The Police Drop All Charges

[Karabiner]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

[Doobs]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Yeh, 6 accusers here, 10 elsewhere, so many randoms make up this shit, but if they said there house was robbed we'd believe them, right? 

[mulhuzz]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

how would you change the rules?

I agree that it is absolultely an uncomfortable and distressing thing to see someone innocent go through this, but on the other hand affording anonymity means more real victims come forward and can see justice. It's not a nice or comfortable choice, but it remains so, a necessary choice to make.

If, as I believe, on balance more people come forward and real offenders face justice as a result of anonymity than innocent men have their reputations tarnished (and I agree that the stigmatization remains forever, not just until innocence is proclaimed....which is worrisome, but believe this has a lot to do with media reporting and raises questions of open access to justice/clarity..) then the system is, to the best of its ability, working.

These are uncomfortable issues of course, and remember of course that in cases where we can show that there was malice or a deliberate attempt to mislead, anonymity can be waived and prosecutions tabled.

It's all a very uncomfortable business though, whichever way you slice it.

[Karabiner]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

how would you change the rules?

I agree that it is absolultely an uncomfortable and distressing thing to see someone innocent go through this, but on the other hand affording anonymity means more real victims come forward and can see justice. It's not a nice or comfortable choice, but it remains so, a necessary choice to make.

If, as I believe, on balance more people come forward and real offenders face justice as a result of anonymity than innocent men have their reputations tarnished (and I agree that the stigmatization remains forever, not just until innocence is proclaimed....which is worrisome, but believe this has a lot to do with media reporting and raises questions of open access to justice/clarity..) then the system is, to the best of its ability, working.

These are uncomfortable issues of course, and remember of course that in cases where we can show that there was malice or a deliberate attempt to mislead, anonymity can be waived and prosecutions tabled.

It's all a very uncomfortable business though, whichever way you slice it.

I have no idea of how to change the law and admit to having a tenuous personal connection as my mum used to be friendly with Jimmy's wife Pauline many years ago so I find it painful to hear suggestions of his impropriety when there were none at all at the time, because had there been any, I'm sure that they would have been circulating on the rumour-mill amongst the show-bizz crowd.

[Woodsey]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

[mulhuzz]

I have no idea of how to change the law and admit to having a tenuous personal connection as my mum used to be friendly with Jimmy's wife Pauline many years ago so I find it painful to hear suggestions of his impropriety when there were none at all at the time, because had there been any, I'm sure that they would have been circulating on the rumour-mill amongst the show-bizz crowd.

It's obviously a very tricky thing to deal with in general and part of the confusion is that we just really don't understand how long-term memory, or the memory recall of events as children/young adults really works. Sometimes indeed people are misremembering things that didn't happen, not being deliberately deceptive. edit: and to that point, @woodsey - no doubt deception/cash incentive does occur, but not the sole circumstances in which an innocent man is put through something as horrific as this.

No doubt that it is painful for those wrongly accused, at a level I couldn't even begin to comprehend. I really think the solution here is tighter control on reporting in the media, not just in the case of celebrities but for all accused. The counter argument to that, however, is that often if an abuser has abused one child/person, they've done it again and public dissemination of certain reportable facts may aid/encourage other victims to come forward. I really think there is no logical equilibrium to be found here -- it's a delicate balancing act for sure and suspect the only thing to do is trust that the judiciary, who certainly spend a great deal of their time considering such issues, are better placed to make the 'best' decision in the circumstances.

[the sicilian]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

[redarmi]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

Maybe I am a bit naïve but can it really be as simple as that? ie you say you were abused so you get money?

[kinboshi]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

Is that a serious question as to Savile's guilt?

[Woodsey]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

Is that a serious question as to Savile's guilt?

Not from my comment.

[the sicilian]

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

Is that a serious question as to Savile's guilt?

I see 400 allegations ... I don't see any proof.... Is there any clear 100% irrefutable proof ? Or is the weight of allegation enough ?...we see all the other celebrity prosecutions falling apart with the exception of hall who held his hands up.. In the light of cases coming down to word against word and the because there historic no evidence can be presented..  Whose to say savile gets prosecuted and is not cleared ?.... You can correct me if there is some evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt of saviles guilt...

[bobAlike]

It was widely known about Jimmy Savile before the allegations came out after his death. Unfortunately it was only after his death people started to take notice of the allegations and do something about it.

[Woodsey]

It was widely known about Jimmy Savile before the allegations came out after his death. Unfortunately it was only after his death people started to take notice of the allegations and do something about it.

Including some bullshitters looking for a pay day...

[bobAlike]

Also I believe anonymity for both parties until proven guilty and then the guilty party, accuser or alleged culprit, should be humiliated in the press.

[bobAlike]

It was widely known about Jimmy Savile before the allegations came out after his death. Unfortunately it was only after his death people started to take notice of the allegations and do something about it.

Including some bullshitters looking for a pay day...

Unfortunately you are right there mate.