Just Had A Run In With A Lecky Scooter...
Society & Culture1 min ago
Do You Think It's Right
Do you think it's right that the likes of Dave Lee Travis are taken off the air following his arrest for mistreating (for want of a better expression) a couple of women many years ago? Do you think it's right that BBC Four should not broadcast editions of Top Of The Pops from the 1970s that feature DLT, Jonathan King, Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter? Does it offend you to see them as they were then? the Telegraph recently reported that Max Clifford had been dropped as a columnist for Surrey Life magazine immediately after his arrest for historic claims. Clifford replied "Whatever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'?" Much as I don't like Clifford, I have to agree with that. It remains to be seen whether Jim Davidson will be in the new series of Celeb Big Brother. I hope he is. Do you?
Answers
I don't think he will be tarred. There have been so many arrests that its dumbed down peoples opinion. Instead of being shocked the public are now posting threads like this.
08:25 Thu 03rd Jan 2013
In most large organisations (my workplace for eg) people are immediately suspended pending investigation when something happens so in effect that is what`s happening when these people are taken off air. I pretty much agree with that. I don`t think I`d like to see an edition of TOTP that features Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter either.
I do tend to agree that there is mass hysteria taking hold with this and yes people ought to be deemed innocent until proven otherwise, however it';s important to temper the rights of the accused with the rights of the 'victims' should they prove to be so and vital that we don't put people off reporting abuse. Do I think they should be taken off the air? No. As for Jim Davidson and Big Brother, can't stand nor would watch either.
I'm really not bothered whether Jim Davidson appears in Big Brother or not. I don't like him or the show.
However, I do find it odd that the press are tipped off in advance (presumably by the police) about these arrests and that cameramen are present to film it. It gives the impression that the police are keen to be 'seen to be doing something'.
Jim Davidson will be tarred with the same brush as Savile now, even though these allegations are from women who were in their mid 20s at the time.
However, I do find it odd that the press are tipped off in advance (presumably by the police) about these arrests and that cameramen are present to film it. It gives the impression that the police are keen to be 'seen to be doing something'.
Jim Davidson will be tarred with the same brush as Savile now, even though these allegations are from women who were in their mid 20s at the time.
//Just another part of the smokescreen to deflect attention from the real paedophile rings that operate in "high circles". //
I was under the impression that most of those involved aren't accused of paedophilia, but of sexual harrassment or something similar. There's a big difference and it really isn't fair to tar them all with the Jimmy Savile brush.
I actually think this witch hunt is disgraceful. Accusers are suddenly crawling out of the woodwork.
I was under the impression that most of those involved aren't accused of paedophilia, but of sexual harrassment or something similar. There's a big difference and it really isn't fair to tar them all with the Jimmy Savile brush.
I actually think this witch hunt is disgraceful. Accusers are suddenly crawling out of the woodwork.
Don't altogether understand a workplace rule that 'when something happens' an employee is taken off work. Why? Can see that if he's charged with stealing from the till or from another employee an employer might remove him on the basis that they have enough evidence to justify a civil claim, if not a criminal one, or because it might cause ill-feeling in the workplace or he might interfere with the evidence or witnesses, but why is it thought necessary to stop Travis broadcasting or Clifford being in print?
