Why didn't Linda bring up the Savile case?
 

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

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

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

uum because Jim Davidson has been released without charge.

OMFFFG that would have been amazing

snap Verbal.

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

:joker:

Jim speaks openly about this anyway.

Give her time!

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/a...ection.society

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.

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.

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

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

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

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:

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-

He wasn't found not guilty.

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

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

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.

[QUOTE=Benjamin;6628708]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-[/QUOTE]

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

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...