About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

GiRTh · 17-01-2014, 08:27 PM

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.

letmein · 17-01-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:30 PM

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

Benjamin · 17-01-2014, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

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.

letmein · 17-01-2014, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catweazel

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

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. · 17-01-2014, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

lmao the Linda haters do way too much

Videostar · 17-01-2014, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letmein

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letmein

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.

Me. I Am Salman · 17-01-2014, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The desperation is real

jet · 17-01-2014, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Videostar

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 · 17-01-2014, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catweazel

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.

Macie Lightfoot · 17-01-2014, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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:

Originally Posted by 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...

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! · 17-01-2014, 08:40 PM

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.

Parmy · 17-01-2014, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet

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. · 17-01-2014, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobInnes

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.