lose that privilege.
If it were untrue that JD had been arrested then he could sue for defmation and as the plaintiff he would have to prove that it had harmed his reputation - that should be relatively easy to demonstrate and would include cancelled bookings etc.
Here's one for you then if; everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" then where does that leave Jimmy Saville? As far as I know he has never been convicted of any of the crimes he has been accused of - or even charged for that matter. Or as he's brown bread does that make it alright and all bets are off?
(Not looking to defend him by the way, just pointing out that it can be a very fine line and not everything is as black and white as it may seem - or be reported.)
Here's one for you then if; everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" then where does that leave Jimmy Saville? As far as I know he has never been convicted of any of the crimes he has been accused of - or even charged for that matter. Or as he's brown bread does that make it alright and all bets are off?
(Not looking to defend him by the way, just pointing out that it can be a very fine line and not everything is as black and white as it may seem - or be reported.)
Or are you saying that if someone dies then its open season and you can say what you want? Not sure i would agree with that, regardless of whether you can legally be held accountable or not.
Here's one for you then if; everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" then where does that leave Jimmy Saville? As far as I know he has never been convicted of any of the crimes he has been accused of - or even charged for that matter. Or as he's brown bread does that make it alright and all bets are off?
(Not looking to defend him by the way, just pointing out that it can be a very fine line and not everything is as black and white as it may seem - or be reported.)
Well, the evidence very very strongly suggests that he was indeed guilty, and for a very long time since it broke there has been hardly a single person who knew him standing up for him at all. In the case of JD there is absolutely no evidence either way (which is not to say I think he is guilty.)
The videos, quotes and even extracts from his own biography prove to me in my mind beyond doubt what an evil, disgusting, pervert Saville was. He just managed to do it in such plain sight that no one said/did anything about it.
Another reason is rightly or wrongly, I would be inclined to believe the whole of the North Stand if they said a player had turned around and told them to eff off rather than if one kid had said it had happened. Which sadly is probably why no one came forward at the time is was happening.
So I'm more inclined to believe the 100's is it now, of people that have come forward and said things about Saville than if one person had said it.
So yes in theory it is open season on dead people and their reputations. However if you want to be taken seriously then it helps to have some evidence.
Agree with the above - and this is probably not the right thread for it as I have already said that I don't see why JD is being mentioned in the same breath as JS when there is NO LINK WHATSOEVER - but am also conscious that JS's guilt has been assumed by all based on certain reports/claims and not through any legal due process.
People will undoubtedly make the same assumptions about JD - and "others" - and all because (most likely) some copper has tipped off his mates at the press, either for direct personal gain (we know it goes on) or just because they are keen to be seen to be "doing something".
It's all starting to stink a bit now, and unfortunately I have less and less confidence that this is all in the interests of truth and justice.
>Here's one for you then if; everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" then where does that leave Jimmy Saville? As far as I know he has never been convicted of any of the crimes he has been accused of - or even charged for that matter. Or as he's brown bread does that make it alright and all bets are off?
(Not looking to defend him by the way, just pointing out that it can be a very fine line and not everything is as black and white as it may seem - or be reported.)
Because of the overwhelming evidence from numerous sources
So yes in theory it is open season on dead people and their reputations. However if you want to be taken seriously then it helps to have some evidence.
I'm not talking about legally though - what about morally? Is it ok not to give someone the benefit of the doubt just because they die? (And I don't mean this about JS in particular, as I fully accept there seems to be little "doubt".)
Not quite as "simple" as you suggest - not in my eyes anyway.
Comments
The more I hear about the Old Bill in this investigation the less confident I am about them doing anything like a competent job. This obvious briefing of the media off the record just has to stop. These are people's lives they are fucking with.
If it's a case of being named by the press rather than the police, then (assuming nothing comes of it) they should be held accountable for destroying a mans reputation.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but they also have to live by the law and should face the consiquences if they don't.
I always wondered even back then which i think was about 2000 why their names were leaked.
It is likely the info leaked from the police I agree but 1.it's not the official line is it and 2. it's also possible the info came from another source such as those present at the airport for example.
