Jimmy Saville

[Woodsey]

I'm no Jim Davidson fan, but the fact that you don't like him seems pretty irrelevant to this issue.  I can imagine your disappointment when the allegations were found by the authorities to hold no water.

It just seems like a bit of a freeroll for all these people making accusations without any consequences if they are trying it on. I know a lot of these accusations will be genuine, but I think we all know deep down there are a few chancers in the mix hoping to make a few quid. Obviously there are a few where no charges were brought, Jimmy Tarbuck and Freddie Starr spring to mind, there are others too...

[kinboshi]

I'm no Jim Davidson fan, but the fact that you don't like him seems pretty irrelevant to this issue.  I can imagine your disappointment when the allegations were found by the authorities to hold no water.

That fact I dislike him is completely irrelevant to this issue.  Which is why I gave an answer to your question that is completely independent to my feelings towards him or anyone else.

[kinboshi]

Oh, and anyone who beats a woman like Jim Davidson did deserves to be punished for it.

[DungBeetle]

Once again - if he beat up his wife he can be charged seperately.  I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to him being arrested at the airport in a blaze of publicity.  Illogical.

[kinboshi]

Once again - if he beat up his wife he can be charged seperately.  I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to him being arrested at the airport in a blaze of publicity.  Illogical.

Did you actually bother to read my answer to your question? 

I also didn't comment on the airport arrest, that was obviously ludicrous.

[DungBeetle]

Yes I did.  As far as I could see you claimed that Davidson's character had no impact on your views of the situation before promptly having another pop at him.  Kind of undermines you.

[kinboshi]

Yes I did.  As far as I could see you claimed that Davidson's character had no impact on your views of the situation before promptly having another pop at him.  Kind of undermines you.

Well you need to read it again. 

Of course, I wouldn't want anyone accused of a sexual assault they haven't done, it must be terrible.  Probably not as terrible as being sexually assaulted though.

My point was that the focus should be on those who are assaulted, but of course anyone who is innocent of sexual assault and is accused is going to be tarnished by the "there's no smoke without fire" as people conveniently forget the "innocent until proven guilty" concept that they probably agree with rationally.

My initial comment was aimed at some people's initial concern is that some of these accusations are false and are financially driven.  My first response is that I'm appalled that people carry out these assaults and get away with it.  The more who are arrested, charged and convicted the more other victims will feel confident to come forward and bring others to justice (and hopefully spare others from being victims).

This is a much more important issue for me than a racist bigot having his career dented.

Arresting him at the airport was obviously wrong, and whatever my views of Jim Davidson are, there's no evidence to suggest he's carried out any sexual assault, and until I see any I won't think of him as this.  Others might, but they probably believe everything they read in the tabloids as well.

However, I do see him as a racist, bigoted wife-beater though. But that's a separate issue.

[Woodsey]

Actually I think they should focus on both issues that's why I posted what i did. I think destroying someone's career, stressing them to the max for a year or two, potentially damaging relationships with their spouse, costing them a lot of money defending themselves amongst other issues by falsely accusing someone to make a few quid is a serious issue also.

[redarmi]

Actually I think they should focus on both issues that's why I posted what i did. I think destroying someone's career, stressing them to the max for a year or two, potentially damaging relationships with their spouse, costing them a lot of money defending themselves amongst other issues by falsely accusing someone to make a few quid is a serious issue also.

Agree with this (heading to see a doctor later;-)). 

The problem is that the offense itself has such a vilified status now in our society that anyone that is in any way associated with any kind of sex crime or paedo is automatically ostracised by a lot of people whether they are guilty or not and can have their lives ruined in a way that would never happen if they were being falsely accused of another crime.  Those that accuse falsely should be subject to very strict penalties and always named in my opinion.

[Woodsey]

Deffo agree with the naming mate.

I wonder once charges are dropped how much they consider a false accusation or whether they just let it be?

[The Camel]

Actually I think they should focus on both issues that's why I posted what i did. I think destroying someone's career, stressing them to the max for a year or two, potentially damaging relationships with their spouse, costing them a lot of money defending themselves amongst other issues by falsely accusing someone to make a few quid is a serious issue also.

Agree with this (heading to see a doctor later;-)).  

The problem is that the offense itself has such a vilified status now in our society that anyone that is in any way associated with any kind of sex crime or paedo is automatically ostracised by a lot of people whether they are guilty or not and can have their lives ruined in a way that would never happen if they were being falsely accused of another crime.  Those that accuse falsely should be subject to very strict penalties and always named in my opinion.

Just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

Penalties for people complaining but not resulting in convictions would lead to less complaints and accusations.

Which would mean more crimes.

What I do believe is people who are arrested for sex crimes should not be named at the very least until they are charged. And personally think they shouldn't be named until they are convicted.

Outrageous that Cliff Richard has been named without even being arrested!

EDIT: Read post properly before posting!

[Woodsey]

Actually I think they should focus on both issues that's why I posted what i did. I think destroying someone's career, stressing them to the max for a year or two, potentially damaging relationships with their spouse, costing them a lot of money defending themselves amongst other issues by falsely accusing someone to make a few quid is a serious issue also.

Agree with this (heading to see a doctor later;-)).  

The problem is that the offense itself has such a vilified status now in our society that anyone that is in any way associated with any kind of sex crime or paedo is automatically ostracised by a lot of people whether they are guilty or not and can have their lives ruined in a way that would never happen if they were being falsely accused of another crime.  Those that accuse falsely should be subject to very strict penalties and always named in my opinion.

Just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

Penalties for people complaining but not resulting in convictions would lead to less complaints and accusations.

Which would mean more crimes.

What I do believe is people who are arrested for sex crimes should not be named at the very least until they are charged. And personally think they shouldn't be named until they are convicted.

Outrageous that Cliff Richard has been named without even being arrested!

Yeah obviously, I'm not taking about auto penalties for if a not guilty charge is found. I'm talking about a proper investigation about the person making the allegations if there is sufficient reason to. I'm absolutely convinced there are people trying it on in many of these recent cases because they know they are probably free rolling.

[Tal]

There are already offences for people who make knowlingly false allegations: wasting police time, perverting the course of justice and perjury. There also exist civil actions in defamation and malicious falsehood.

[redarmi]

Obviously not everybody found not guilty is innocent and vice versa but there has to be a point at which we accept that due process has been carried out and as a country that accepts the rule of law we might not like certain decisions but we should still abide by and respect them.  Perhaps you are right about complainants but there does seem to be a minority that use their ability to ruin peoples reputations as capital to either make money or gain revenge and that, in itself, should be a criminal act.

Obviously agree that the accused shouldnt be named in public until they are found guilty.

[The Camel]

Obviously not everybody found not guilty is innocent and vice versa but there has to be a point at which we accept that due process has been carried out and as a country that accepts the rule of law we might not like certain decisions but we should still abide by and respect them.  Perhaps you are right about complainants but there does seem to be a minority that use their ability to ruin peoples reputations as capital to either make money or gain revenge and that, in itself, should be a criminal act.

Obviously agree that the accused shouldnt be named in public until they are found guilty.

No I mean someone who has been found not guilty is guilty but there isn't enough evidence to convict them.