|
Post by newsround on Jan 3, 2013 8:22:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by wibble on Jan 3, 2013 12:19:59 GMT 1
No defence but this case should never be put alongside that of Jimmy Savilles - Davidsons arrest was follwoing complaints for an alleged incident 25 years ago involvling two women who were in their mid twenties - I'm not saying it is wrong or right just that this is not a child offence case
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 12:22:26 GMT 1
I can't see where this kind of thing is going , it's all so long ago and has to be one person's word against another.
|
|
|
Post by <-Rinky-Dink-> on Jan 4, 2013 0:38:01 GMT 1
At the risk of making many enemies, my views are this:-
The whole Jimmy Saville thing has got way out of control. I know that many young girls were involved, but when you see them as they were then, on the telly, only one looks uncomfortable ... the rest all look very pleased to be there, thoroughly enjoying themselves. You can't tell me that they didn't know what was going on, many of them have said that they knew he would pick on one of them and take them into a 'closet' or the like and then come out a few minutes later, they have admitted that they knew what went on in there.
If they were in any way unhappy about it, they could have walked out - but instead they stayed because they wanted to be 'part of the scene'. It was only a good while afterwards that some of them, not all, went to the police to report it. The rest only appear to have thought of reporting it very recently ... when they looked back with adult eyes and realised that they were underage and he shouldn't have done it!
I am not condoning Jimmy Saville's behavour, of course it was wrong and completely abhorrent. But I do think there are a lot of people jumping on the band wagon and this includes the women who Jim Davidson supposedly 'abused'.
So ,that's my opionion, sorry if I have offended anyone.
|
|
|
Post by tinkerbell on Jan 4, 2013 1:58:08 GMT 1
I cannot understand why these complaints have only surfaced after his(JS's) death, and in the case of others, after so long.How can any of it be proved?Feel uneasy about the way people are being named,arrested and judged guilty by the public so readily.
|
|
|
Post by Cheeky Chops on Jan 4, 2013 4:06:20 GMT 1
Without evidence in some form, the police wouldn't risk arresting people. It was a different era and women were viewed in a different way but maybe this needs to happen to reinforce the idea that we now have value cos we sure as hell didn't in those days. I would argue that we ladies are struggling to have value in this day and age come to think of it but we have come a long way even if we have some way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Ali on Jan 4, 2013 7:13:47 GMT 1
If only these procedures happened in Delhi.
|
|
|
Post by JohnP on Jan 4, 2013 9:07:04 GMT 1
I can understand why women felt intimidated by Saville, he had a mafia style gang of people who used to follow him around and to challenge a celebrity of that status to a 15 year old would have been frightening.
I do not understand however why two ladies in their twenties have waited 25 years to accuse Jim Davidson. Unless they have witnesses how can anyone prove what happened all those years ago. Secondly, these celebrities should not be named unless they are charged. It is very unfair to name someone who is taken in for questioning. They may well be completely innocent and this sort of allegation never goes away. I remember Matthew Kelly who was accused of sexual offences which turned out to be totally unfounded but he lost his job and had he not turned to acting could have ended his career. It seems totally wrong that the accused is named and the accuser remains anonymous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 11:02:58 GMT 1
I can understand why women felt intimidated by Saville, he had a mafia style gang of people who used to follow him around and to challenge a celebrity of that status to a 15 year old would have been frightening. I do not understand however why two ladies in their twenties have waited 25 years to accuse Jim Davidson. Unless they have witnesses how can anyone prove what happened all those years ago. Secondly, these celebrities should not be named unless they are charged. It is very unfair to name someone who is taken in for questioning. They may well be completely innocent and this sort of allegation never goes away. I remember Matthew Kelly who was accused of sexual offences which turned out to be totally unfounded but he lost his job and had he not turned to acting could have ended his career. It seems totally wrong that the accused is named and the accuser remains anonymous. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Cheeky Chops on Jan 4, 2013 12:01:40 GMT 1
The problem with not having anonymity for accusers is that they would never report a sex crime. On the one hand it should be anonymity for both but on the other hand if one person speaks up then often quite a few others feel safe enough to also tell their story.
|
|