The Met Police Couldn't Nick Nick Jim

[sir.prize]

Now is the time to name his accuser - if one ever existed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754

[hc4361]

The accuser should not be named unless there is sufficient evidence to prove he or she is lying.
There isn't. There is insufficient evidence against Davidson to prosecute him.

[sir.prize]

So why name Jim Davidson in the first instance?

[hc4361]

Most of the judiciary and chief constables want to ban the naming of defendants until they are found guilty but this would mean secret arrests, which has to be a bad thing.

How could the police carry out investigations if they have to ensure that everyone they question or contact must sign a gagging order? So must the neighbours' who witnessed the defendant being arrested at his house.
And his employers and colleagues.

Say a suspect jumped bail and disappeared - would the police be able to appeal to the public for help, as they do now, or would that infringe the defendant's rights?

I believe the legal process should be open from beginning to end, unless naming the suspect would identify a child victim or similar. Refusing to name a suspect results in speculation and finger pointing as happens now when another man, unnamed, has been arrested by the Yewtree Op. Lots of names are bandied about on Twitter, Reddit and the like.

I don't want secret arrests, secret trials. It's not good for society and it's not good for justice.

[ichkeria]

If I was Morrison I'd take my good fortune and keep quiet ...

[ichkeria]

...and if I was Davidson I'd be even more careful:-)

[tonyav]

Jim Morrison has been dead for a few years now, ichkeria.

[pixie373]

There were ten accusers, but not enough evidence. Although it would be hard to keep arrests secret, i don't think names should be printed in newspapers without a conviction

[sir.prize]

What good fortune? The guy was minding his own business, arrested TWICE by cops, unable to obtain work - then told there is no charge. Yeah ok, would you be happy with that?

And I still say the accuser/s should be named.

[pixie373]

Sorry. Ten allegations, doesn't mean ten accusers, necessarily

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Unless the accusation was declared malicious Sir.prize then you are foolish to think it's a good idea to name the accusers.
They might not be lying. Have you thought of that?

[pixie373]

Accusers definitely shouldn't be named. It will put people off coming forward. And they may well be telling the truth.

[sir.prize]

Mojo and pixie - please answer this

The guy was minding his own business, arrested TWICE by cops, unable to obtain work - then told there is no charge. Yeah ok, would you be happy with that?

[sir.prize]

Come on, pixie. It appears that Jim Davidson could have been telling the truth.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

You say he was minding his own business, the accuser says not. Were you there?
This has been dropped through lack of evidence. Many rape cases are because without sufficient evidence the likely outcome doesn't justify the costs.
It doesn't mean it didn't happen though and it seems that you would like to traumatise the victim further for your pound of flesh.
That attitude stinks.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I don't agree with naming the accused so freely either. I think the investigation should have reached a certain point before that happens.

[Mattk]

No charges are being brought but only because there was "insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to all complaints".

I agree that the accusers should not be named but at the same time can see why the identity of the accused should also be protected.

[sir.prize]

Mojo, please keep up. When I said he was minding his own business, I meant when he was arrested.

[sir.prize]

Mattk - I understand your stance; but it does seem strange that the Rolf Harris 'accusers' have been named.

[sp1814]

sir.prize

You say that due to these arrests, Mr Davidson was unable to obtain work.
I strongly suspect that his unfortunate employment situation had bog all to do with the arrests...

[Mattk]

Didn't know that. Seems odd as I assume they were under-age so can't be legally named?