I would suggest in this case there is also a secondary defence of reputation. Jim Davidson has a reputaiton for being rude and crude and making derogatory comments about women. Could you really argue that an unproven case of rapping a 20 year has in any way affected his reputation? It would be for Jim to prove the damage, not for the papers to prove he already has a bad reputation.
Again just reporting how it is, not my peroson view on whether he is or isn't guilty.
I've no comment on guilt or otherwise but mud sticks.
It doesn't work like that, if someone makes an allegation then it is up to them to produce evidence to substantiate that claim, it is not not for the person who is being defamed to have to prove themself innocent.
On a second point, just because someone has a reputation for making sexist remarks/jokes does not mean that they have a reputation that suggests that they might be forced to defend themselves of far more serious charges regarding as here, sexual assault. However the law does suggest that if you you make alegations about a guilty person regarding a lesser crime than the one they have been convicted of then that is usually enough to act as a defence, (as they don't have a reputation to defend) but to do that you would first have to convict that person and of a reasonably serious charge. The example you use here is not in my view suitable or enough to base a defence on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9777383/Jim-Davidson-pulls-out-of-Celebrity-Big-Brother-after-abuse-allegations.html
And regardless of Jim's lack of political correctness, although I don't personally find him as offensive as Frankie Boyle just unfunny and dated, that doesn't make him a sex offender or a pervert so I would say let the evidence come out and he be judged on that but until then give the bloke some breathing space as it is quite likely he doesn't even recall the incident.
I know A doesn't equal B which is why I said 'I would suggest' - if I were a lawyer for the newspaper that is certainly A defence I would pursue if it needed it... As I say truth is not the only defence, it not 'making ordinary people think less of that person' is another.
However, thats a totally moot point as it is true and therefore he cannot sue.
I also suspect the reason that he can't do big brother is because he may be called back for further questioning and would have to be available to the police. BB probably don't want to risk him having to leave for a few hours at the police station and I imagine he wants to be avialable so that he can clear his name as quickly as possible.
I'm really not following the logic that having the whole of the UK press following and second guessing your every move as an investigator is either desirable or that the police are unable to come up with their own 'leads' without their "help". There are cases where an appeal for witness, etc is made but I can't recall this happening with Yewtree.
I know A doesn't equal B which is why I said 'I would suggest' - if I were a lawyer for the newspaper that is certainly A defence I would pursue if it needed it... As I say truth is not the only defence, it not 'making ordinary people think less of that person' is another.
Truth is the best defence to libel, but newspapers can claim "Qualified Privilege" that is they can say they were passing on a public interest story, if they do so in a non-malicious manner that is enough of a defence. If you are interested then look at the recentish decisions from Reynolds v The Times and Jameel v Wall St Europe. The onus is on responsible journalism - if however they suggested that JD was actually guilty or made accusations that were separate to the circumstances of his arrest then they would lose that privilege.
If it were untrue that JD had been arrested then he could sue for defmation and as the plaintiff he would have to prove that it had harmed his reputation - that should be relatively easy to demonstrate and would include cancelled bookings etc.
Oh hang on, ...... You mean we don't?
(Not looking to defend him by the way, just pointing out that it can be a very fine line and not everything is as black and white as it may seem - or be reported.)
Or are you saying that if someone dies then its open season and you can say what you want? Not sure i would agree with that, regardless of whether you can legally be held accountable or not.
Another reason is rightly or wrongly, I would be inclined to believe the whole of the North Stand if they said a player had turned around and told them to eff off rather than if one kid had said it had happened. Which sadly is probably why no one came forward at the time is was happening.
So I'm more inclined to believe the 100's is it now, of people that have come forward and said things about Saville than if one person had said it.
So yes in theory it is open season on dead people and their reputations. However if you want to be taken seriously then it helps to have some evidence.
People will undoubtedly make the same assumptions about JD - and "others" - and all because (most likely) some copper has tipped off his mates at the press, either for direct personal gain (we know it goes on) or just because they are keen to be seen to be "doing something".
It's all starting to stink a bit now, and unfortunately I have less and less confidence that this is all in the interests of truth and justice.
Not quite as "simple" as you suggest - not in my eyes anyway.