Anorak

Anorak | Gentleman Jim Davidson, wife beating and the Celebrity Police Force

Gentleman Jim Davidson, wife beating and the Celebrity Police Force

by | 10th, January 2013

JIM Davidson is on the front pages. The Sun leads with: “JIM: I’M NO JIMMY.” That’s Jimmy Savile, formerly Sir Jimmy Savile, now a man covered in lots of lots of dirt.

It was Davidson who wrote of Savile on his blog :

Who’s next to be the victim of a media feeding frenzy? I have the answer to that. But, like Jimmy Savile, it’s only rumours. But when these ­rumours come out… WOW!”

Adding:

As odd as he was, Savile can’t defend himself. The bloke’s dead for God’s sake. Let’s move on.”

So. What is a “JIMMY”? The Sun knows:

COMIC Jim Davidson last night broke his silence to angrily deny claims he sexually molested two women.

It’s all horrible, isn’t it. The two women make a claim. The police investigate. They arrest Davidson. But he’s not charged with any crime. We should have faith in the investigation. But instead we are invited to play armchair detective:

…he angrily told a friend: “It’s not in my make-up to do what I’ve been accused of. If a girl wasn’t interested I’d say, ‘F*** it, all right then’ and move on. I know at the end of this I will be completely exonerated. I have done nothing wrong.”

What friend? Why not name names? This is a criminal matter. The accused celebrity is front-page news. That’s rough. Others accused of similar crimes don’t get the same treatment.

Esther Rantzen ( how are the kids? ) opined:

…the latest arrest of comedian Jim Davidson is deeply confusing. Yewtree is about child abuse, isn’t it? After all, it was set up as a direct result of the Savile revelations. The NSPCC is supporting the Yewtree investigations because it is a charity dedicated to protecting children against abuse. When Yewtree swoops, and celebrity after celebrity has been targeted by them, we assume that they have uncovered yet more sexual abuse of children.

But it turns out that Jim Davidson has not been accused of abusing any children. He is defending himself against historic accusations brought by two women who were in their twenties at the time. He is of course innocent unless he is proved guilty, and he vigorously denies the accusations. But the danger is that he is now tainted, and will be for ever. And the taint is the false implication that he was somehow involved with the Savile crimes against children.

He’s no Savile, says the Sun . He’s no nonce. Said Davidson before he was pinched:

“The Savile witch hunt is going a bit silly now. We all are starting to speculate…”

If speculation is so unfair, why get a “source” to speak to the media? If truth and clarity is all, what use a unnamed source? The Sun adds:

Five times-married Jim was held as he prepared to enter TV’s Celebrity Big Brother House and had to pull out of the show. He was accused of sexual offences against two women which his solicitor Henri Brandman said related to incidents 25 years ago when the women were in their 20s.

Says Jim to his source:

“I can’t remember last week — let alone 25 years ago. But I know this much, I have never, ever taken advantage, or anything else like that, of a woman. There was one occasion during a pantomime when a really beautiful dancer got completely rat-a**** during a cast night out. She was very, very drunk and I didn’t want her to go home in a cab on her own late at night in that state. I gave up my bed in my hotel suite and stayed the night on the floor of the living room. I never laid a finger on her even though she was completely comatose and wouldn’t have had a clue what was going on. That’s what kind of bloke I am — I’m a gentleman.”

Is there a more telling test of a gent than not raping a sleeping dancer?

Can this be the same Gentleman Jim Davidson whose ex-wife

You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow



Posted: 10th, January 2013 | In: Celebrities Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink