Funkii Munkii

It's just been announced that Humpty and Big Ted have been pulled in for an alleged fourway with Hamble and Jemima, it's thought that Little Ted spilt the beans in an act of revenge.

TelBoy

I used to fancy Jemima

An0n0m0us

They'll be putting a warrant out for Zippy, Bungle and George next.

Torquemada

I can only imagine what FingerMouse has been up to!

Funkii Munkii

Funkii Munkii

Geoffrey is on the run

Leslie

Surely if there are those who are guilty of kiddyfiddling then it can only be a good thing if the coppers arrest them.

Les

JDM_Stig

iTrader: (3)

a female in her mid 20`s isnt classed as under age is she?
Jim Davidson's complainants are.

boxst

Yes. But the burden of proof here seems to be on the accused. And that, to me at least, seems wrong.

If I knew more about you, and we were left alone together 30 years ago I can say that you abused me. That is just hearsay, but the Police will act upon it arrest you and drag you in for questioning.

How will your family feel?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I share the same concerns.

The law is currenty in a state of flux with this as now it seem actions is being taken on any verbal complaint on event that have teken place so long ago that there is no physical evidence or witness to confirm it. That is very wrong.

I am very fearful that the Saville situation has caused a bandwagon scienario with people making complaints over situations that occured many many years ago that could be unfounded or even misinterpretted. Possible intentionally for monetary gain, like what has so often happened with footballers and "kiss and tells".

In Jim Davidson's case he could have had some one-night stand with some 20 year old women...Yes, Women, not children. Its wrong enough for this to be publicised without any real evidence or conviction, but for people to mention paedophilia (or the name Saville) in the same conversation as this can be extremely damaging to a person's reputation, which is highly unfair. Lord McAlpine is a clear example of what damage can be done to a person's name by saying the wrong thing in this context, and good on him to persue everyone who hinted at any false or inferred accusations of wrong-doing including those that indirectly hinted towards him on social networks.

The fact is its cost him a job (big brother), because someone leaked his arrest to the press. Rightly or wrongly, it should not be their decision to make - it should be down to our courts to name and convict people of wrong-doing, not our press, nor our social networks to assume him of guilt until proven in a court of law.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I would have been surprised if Jim Davidson wasnt ******** everything back then, I dont think he is some kind of pervert, I dont think he is a rapist, I just reckon someone has decided to perhaps cash in on the current prevailing situation, if he did wrong then he should pay for it but if this is someone looking for a payout or something then they need prosecuting so people realise there are consequences.

TelBoy

I disagree with this. If Sally Bercow is found guilty of libel (and i haven't checked the current status of that litigation) then i think it's a sad say for the freedom of speech. Fine, if she'd called him a paedophile then ok, expect the writ. But to type what she did and still face legal action i think is a step too far. Inference isnt the same as an outright allegation, in my opinion.

And Ali, it's Savile, vile man Savile, not Saville

Leslie

Did I mention Davidson?

Les

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I've only ever had to type savile/saville/savvel twice in the whole of my life...make that three times now (or five including the ones spelt wrong ). You know practice/ise makes perfect

I'm not so sure about this Sally character; She was invovled in the spreading malicious gossip. I don't think she was naive in her twitter, she was bringing her followers to the attention of gossip that was being spread.

I've seen it on other forums where malicious gossip spread by those repeating what they heard elsewhere have got themselves into severe bother over it when it was found to be untrue and malicious. Its for the same reasons why I hate the gutter press and gossip magazines who up until recently had a free reign to print whatever they make up so long as they can afford the potential legal bills.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Your statment, whilst on its own seems valid enough. But can you see how by posting such a statement in a thread topic that is about Jim Davidson, the context of the thread may make it appear that you are accusing him of peadophilia to those reading the thread as a whole?

Myles

iTrader: (40)

I think the downright sly way she inferred Lord McAlpine's involvement is deserving of being screwed to the wall for.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The press are the real wrong doers in all this. They can't wait for the next arrrest and to destroy someone else's life whether they are guilty ot not. If Cameron had some spine he would rein them in like he promised to do!

TelBoy

No i get you, and i do agree she knew exactly what the rumours were at the time she posted her Tweet. But without directly mentioning the word paedophile i just don't think the law should be able to infer that that's what she was referring to. I don't know much about libel but surely you have to be explicit in what you say in order to be found guilty?

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

trial by media again?

Myles

iTrader: (40)

My grandad said once, when we were discussing Charles Hawtrey, 'He likes the boys, don't you know?'. Very much the same as Bercow's tweet, not going as far as spelling it out, just a maliciously mischevious comment that was obvious in its intent.
I presume she has given up riding the 'Speaker's Wife' horse now, seeing as she has used the whip a little too much?
Just my personal opinion, but she needs to be screwed to the wall for her sly 'behind the scenes' stirring.

