Vocal Voices

..... how much work Jim Davidson lost when the police released his name, details of his arrest, and the allegations of sexual abuse made against him to the media?

The CPS has now announced that no further action will be taken against him; he is free and innocent.

I hope he and his lawyers go after the police and CPS for every penny he lost, plus a bit of compensation. I say that, not because I am a fan, I'm not, but because I am sick of the police releasing names and tit-bits and tittle-tattle to the media. All that leads to is speculation in the media, speculation which could jeopardise a fair trial should things come to that, or ruin a person's reputation if not.

People who are arrested have every right to remain anonymous until they are charged; and even at that time all that needs to be given are the bare facts of the case.

I'll second that.

Thirded.
Incidentally there have been two cases of young teenage eastern european girls running away from home in this area recently. "Men" have been arrested in connection with both offences, but their names have not been given out.
"Justice" can be quite selective, can't it?

The thing that troubles me is that they haven't actually said that he is innocent. They said that no action will be taken against him and he is free from further court/police action. I just keep wondering if the person who made the allegation changed their mind for various reasons.

My guess is it's more likely whatever the "evidence" was, the CPS thought that it was insufficient to give them a cast-iron conviction, and they wouldn't want a high-profile celebrity being acquitted at a jury trial.

I don't think Davidson will sue anyone yet awhile as there is still one "case" hanging over him - the allegation of an incident in the Falklands. Ultimately, I hope he and his lawyers do go after the police and CPS and - if it can be shown that they were false / malicious - the people who made the allegations.

Quite right Cromwell, just men, no details.

Rodo wrote:The thing that troubles me is that they haven't actually said that he is innocent. They said that no action will be taken against him and he is free from further court/police action.

So he is guilty?

Maybe, maybe not, but by outing him before any charges were made means that he is now guilty in the minds of some, so the damage has been done. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that Jim Davidson is a dirty so-and-so. No more panto's, don't let him near the children.

Ossie, as I understand it the Falklands case is a separate enquiry.

Lets be honest, young girls threw themselves at these so called celebrities.
I think it would be very difficult for any young woman today to accuse the celebrities of sexual abuse.. One only needs to look at these teenagers, the provocative way they dress and behave, the morals of the female celebrities whom they attempt to emulate. A poor fella doesn't stand a chance

Kate wrote:Lets be honest, young girls threw themselves at these so called celebrities.
I think it would be very difficult for any young woman today to accuse the celebrities of sexual abuse.. One only needs to look at these teenagers, the provocative way they dress and behave, the morals of the female celebrities whom they attempt to emulate. A poor fella doesn't stand a chance

I think. Kate .that the views you express here have a lot of truth in them, but I fear that many people will not agree with you.

Provocative dress and behaviour is not always an invitation to inappropriate behaviour, and certainly not in the case of under-aged girls.