In the news

You're right, it is a huge assumption. But it's the only logical reason I can think of at the minute.

Still, it's fine to call someone a rapist when there's absolutely no evidence for it. Well, as long as they're a celebrity.

Only logical reason? It's common for sexual assaults to go unreported

That's a horrible situation, on one hand you hope that these allegations are true because if they are not it means there are people capable of making these horrendous claims falsely. On the other hand, you hope they are not true because it's a horrible thing to happen. No-one "wins" when these allegations are made.

..well put.

Only logical reason? It's common for sexual assaults to go unreported

So the Jim Davidson one hasn't been reported? Funny it's all over the news...

For the record, i'm not saying anything against the women who placed the allegations (despite, in my haste, referring to them as attention seekers, which may or may not be the case), it's against the police/media who allow these kinds of things to be spread all over the world.

Now, several off you jumped my initial statement saying that these women could've been rape-victims, and you're 100% right. But is it fine to jump on the bandwagon and call him a rapist when there's been absolutely nothing said that even hints at it?

Say what you want, but I still think that's fucking ridiculous. But it's fine, is it because he's famous? I have no idea, but i'd like to know why.

That's a horrible situation, on one hand you hope that these allegations are true because if they are not it means there are people capable of making these horrendous claims falsely. On the other hand, you hope they are not true because it's a horrible thing to happen. No-one "wins" when these allegations are made.

I guess that probably would've been the better way to put my argument...

But is it fine to jump on the bandwagon and call him a rapist when there's been absolutely nothing said that even hints at it?

Yet you think it's fine to call the alleged victims attention seekers when there's been absolutely nothing said that even hints at it? The fact they didn't come forward at the time is neither here nor there.

I agree that there's been a lot of gossip-mongering since the arrests around the savile investigation started, and it is possible that some of the many allegations made are unfounded, but no one is calling him a rapist, because everyone knows that they are only allegations at this stage.

#rapist

Well, this has been unedifying.

I for one never called Mr. Davidson a shitty human being...

Neither did I. I called him this:

He's a wife beating, homophobic racist. And he votes Tory.

What's to like about him?

I stand by what I said...

So the Jim Davidson one hasn't been reported? Funny it's all over the news...

Follow the logic mate. Women gets abused years ago, feels powerless due to attitudes at the time and the fact perp is in the public eye. Attitudes change, women feels empowered to report abuse.

OR

Cynical women jump on the bandwagon.

OR

One of any complex situation that happens in real life

...because two attention seekers have realised they can get some good money out of it.

You jumped to a conclusion straight off. Argue it out all you want but you, like me, know nothing about it. Differance is I realise that and keep an open mind.

I stand by what I said...

I stand by what you said!

Oh, Mick...

Heading for a triple-dip recession

Which excuse is Gideon going to use this time? Floods? Santa?

Osbornomics fails again.

FWIW I shed no tears for Jim Davidson, the guy is a scumbag.

But. He hasnt been charged with anything.
Being arrested is not an offence.
It does not mean you are guilty.

However, it does throw a cloud of suspicion over him. A massive one. Which as someone back up the thread says, it will stick to him like shit on a blanket.

Is that fair? It is "justice" ?

Look at what happened with Christopher Jefferies (that is Jo Yeates' landlord in Bristol), the guy gets arrested in a high profile case and his character gets assassinated, he's wrongly labelled as a rapist and a murderer, which must have been extremely traumatic for him.

I think that people, even if they are arrested, should be granted anonymity, until they are actually charged with the crime, and then have to go to court. Why ? Because guess what, the wonderful police services in the UK get it wrong sometimes, they fuck it up, they arrest innocent people, they convict innocent people.

In today's world, with people repeating shit via Twitter, FB, and forums, the merest hint of an accusation can be built up into guilt in a matter of hours. Lord McAlpine being a prime recent example.

Victims of sexual crimes are rightly entitled to anonymity.
(As abhorrent as it might sound to defend them in any way) Those accused of such crimes should also be granted anonymity, until a charge, or even a conviction, comes about. Because shit sticks, and if a person is innocent, it isnt 'justice' to them.

But it's the only logical reason I can think of at the minute.

Mick, you obviously have no idea how the police could treat allegations of rape back then (have a look at the infamous TV doc) and how rape victims were often treated. Add to that the impunity of celebrity and there's a very good logical reason for not coming forward at the time.

However, it does throw a cloud of suspicion over him. A massive one. Which as someone back up the thread says, it will stick to him like shit on a blanket.

Is that fair? It is "justice" ?

Look at what happened with Christopher Jefferies (that is Jo Yeates' landlord in Bristol), the guy gets arrested in a high profile case and his character gets assassinated, he's wrongly labelled as a rapist and a murderer, which must have been extremely traumatic for him.

This is a problem with the media, not the justice system. The problem for the justice system is that too many rapes go unreported.

Spot on

This is a problem with the media, not the justice system. The problem for the justice system is that too many rapes go unreported.

Agreed. But the way to right an injustice is hardly to commit another one.

You must have missed the NRA's latest pronouncement on how to combat firearm offences.

Lets not forget that he's such a cunt even the masons kicked him out...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/04/fixed-odds-betting-terminals-poorest-communities

*H[I]o*wever, Tories blamed the culture of poor people rather than betting companies for exploiting them. John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham in Surrey, which has three betting shops, said he had been "surprised" by the spread of bookmakers in poorer areas.

"I put it down to the fact that poor people believe there's one shot to get rich. They put getting rich down to luck and think they can take a gamble.

"They also have time on their hands. My voters are too busy working hard to make a reasonable income."

[/I]

sad facts^^

unashamed LCC post, if Spaniards can do this, why the fuck cant our ancient
senior leaders sort out our transportation? 20 years I reckon at least before they wake up out of the dopey slumber
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/seville-goes-dutch

*"They also have time on their hands. My voters are too busy working hard to make a reasonable income."

*

If those poor people showed a bit of initiative they could easily get out of their situation. Maybe set up a little business, have people pay money to ride their horses or pick strawberries on their land, etc. Even if they sold off about a third of their silver and invested it in a few thousand pounds worth of low-risk share options they'd be fine. That's the trouble with the poor, of course, no imagination. It's what comes of selfish parents refusing sending their children to public school, you see.

You want to lather a little more sarcasm on there Bothers?