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
Operation Yewtree has been set up to investigate claims predominantly into JS, the trouble is he travelled around a bit and consequently most police forces in the UK would have to open cases against him duplicating time and effort. This allows one meta-investigation to draw all the allegations into one extensive case.
I appreciate that JD is not being alleged to have participated in any of of JS's abuses of children and sexual assaults etc and that's why Operation Yewtree has a separate strand to it which in my view is sensible as it's now encoraging people who were abused (allegedly) to come forward and they have a means to have their stories taken seriously and checked out. Again it makes sense for one set of police officers to conduct the investigation rather than duplicate efforts.
Thanks again BFR for restating what we already know.
My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
Anyway, don't want to go on too much more about this as either I'm not making myself particularly clear or else I'm just way off beam.
Completely agree with everything you are saying Off_It. If you look around the comments sections on news stories online reporting it or on Twitter...There are constant remarks which are completely wide of the mark as to what JD is actually being questioned about, followed by someone having to correct them. A lot of people will just read the headline and not the actual story itself.
We all know what's going on here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Also, "Not charged doesn't mean not guilty"....... No smoke without fire bla bla bla....
It is a shame that the police and press can't do a better job of reporting it but even more of a shame when certains sections of society try to twist the blame on to the possible victims of this crime, many reasons why they might not of reported it at the time but obviously for his son's sake i hope JD has not done what he is accused of.
We all know what's going on here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Also, "Not charged doesn't mean not guilty"....... No smoke without fire bla bla bla....
My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
The link is that they are being investigated under the same police operation.
I appreciate that the media are being a tad sensationalist here - after all it's their job to get people to buy newspapers or open links etc, but all the articles I've seen regarding JD have made it quite clear that there is no link to whatever he is alleged to have done and anything that JS did and that they are entirely separate investigations.
The media can claim a public interest defence which I've gone to pains to point out is a qualified privilege and that if the story gets over-embellished by them then they lose that right. They've stated the few basic facts and that's it. I'm not aware that the police have made a formal announcement but as JD's solicitor has taken to the airwaves to vigorously announce that his client will defend all charges etc then you can take it as read that the arrest did happen.
We all know what's going on here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Also, "Not charged doesn't mean not guilty"....... No smoke without fire bla bla bla....
Usually when they bail you this long after it means what they have is weak . Many years back a weirdo lesbian woman accused me of homophobic stuff I was supposed to have said to her in a pub I was carted off down the old bill shop and bailed to come back two months later , I told them in interview I was on holiday at time of accusation and proved it with receipt . When I went back the arresting officer told the bloke at the desk no further action and he gave me a slip of paper . No sorry nothing
Usually when they bail you this long after it means what they have is weak . Many years back a weirdo lesbian woman accused me of homophobic stuff I was supposed to have said to her in a pub I was carted off down the old bill shop and bailed to come back two months later , I told them in interview I was on holiday at time of accusation and proved it with receipt . When I went back the arresting officer told the bloke at the desk no further action and he gave me a slip of paper . No sorry nothing
Hang on a minute - what's the difference between the hand-wringing going on here about Jim Davidson, and people queueing up to have a pop at that bloke from Lost Prophets a few weeks back? You're either innocent until proven guilty and have your privacy protected, or you aren't, and don't. Witness Operation Ore from a few years ago, where the gavvers ruined lives (and in some cases, led to suicides) on completely misinterpreted 'evidence' of child abuse that was no such thing.
PS: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing either of the two cases, suggesting that either JD or the other bloke are guilty/not guilty, or passing comment on the validity of either allegation. Nor do I find it palatable that some people are clearly gleeful at the fact that a person they may not particularly like has been caught up in this.
My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
The link is that they are being investigated under the same police operation.
I appreciate that the media are being a tad sensationalist here - after all it's their job to get people to buy newspapers or open links etc, but all the articles I've seen regarding JD have made it quite clear that there is no link to whatever he is alleged to have done and anything that JS did and that they are entirely separate investigations.
You seen the Mirror's headline today?
"Savile cops nick nick TV's Jim".
Not exactly clear there is no link from that, is it? That's my point. No need to mention JS. The link to JS is tenuous at best, but the headline is deliberately misleading.
Hang on a minute - what's the difference between the hand-wringing going on here about Jim Davidson, and people queueing up to have a pop at that bloke from Lost Prophets a few weeks back? You're either innocent until proven guilty and have your privacy protected, or you aren't, and don't. Witness Operation Ore from a few years ago, where the gavvers ruined lives (and in some cases, led to suicides) on completely misinterpreted 'evidence' of child abuse that was no such thing.
PS: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing either of the two cases, suggesting that either JD or the other bloke are guilty/not guilty, or passing comment on the validity of either allegation. Nor do I find it palatable that some people are clearly gleeful at the fact that a person they may not particularly like has been caught up in this.
Be completely wrong to try and draw any comparisons between the two imo
No I was in Spain offy . 'She' went down to the cop shop and invented this story six months after it was supposed to happen , made the mistake of giving a date , which mucked her lie up as I had proof where I was . Still had to go down there have photo taken and DNA .
