The Met Police Couldn't Nick Nick Jim

[sir.prize]

Now is the time to name his accuser - if one ever existed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754

[ChillDoubt]

20 months for potentially ruining someone's life doesn't seem fair somehow.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mum-of-two-jailed-after-falsely-accusing-5692016

For making such malicious allegations, shouldn't she have received a similar length sentence to one that the accused would have received?

[Gromit]

We should not forget that Jim has not been completely cleared.

There is the matter of the Falklands allegations, which is not under the juristiction of the CPS. A decission on that is still pending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22494519

[ChillDoubt]

Not really ummmm, your inference is that he has committed the crime he was initially accused of but has somehow managed to circumvent the CPS and prosecution.

I hope your never on my jury should I ever be accused!

[ChillDoubt]

Seems odd the Met have not interviewed him in the interim 3 month period since your link was published Gromit.

[ummmm]

No I didn't!! I said that just because a case is dropped it doesn't mean he's innocent. Lack of evidence doesn't equal innocence.

I've met malicious people.

[ChillDoubt]

Very well, have it your way but it would appear that from your posts, some of the mud has already stuck.

[ummmm]

Take my word for it. Mud hasn't stuck. I will not view him any different than I did before.

[Peter Pedant]

O god it makes it easier if we accept that the innocent are innocent, and the guilty are convicted and the set in between is very small (guilty but didnt do it).

The other thing is that if any consumer is caught up with being charged and then the charges are dropped, they should recollect trying to get a not-guilty verdct entered to stop the type of discussion being carried on.

And the third thing - Macmilliam said only a prime mininster should make three points in an AB post (or something) - is that am I the only person who was a aware that celebs commonly try to slepp with their fans who scream outside their bed-room window day and night ?

[anotheoldgit]

Mattk

/// Didn't know that. Seems odd as I assume they were under-age so can't be legally named? ///

They may have been under aged at the time, but they are not now.

Almost like saying that an under aged person committed murder, but was only found out a good number of years after, that they couldn't still be named.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Ah...I was going on about the general public's apathy with regards to his shows: ///

This isn't the public's apathy regarding his 'SHOWS' only one particular one, and this is not at all unusual in show business, many shows fail for all types of reasons.

[sp1814]

AOG

Dunno...I think most people don't want to put money into the pocket of a self confessed wife-beater.

Cards on the table...I used to live near Jim Davidson, and knew him and his family quite well in the 70s A nastier piece of work it was difficult to find (I knew how 'physical' he could get with his wives/girlfriends).

I find it really difficult summoning the energy to feel any sympathy for him.

[sp1814]

sir.prize

You are absolutely right about Celebrity Big Brothet though. I didn't know he was due to appear on that.

It could've relaunched his career...

It could well be that someone was out to 'get him'.

Do we know how many different people made allegations?

[ChillDoubt]

Do you seriously think that people make up these allegations for fun?
-------------------------------------
In this case (or any other) we'll never know as that is for the CPS, but take a look at the link in the post I submitted at the top of this page.

[AB Editor]

Afternoon, can we avoid libel please? Okay? Thanks!

[sir.prize]

That certainly makes sense, Ed.

[FredPuli43]

trigger has it. He won't claim for wrongful arrest, or sue the complainants, the complainants won't be prosecuted for wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice, all because Jim Davidson and the CPS both know that he has not been prosecuted not because the allegations are provenly false but because the evidence falls short of probably resulting in a conviction

[sp1814]

AB Editor

I would like to protest at my posts being removed as libellous.

This is from Jim Davidson's autobiography' 'The Full Monty', published in 1993.

"We’re (me and my wife) areblike a couple of boxers. On the first occasion, I poked her in the eye by accident. I actually went for the mouth. Thank heaven I missed, I’d have fallen in. I just took a playful punch. Unfortunately I caught her completely wrong. The second time I gave her a shiner. I threw a bunch of keys which whacked her in the eye. Just for a giggle she kept blackening it up to make it look worse."

It's impossible to libel someone when one is just confirming something they have already admitted.