TelBoy

I think i'd join that queue


But on the serious point, you're not alone, many people want to see her shafted (sorry). I'm just not sure whether that's because they genuinely think she's added fuel to the fire or because as Mr Glanza and others have suggested, it's because she's a relatively high profile person and just needs to be taught a lesson for the public's entertainment. If it's the latter, then i think that's an extremely weak case indeed.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I agree that the law isn't clear on this. And I guess that's why its currently being tested now. I do think it is possible to be held accountable for libel statements that may infer to a person without specifically naming them. But this case is the reverse where person's the name is mentioned, but the accusation isn't.

Personally I think she'll win her case, I mean there is only so much a lawyer can conjure up to justify quantifiable damages against a five word statement.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

I think you are probably right about the common reason for wanting her sorted out. I don't care who it was, much like the Tom Daley baiter, or the idiot who made what he thought was a clever comment post-Muamba's collapse. These fools may not be intelligent to understand the power of the internet, but Sally Bercow should. Intelligent AND in a position where she is exposed to the same kind of comment as she dished out to McAlpine. That almost makes it worse, being in a position to understand how a crass comment can destroy someone's life, but going ahead in any case, with a playground giggle.

scoobynutta555

Rein them in like Putin has? A free press is essential in a true democracy as part of checks and balances. The press is also guilty of exposing corruption in the highest places in government and institutions. Whilst it is true that elements of the press have been a law unto themselves regarding phone hacking and probably other unsavoury practices you have to be extremely careful what you put in place to somehow "regulate" them. There are already libel laws which are applied to the press. In fact the press is more open to the law than many Internet gossip and 'news' sites. We already don't have a free press as it is. In any case, phone hacking a major crime? Hmmm, pales a bit when put up against the reasons why we went to war in Iraq and the Kelly death. Both of which were thoroughly investigated and exposed by the press. A future govt might use any shackles on a press to try and prevent such investigations.

IIRC the Guardian exposed the whole phone hacking thing anyway.

What should be put in place is a stop on any one individual owning several papers, tv stations etc and pursuing a policy of undue influence.

zip106

George provided the ***** and Bungle forced me to use it.

Your Honour.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

You seem to be talking about government control of the media, I'm not! Just a regulatory body with some teeth!

Currently the press do what they want and despite your claims of libel laws etc. rarely get punished for their wrongdoings, but more to the point I would like them to not commit acts that require them to need to be punshed in the first place. All these people they are currently 'outing' as paedophiles will never get their lives back if they are not guilty. It's not what the press should be there for.

scoobynutta555

The press don't do what they want. There are many instances of unprinted stories due to risk of libel and often unheard of D notices. Indeed this week previously unpublished pics of Lady Di were unearthed which were surpressed at the time.

There is a fine line on libel and it is tested now and again in the courts. Regulatory body with teeth? How far down the line does that go? As mentioned a future govt might be further tempted to rein in the press to their way of thinking. Which is why Cameron is very reluctant to do anything seen as shackling free speech. Just look at what Shami Chakribarti has to say on the matter.

As for these historic cases being pursued, I must say I'm quite against 30-40 year old allegations being given police time. I think you'll find this is entirely police driven as they're trying to deflect attention from wider systemic failures.

The arguments being put forward by mainly celebrities with an axe to grind is quite simply flawed and entirely self serving.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

For the most part they do what they want. Look at the ex reporter Paul McMullan who paid a police officer for information as to the whereabouts of Denholm Elliot's daughter, tricked her, humiliated her in the paper and now partly blames himself for the fact she took her own life just after his article was published.

No one even got so much as a slap over the wrist for that! And it's one of thousands of similar tales. If that's your and Cameron's idea of what a free press should be you can shove it as far as I am concerned!

Oh and please don't tell me Cameron is really concerned about free press etc. he just know his **** will be toasted by them if he does anything.... he is allowing himself to be held to ransom frankly! Bear in mind he originally promised to act on the result of the Leveson Enquiry that he instigated. Now he is not interested having spent millions of taxpayers' money along the way.

scoobynutta555

I haven't said there's not bad elements of the press. Of course things like that happen, and they will continue to regardless of what regulator there is in place.

Many more people commit suicide by intensive bullying on Facebook than newsprint. Yet I don't see Hugh Grant preaching to all and sundry about that. In fact what safeguards are practiced by the likes of Facebook, who by all accounts don't even pay a 'fair' tax on their profits.

What irks me the most is the sanctimonious drivel by celebrities who've literally been caught with their pants around their ankles. Selling themselves to promote their latest book/film/whatever yet plead privacy the moment there isn't any £ in a story.

Over zealous regulation (which would happen at some stage) could see us head into another illegal war or cover up govt failings.

Leslie

If I had intended to do that, which I did not, I would have to mention him by name.

Any fault in misinterpretation of my post is all down to anyone reading it who is prepared to make an assumption which I did comment on earlier anyway.

Les