No I was in Spain offy . 'She' went down to the cop shop and invented this story six months after it was supposed to happen , made the mistake of giving a date , which mucked her lie up as I had proof where I was . Still had to go down there have photo taken and DNA .
DNA? You're kidding? Why, if you could prove you weren't there? Did she have to give them some of her DNA, in case the lying **** tries to pull the same number under a different name?
No I was in Spain offy . 'She' went down to the cop shop and invented this story six months after it was supposed to happen , made the mistake of giving a date , which mucked her lie up as I had proof where I was . Still had to go down there have photo taken and DNA .
Well they took it . She was a bit of a fatal attraction woman I knew her from my mate who used to socialise with her , she wasn't my cup of tea as she would forever talk sexual innuendo in front of me or Missus . I pulled her up on this once and from then on she was causing trouble . She rang pizzas up to house and other much nastier stuff . She would sometimes be seen on my road . A crank !! , in my interview I made it clear she was mental and asked them know she has been found to be lying regarding me being on holiday at time of accusation will she face charges . They made no comment but would hope get card was marked at very least . Palace fan
Usually when they bail you this long after it means what they have is weak . Many years back a weirdo lesbian woman accused me of homophobic stuff I was supposed to have said to her in a pub I was carted off down the old bill shop and bailed to come back two months later , I told them in interview I was on holiday at time of accusation and proved it with receipt . When I went back the arresting officer told the bloke at the desk no further action and he gave me a slip of paper . No sorry nothing
Hang on a minute - what's the difference between the hand-wringing going on here about Jim Davidson, and people queueing up to have a pop at that bloke from Lost Prophets a few weeks back? You're either innocent until proven guilty and have your privacy protected, or you aren't, and don't. Witness Operation Ore from a few years ago, where the gavvers ruined lives (and in some cases, led to suicides) on completely misinterpreted 'evidence' of child abuse that was no such thing.
PS: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing either of the two cases, suggesting that either JD or the other bloke are guilty/not guilty, or passing comment on the validity of either allegation. Nor do I find it palatable that some people are clearly gleeful at the fact that a person they may not particularly like has been caught up in this.
If you're not comparing either of the two cases, why mention them in the same sentence and start it by saying "what's the difference".
There's no comparison whatsoever.
One has been remanded in custody for raping a one year old, the other has been bailed and asked to pop back in a couple of months time.
Well they took it . She was a bit of a fatal attraction woman I knew her from my mate who used to socialise with her , she wasn't my cup of tea as she would forever talk sexual innuendo in front of me or Missus . I pulled her up on this once and from then on she was causing trouble . She rang pizzas up to house and other much nastier stuff . She would sometimes be seen on my road . A crank !! , in my interview I made it clear she was mental and asked them know she has been found to be lying regarding me being on holiday at time of accusation will she face charges . They made no comment but would hope get card was marked at very least . Palace fan
Clearly something wrong with her if she was stalking you!
Comments
Operation Yewtree has been set up to investigate claims predominantly into JS, the trouble is he travelled around a bit and consequently most police forces in the UK would have to open cases against him duplicating time and effort. This allows one meta-investigation to draw all the allegations into one extensive case.
I appreciate that JD is not being alleged to have participated in any of of JS's abuses of children and sexual assaults etc and that's why Operation Yewtree has a separate strand to it which in my view is sensible as it's now encoraging people who were abused (allegedly) to come forward and they have a means to have their stories taken seriously and checked out. Again it makes sense for one set of police officers to conduct the investigation rather than duplicate efforts.
My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
Anyway, don't want to go on too much more about this as either I'm not making myself particularly clear or else I'm just way off beam.
Infuriating really.
My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
The link is that they are being investigated under the same police operation.
I appreciate that the media are being a tad sensationalist here - after all it's their job to get people to buy newspapers or open links etc, but all the articles I've seen regarding JD have made it quite clear that there is no link to whatever he is alleged to have done and anything that JS did and that they are entirely separate investigations.
The media can claim a public interest defence which I've gone to pains to point out is a qualified privilege and that if the story gets over-embellished by them then they lose that right. They've stated the few basic facts and that's it. I'm not aware that the police have made a formal announcement but as JD's solicitor has taken to the airwaves to vigorously announce that his client will defend all charges etc then you can take it as read that the arrest did happen.
PS: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing either of the two cases, suggesting that either JD or the other bloke are guilty/not guilty, or passing comment on the validity of either allegation. Nor do I find it palatable that some people are clearly gleeful at the fact that a person they may not particularly like has been caught up in this.
"Savile cops nick nick TV's Jim".
Not exactly clear there is no link from that, is it? That's my point. No need to mention JS. The link to JS is tenuous at best, but the headline is deliberately misleading.
If you're not comparing either of the two cases, why mention them in the same sentence and start it by saying "what's the difference".
There's no comparison whatsoever.
One has been remanded in custody for raping a one year old, the other has been bailed and asked to pop back in a couple of months time.
;o)