My problem is that every report mentions JS - when there is no link. Mud sticks and shit stinks - and in my view the people reporting this know fully well what they are doing, as do the coppers feeding them the info.
You seen the Mirror's headline today?
"Savile cops nick nick TV's Jim".
Not exactly clear there is no link from that, is it? That's my point. No need to mention JS. The link to JS is tenuous at best, but the headline is deliberately misleading.
But wat part of that is untrue or even a defamation? The cops were part of the same team investigating Jimmy Saville, so sensationalist and perhaps potentially misleading but otherwise true.
The case law here is Charleston v News Group Newspapers* - misleading headlines that aren't supported in the following article give the newspaper a defence.
Even the DM managed to get the point across that JD's arrest was nothing to do with JS.
* IIRC an article about Madge and Harold from Neighbours where the newspaper in question had superimposed their heads onto the bodies of two porn models.
And this thread has turned in to a discussion that JD would be proud of it would seem, some of the recent comments especially by one member make me want to bash my brains against the wall in despair. (not you nolly, that is a terrible situation with a weirdo who just happens to be a lesbian)
I'm losing count of the amount of times I've said so it must be getting boring, the press should not be reporting arrests for this sort of offence only convictions. Once this sort of news comes out it will affect a persons (male or female) ability to carry on a normal life. The rules have to change.
We all know what's going on here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Also, "Not charged doesn't mean not guilty"....... No smoke without fire bla bla bla....
I'm losing count of the amount of times I've said so it must be getting boring, the press should not be reporting arrests for this sort of offence only convictions. Once this sort of news comes out it will affect a persons (male or female) ability to carry on a normal life. The rules have to change.
Hang on a minute - what's the difference between the hand-wringing going on here about Jim Davidson, and people queueing up to have a pop at that bloke from Lost Prophets a few weeks back? You're either innocent until proven guilty and have your privacy protected, or you aren't, and don't. Witness Operation Ore from a few years ago, where the gavvers ruined lives (and in some cases, led to suicides) on completely misinterpreted 'evidence' of child abuse that was no such thing.
PS: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing either of the two cases, suggesting that either JD or the other bloke are guilty/not guilty, or passing comment on the validity of either allegation. Nor do I find it palatable that some people are clearly gleeful at the fact that a person they may not particularly like has been caught up in this.
The Police have a duty to investigate allegations - its a simple as that. Its up to the CPS to decide to pursue a case in court and a jury to decide whether somebody is guilty. That's how it works.
All the Police are doing is their duty.
I worry about the privacy intrusion for yet unsubstantiated allegations where the Police haven't even remotely finished investigating, let alone the CPS deciding to go to trial.
Comments
:-O
Even being a palace fan wouldn't stop me
You ain't got her number pal have you?
; )
But wat part of that is untrue or even a defamation? The cops were part of the same team investigating Jimmy Saville, so sensationalist and perhaps potentially misleading but otherwise true.
The case law here is Charleston v News Group Newspapers* - misleading headlines that aren't supported in the following article give the newspaper a defence.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jim-davidson-out-of-celebrity-big-1515633
Even the DM managed to get the point across that JD's arrest was nothing to do with JS.
* IIRC an article about Madge and Harold from Neighbours where the newspaper in question had superimposed their heads onto the bodies of two porn models.
All the Police are doing is their duty.
I worry about the privacy intrusion for yet unsubstantiated allegations where the Police haven't even remotely finished investigating, let alone the CPS deciding to go to trial.