Why didn't Linda bring up the Savile case?

[letmein]

What's good for the goose...:cat:

Being tied to a pedophilia case isn't a good look. :nono:

[Verbal]

Maybe cos he was found not guilty? And her husband was convicted of what he was accused of and filmed bloody doing it?

[Cherie]

uum because Jim Davidson has been released without charge.

[Me. I Am Salman]

OMFFFG that would have been amazing

[Cherie]

snap Verbal.

[Videostar]

What's good for the goose...:cat:

Being tied to a pedophilia case isn't a good look. :nono:

Because he wasn't guilty of anything and he could sue her chubby ass if she did. :spin:

[Vanessa]

Because he wasn't guilty of anything and he could sue her chubby ass if she did. :spin:

:joker:

[optimisticcynic]

What's good for the goose...:cat:

Being tied to a pedophilia case isn't a good look. :nono:

Jim speaks openly about this anyway.

[Kazanne]

Give her time!

[Verbal]

The kind of people who think this is in any way relevant are the kind of people that would do this http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

[joeysteele]

That would be dangerous ground for her to go on considering the Police and CPS said there would be no charges and no action was to be taken as to Jim, hence his freedom to be in BB this year.
That is a world away from her husband being caught on camera stealing and being arrested ,charged, tried and fined.

One got no further than allegations in Jim's case, the other ended up established fact in law as to her husband.

[joeysteele]

Jim speaks openly about this anyway.

He has indeed, he was talking to Linda when they were handcuffed and described the rotten year or so it had been living under those false allegations.

[Northern Monkey]

As said above,She would get sued for all her benefits since Jim did'nt actually do any of that.

[Kazanne]

Because it would have been a lie,saying that it might happen yet

[Pete.]

She did say 'We haven't talked about his past' which is true. I think it's right that she has not talked about Yewtree - don't give steak to the bully they'll only eat it

[Macie Lightfoot]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

[Kazanne]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

http://ts2.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H.4537720105731325&pid=1.7

[Cherie]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.


Course she is, "I will finish him" is still ringing in my ears.:joker:

[Benjamin]

She doesn't need to bring it up. One because she wouldn't sink that low and two it held no relevance to their argument.

-awaits Jim fans to jump on this-

[letmein]

Because he wasn't guilty of anything and he could sue her chubby ass if she did. :spin:

He wasn't found not guilty.

[Vanessa]

She doesn't need to bring it up. One because she wouldn't sink that low and two it held no relevance to their argument.

-awaits Jim fans to jump on this-

I think it's only a matter of time until she brings it up. Hope i'm wrong.

[Jordan.]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

She doesn't need to bring it up. One because she wouldn't sink that low and two it held no relevance to their argument.

-awaits Jim fans to jump on this-

Agreed http://a.mod-site.net/s/appl.gif

[joeysteele]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

Insufficient evidence means there is not proof of guilt, if it was really felt the evidence could be substantiated in time then further investigation would continue.
In Jim's case this case file is closed, there is to be 'no' action taken.

That means in law, he has not done anything where guilt can be proved or the allegations even to be substantiated in any way.
To say otherwise,if she dared, could find her sued by Jim,unlikely but it would be an option were she or anyone else to insinuate anything as to that publicly.

[Cherie]

She doesn't need to bring it up. One because she wouldn't sink that low and two it held no relevance to their argument.

-awaits Jim fans to jump on this-

So you can speak and no one has the right to reply, how does that work on a forum? :suspect:

[Josy]

Probably because that was nothing to do with her husband stealing money and had no relation to the argument?

Also I doubt BB would have shown it since Jim was found not guilty on all charges...

[GiRTh]

Tactically it was a stroke of genius to not bring up operation Yewtree. Linda had been poking Jim for weeks and finally got him to say something inappropriate, she'd have lost her edge if she'd have resorted to such underhand tactics. Well played Linda, some of us see right thru your plan. :idc:

[letmein]

Insufficient evidence means there is not proof of guilt, if it was really felt the evidence could be substantiated in time then further investigation would continue.
In Jim's case this case file is closed, there is to be 'no' action taken.

