Jim Davison

[6inchcup]

So all the the charges have, been dropped against him,so will the people who made the allegations against him have their names published and be charged with wasting police time.

 

[wrighty1874]

They should do.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Interesting idea, however it would deter people from coming forward in the future, so is unworkable.


However if any of the allegations against him or anyone else are obviously malicious, band wagon jumping, make a quick buck ones, then I hope they get the book thrown at them.

The charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence, but in some peoples eyes, he will still be guilty of something

Better still is not to publish the names of these celebs (or anyone) until at least they have been charged with something, the press is so quick to jump on these people and speculate that even if no charges are made, mud sticks and careers and public image destroyed overnight.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Mud sticks and unlikely he will be back on TV anytime soon. Add in his homosexual rant on Hells Kitchen a few years back and seen as a loose cannon. No doubt this experience will form part of his next live act.

 

[doublebogey7]

So all the the charges have, been dropped against him,so will the people who made the allegations against him have their names published and be charged with wasting police time.[/QUOTE

That the CPS haven't brought charges against Jim Davidson does not mean he has been proved innocent (though he may be) just that there is insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, this is not too surprising given the time lapse. It does not follow therefore that the women making the complaint were wasting police time and even if they were proving so would be very problematic.

 

[TheDashingBlade]

Surprised at this. Thought he was up for a "nick, nick"

 

[Hacker Khan]

So all the the charges have, been dropped against him,so will the people who made the allegations against him have their names published and be charged with wasting police time.

If you read about the recent cases regarding sexual grooming and the trauma the victims had to go through in court, in some cases leading to suicide, I'd possibly suggest you may want to reconsider the idea that if the CPS does not have enough evidence to proceed in sexual cases then the people who reported the crimes have their names published and charged themselves.

Yes I am sure there are some horrific cases of men being falsely accused, but I am guessing probably not as many rape or sexual assult cases that do not lead to prosecution due to 'one word against the other'. Quoting from the independent earlier this year 'Only 1,070 rapists are convicted every year despite up to 95,000 people – the vast majority of them women – suffering the trauma of rape – according to the new research by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics.''

 

[Sweep]

If you read about the recent cases regarding sexual grooming and the trauma the victims had to go through in court, in some cases leading to suicide, I'd possibly suggest you may want to reconsider the idea that if the CPS does not have enough evidence to proceed in sexual cases then the people who reported the crimes have their names published and charged themselves.

Yes I am sure there are some horrific cases of men being falsely accused, but I am guessing probably not as many rape or sexual assult cases that do not lead to prosecution due to 'one word against the other'. Quoting from the independent earlier this year 'Only 1,070 rapists are convicted every year despite up to 95,000 people – the vast majority of them women – suffering the trauma of rape – according to the new research by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics.''

That's the point. How on earth do they get to the figure of 95,000? How do they know if they can't prove it? Everyone in their right minds wants every single rapist put away, but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. End of. No-ones name should be made public until charged. Accuser or accused. You may not like Davidson, but that doesn't make him guilty of these accusations.

 

[Hacker Khan]

You may not like Davidson, but that doesn't make him guilty of these accusations.

I never said he was guilty as I have no idea. I was making a point about the stupidity of suggesting that all people are named and shamed if they accuse others of sexual assault if the CPS do not end up bringing a prosecution for what ever reason. And I was only repeating what I'd read in a paper anyway http://www.holymoly.com/celebrity/n...st-homophobic-ableist-racist-tax-avoider67247

 

[Ethan]

There is a difference between having enough evidence to make a complaint, and the investigation providing enough evidence to proceed to court. The lack of adequate evidence is neither proof that he didn't do it, nor that the complaint was vexatious.

 

[Sweep]

There is a difference between having enough evidence to make a complaint, and the investigation providing enough evidence to proceed to court. The lack of adequate evidence is neither proof that he didn't do it, nor that the complaint was vexatious.

Nor that he did do it.
Surely it is fair to everyone that anonymity should be provided for all parties, until charges are brought?
As they say, mud sticks. Anonymity would go a long way to prevent vexatious complaints and probably encourage real victims to come forward.

 

[In_The_Rough]

Don't think it will damage Jim's reputation much TBH!!

 

[Ethan]

Nor that he did do it.
Surely it is fair to everyone that anonymity should be provided for all parties, until charges are brought?
As they say, mud sticks. Anonymity would go a long way to prevent vexatious complaints and probably encourage real victims to come forward.

The police had enough to arrest him, more than once I think, so it is a rather generous interpretation to believe the accusations were entirely false. Davidson will probably carry a large suspicion of wrongdoing for the rest of his days. He is either damned by the where there's smoke there's fire maxim or he dodged a bullet.

 

[sydney greenstreet]

So all the the charges have, been dropped against him,so will the people who made the allegations against him have their names published and be charged with wasting police time.

Why should they ? the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, does not mean that those women lied.

 

[Sweep]

The police had enough to arrest him, more than once I think, so it is a rather generous interpretation to believe the accusations were entirely false. Davidson will probably carry a large suspicion of wrongdoing for the rest of his days. He is either damned by the where there's smoke there's fire maxim or he dodged a bullet.

I understand where you are coming from, but you are ignoring THE cornerstone of British law. Innocent until proven guilty.
it exist precisely because of what you have said. "Davidson will probably carry a large suspicion of wrongdoing for the rest of his days". For something he wasn't even charged with. Whether you believe the accusations or not shouldn't come into it. IMO you shouldn't even know about the accusations if they can't even bring charges.
What if you on were on the end of false accusations? Would you be OK with carrying a large suspicion of wrongdoing for the rest of your days?