Michael Jackson

[steve56]

thats a goodpoint yes why didnt he?Bigoldowl wrote:

> What I can't understand here was that a child accused him of a
> series of very serious offences. He is then found not guilty
> by a court of law. Therefore, the child accuser - according to
> the judgement - is a liar! So, it begs the question, why
> didn't Jackson sue that child for slander?

[Fred]

Isn't he living in Dubai, like Jim Davidson? Maybe there's chance for an ex-pat sex shop there.

[Robches]

You can't sue someone for evidence they give in court. If it can be shown they were lying, the state can charge them with perjury, but that rarely happens. Just because the accused is found not guilty, it does not automatically follow that the evidence given against them was a pack of lies, merely that the charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you could be sued for slander if you gave evidence, who would ever agree to be a witness?

[Fred]

Running the Dubai Comedy Festival and making lots of dodgy jokes about Islam...not. !sick! LOL

Apparently, as a patriot, he felt he had no choice but to move there after the last election. Or maybe it was to do with tax.

Ever considered leaving Blighty?

[steve56]

tax dodge?brerbear wrote:

> What's Jim Davidson doing over there?

[dynatech]

Ever considered leaving Blighty?


YES I HAVE, every time I switch the telly on or listen to the so-called "news"!

[Robches]

Plenty of people have holiday homes in Dubai these days. If Jim Davidson does, so what? He can spend his money how he likes.