That means in law, he has not done anything where guilt can be proved or the allegations even to be substantiated in any way.
To say otherwise,if she dared, could find her sued by Jim,unlikely but it would be an option were she or anyone else to insinuate anything as to that publicly.

The case can be reopened at any time, and no, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Mark my words, he'll be on trial in less then two years. He's a vile pos.

[Benjamin]

I think it's only a matter of time until she brings it up. Hope i'm wrong.

I don't think she would bring it up. Why would she? People speculating that she may and secretly hoping that she will so they have another reason to defend Jim.

[Vanessa]

I don't think she would bring it up. Why would she? People speculating that she may and secretly hoping that she will so they have another reason to defend Jim.

I think she would try anything to bring him down. She hates him that much.

[Crimson Dynamo]

She cant bring it up. and she wont. It really is that simple.

[Benjamin]

I think she would try anything to bring him down. She hates him that much.

Well she hasn't mentioned anything of his past yet, but he has on hers. :pipe:

[letmein]

Probably because that was nothing to do with her husband stealing money and had no relation to the argument?

Also I doubt BB would have shown it since Jim was found not guilty on all charges...

Bull****. He's pulling out the "your husband is a thief" to the house to get back at her. There was NO RELATION to anything in the house to bring that up except to hurt her.

[letmein]

She cant bring it up. and she wont. It really is that simple.

She can bring it up and not be sued. He was taken in. That's a fact.

[jet]

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

Both your points are very true.

[Jordan.]

Tactically it was a stroke of genius to not bring up operation Yewtree. Linda had been poking Jim for weeks and finally got him to say something inappropriate, she'd have lost her edge if she'd have resorted to such underhand tactics. Well played Linda, some of us see right thru your plan. :idc:

lmao the Linda haters do way too much

[Videostar]

He wasn't found not guilty.

No evidence = not guilty.

And it hasn't stopped the police charging others with these crimes when it ended up being thrown out of court.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The case can be reopened at any time, and no, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Mark my words, he'll be on trial in less then two years. He's a vile pos.

Yes some 58 year old woman will say that in 1979 he fell over in Poole in Dorset and touched her ankle. Since that vile incident she has become deformed and grown 2 additional labias that she calls Dave and Barney.

The cops wont buy it. :nono:

[Me. I Am Salman]

Tactically it was a stroke of genius to not bring up operation Yewtree. Linda had been poking Jim for weeks and finally got him to say something inappropriate, she'd have lost her edge if she'd have resorted to such underhand tactics. Well played Linda, some of us see right thru your plan. :idc:

The desperation is real

[jet]

No evidence = not guilty.

And it hasn't stopped the police charging others with these crimes when it ended up being thrown out of court.

Someone can't be found 'not guilty' unless they have been on trial.
You are also incorrect to say there was 'NO' evidence' - he was released without charge because there was INSUFFICIENT evidence which implies there was some evidence but not firm enough to charge him.

[Cherie]

Yes some 58 year old woman will say that in 1979 he fell over in Poole in Dorset and touched her ankle. Since that vile incident she has become deformed and grown 2 additional labias that she calls Dave and Barney.

The cops wont buy it. :nono:

:joker:

[Macie Lightfoot]

Insufficient evidence means there is not proof of guilt, if it was really felt the evidence could be substantiated in time then further investigation would continue.
In Jim's case this case file is closed, there is to be 'no' action taken.

That means in law, he has not done anything where guilt can be proved or the allegations even to be substantiated in any way.
To say otherwise,if she dared, could find her sued by Jim,unlikely but it would be an option were she or anyone else to insinuate anything as to that publicly.

Probably because that was nothing to do with her husband stealing money and had no relation to the argument?

Also I doubt BB would have shown it since Jim was found not guilty on all charges...

This... simply isn't true. The two incidents were in 1978 and 1982 and because they weren't pursued at the time (either because of lack of evidence or the same political environment that silenced Savile's crimes similarly) there would obviously be even less evidence available 30 years later. The charges were dropped for lack of evidence, that doesn't mean he was tried and found innocent or even not guilty.

But yeah, it's ridiculous appalling that Jim Davidson of all people is dragging up other people's pasts.

[Rob!]

Wouldn't put it past her - but having said that, even if she did, they'd have to be very careful about the editing of it as it's an ongoing investigation, even if it doesn't involve Jim any more.

[Beso]

Someone can't be found 'not guilty' unless they have been on trial.
You are also incorrect to say there was 'NO' evidence' - he was released without charge because there was INSUFFICIENT evidence which implies there was some evidence but not firm enough to charge him.

It was actually the initial accuser who dropped the charge.

[Pete.]

Wouldn't put it past her - but having said that, even if she did, they'd have to be very careful about the editing of it as it's an ongoing investigation, even if it doesn't involve Jim any more.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/7bbc1eb7aa3c69c4f33546121c20f650/tumblr_mzb8mtxxCH1qzoxt9o2_500.gif

[Vanessa]

Well she hasn't mentioned anything of his past yet, but he has on hers. :pipe:

She has said things, but hasn't gone into detail.

[Lister of Smeg]

Jim speaks openly about it as he has nothing to hide .

[Pincho Paxton]

You are innocent until found guilty, so Jim is innocent.

[Kazanne]

You are innocent until found guilty, so Jim is innocent.

http://ts2.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H.4537720105731325&pid=1.7

[Rob!]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/7bbc1eb7aa3c69c4f33546121c20f650/tumblr_mzb8mtxxCH1qzoxt9o2_500.gif

Best GIF in the world - thanks BBspy :love:

[Vanessa]

Best GIF in the world - thanks BBspy :love:

:joker:

[Pete.]

Best GIF in the world - thanks BBspy :love:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45781000/jpg/_45781431_carson_226.jpg

[Pincho Paxton]

Best GIF in the world - thanks BBspy :love:

Press play, and watch the gif...

h8vAamvdMIo

http://24.media.tumblr.com/7bbc1eb7aa3c69c4f33546121c20f650/tumblr_mzb8mtxxCH1qzoxt9o2_500.gif

[Pete.]

Press play, and watch the gif...

h8vAamvdMIo

http://24.media.tumblr.com/7bbc1eb7aa3c69c4f33546121c20f650/tumblr_mzb8mtxxCH1qzoxt9o2_500.gif
XD that is toooo funny i'm still laughing

[MrWong]

She could just bring up that he battered the **** out of his wife, slammed a weight-lifting barbell into her ribs and kicked her down a flight of stairs :shrug:

[jet]

It was actually the initial accuser who dropped the charge.

What difference does that make? Sometimes a victim changes their mind/are advised to drop charges because they can't cope with going through a prolonged trail or it's a pretty useless exercise because they have no proof after all this time and it's only one persons word against another.

The fact is, we don't know either way.

[Northern Monkey]

He IS innocent,Until he is proven guilty.If she said he'd done any of the things he was accused of he could sue her.

[joeysteele]

The case can be reopened at any time, and no, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Mark my words, he'll be on trial in less then two years. He's a vile pos.

I think you will be proven wrong, these cases are very much at the end of their investigatve time and in Jim's case the investigations went on for well over a year.

All was looked and scrutinised and in the end they ended up as allegations, nothing more with no evidence that would prove giult,
That means in the eyes of the law, with no continuing investigation and with no cautions either, he has in effect done nothing worng.

Are you saying he has despite the massive investigation into him by the Police?
Are you saying he did commit those crimes?
Have you got evidence to substantiate that.?

I am well aware cases can be re-opened by the Police, I studied Law for 3 years,however I myself would dare bet now that no way will Jim stand trial for any of the allegations made against him.

He may well end up in court at some time in the future on some other brushes with the law,not crimes of a sexual nature however, not as to these allegations, no way.