Forums Forums National News Jimmy Savile investigation.

why is a celebrity different to joe bloggs? so does that mean that anyone who says they were abused is only to be believed if the person they accuse isn't a celebrity?

As I've said on a previous thread about this, NONE of the people, celebrities or otherwise, should be named until they're proven guilty.

Once they've been named it won't matter if they're found to be completely innocent, their lives will be trashed.

Your missing the point.

It's because they are celebs that they are being accused.
The so called victims are after cash.

Looks like they're already guilty in your eyes?
Quite an unfair approach.

I see Jim davidsons life has been disrupted more (not to mention the producers of bb and its viewers) as he was supposed to be in big brother tonight.
Needless to say he is not appearing now due to the mindless slander.

I agree. Shit sticks....

Unfortunately the world is full of brainless idiots who make false allegations, I hope Jim is innocent and if he is proved to be then I hope the person making false allegations is brought to justice and named and shamed.

So called victims? It sounds that you have already judged the whole situation and have quite an unfair approach of your own. I'm not saying that these celebs are guilty or innocent, but it think it's a bit strong to judge everyone without knowing the whole story. It is the gutter press spreading rumours on an investigation which should be allowed to run it's course. I think a bit more compassion on all sides wouldn't go a miss. There is a reason why so many victims of sexual abuse remain silent for so many years, and some of the comments on this thread shows why.

You think so



Now this still means that 20% carried on, but OVER 80% drop in complaints (in an offence with a conviction rate of 95%) means a lot of inoccent people who happened to have money were spared.

Article

That certainly reinforces my belief that a lot of the complainants are trying it on.

Why didnt they come forward 20 years ago? Were they scared Davidson was going to track them down and kill them?

Some of the responses on here are absolutly sickening, how can someone be upset because Jim Davidson wont be appearing on big brother?if you have children or grandchildren you should be applauding the response in dealing with the problem,because your a so called celebrity it does,nt make you above the law, publicity is a double edged sword it can make or break,should those accused be found innocent then the same media will be used to flog the stories about the trials and traumas of the accused.

It's about time people stopped defending or accusing people until proven guilty or innocent. I really hope there is no truth in the Jim Davidson case but I think we should let the law run its course and then talk about the outcome, innocent until proven guilty.
All peado's should have their balls cut off and be publicly stoned to death.

what about the female ones?

Didn't think of that, just stone them publicly.

[quote=Grandpa_GeorgeUnfortunately the world is full of brainless idiots who make false allegations, I hope Jim is innocent and if he is proved to be then I hope the person making false allegations is brought to justice and named and shamed. [/quote]

No, it cannot be nice to have false allegations made about yourself but in hindsight, wasn't that the reason for this investigation anyway? Those who dare to speak, were not believed and others, who were in a position of responsibilty to them, gave no regard to the allegations. Probably frightened of upsetting someone........
and others, who were also celebrities and had an idea of things that went on, but said nothing, are as guilty as the perpetrators, in my opinion.