Jimmy and wife Pauline. Happily married with children - hardly the profile of a sex offender. you must bring in character witnesses - no matter what your solicitor/barrister advises.
MIRROR 8th MAY 2013
Last night many of Tarbuck’s one-man show dates had already been removed from venue websites, with others saying his gig had been postponed.
A spokeswoman for the Theatre Royal in Brighton said: “We received notification today that he has cancelled this year’s tour due to ill-health.”
THE INDEPENDENT 7 May 2013
Entertainer Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested by police investigating an allegation of sex abuse involving a boy dating back to the late 1970s.
It's difficult to stay focused with such allegations ruining your career
THE MAIL 8 May 2013
Now police quiz Jimmy Tarbuck: Comedian, 73, arrested over alleged sex attack on young boy in the 70s. The 73-year-old was detained at his home in Kingston upon Thames. The arrest arises from new allegations made to Scotland Yard officers. Police have arrested 12 men as part of Operation Yewtree, including comics Freddie Starr, Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. All deny any wrongdoing and investigations are continuing.
Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested over an alleged sexual assault on a young boy in the 1970s.
It comes amid an ongoing row over the rise of secret arrests. It is common practice for police forces to release some details of high-profile arrests on the day they take place.
The comedian – known affectionately as Tarby – began his showbusiness career aged 18 as a member of a touring rock and roll show and then as a Redcoat for a Butlins holiday camp in Brighton.
Tarbuck was classmates with John Lennon at Dovedale Junior School in Liverpool. He claimed the former Beatle once spiked his drink with speed. The entertainer's first taste of mainstream success came in 1964, when he presented It's Tarbuck 65! on ITV. He went on to host numerous quiz shows, including Winner Takes All and Full Swing. In the 1980s, he hosted Sunday night variety shows Live From Her Majesty's, Live from the Piccadilly and Live from the Palladium. He was awarded an OBE for services to show business and charity in 1994.
Jimmy, get yourself a specialist lawyer, demand to see any evidence the police have before making any comment, that way you can evaluate the bullshit claims and take advice from a solicitor. All too often the cops ask a leading question, on a presumption that what they have been told is true, when in fact what they have been told is false and you may be in possession of factual information to disprove that allegation - but if you don't know what information the police have been given, how could you know what to say? However, sometimes it is better to keep your powder dry and force the old bill to charge you then simply make an application to the trial judge of no case to answer. Don't forget that the police are out to gain convictions, they are your enemy - they are not in it for justice and they won't investigate any leads that point to your innocence - despite the fact that their Code of Conduct, in investigations say that they must.
In one case we know of a man accused of a rape was in fact in New York at the time of the allegation - which he rather foolishly told them. Instead of dropping the case, the cops simply re-adjusted the date of the claim of rape - and believe it or not gained a conviction. If the chap concerned had kept his powder dry, he would have been charged with the date he could prove was a lie - hence no case to answer. The cops don't play fair.
If you want to keep your powder dry, tell the police that you do not want to comment at this time pending your own investigations as to the facts, and that you reserve the right to introduce evidence in your defence at any trial on a without prejudice basis - that it would not be fair to comment if not apprised of all the facts. Be careful here, or your silence when questioned may be held against you. A transcript of your interview will be given to a Jury. If you don't protect your defence in this way a judge may instruct a jury that you remained silent - and from that silence an adverse inference may be drawn.
If you want any free confidential advice on this subject, you can email us, or get your solicitor to email us to remain once removed. Ask your solicitor to see any email from us in full. Also, see: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~safari/
of the caselaw that Safari publish have has been invaluable. For example
check out the statistics of proven false allegation cases. Such
information must go before a jury - if they proceed. Any jury must be made
to realise that it is very likely that the allegation is false, as
supported by statistics. Sexual assault claims in the Metropolitan
Police are a good indicator of the true position - about 75% of which are
false. This raises the necessary reasonable doubt, which you'll need after
and other ministers took away your right to a fair hearing. Find out all
you can about your accuser. Why now? Was he promised compensation? You
This case is not a million miles away from something closer to home in the United Kingdom, that of a certain person challenging local authority, then being convicted unjustly of sexual charges - that if one looks at them closely, are completely out of character. It appears to us that given the opportunity, local and national authorities will use whatever is at their disposal to bury anyone who dares to question their administration. Freedom of speech? Yes, but for how long?
And don't forget that the system protects the claimant by hiding his or her identity, when very often that identity is the key to the public understanding why such an allegation has been made. Usually it is at the break up of a relationship, or some other event where the motive is revenge - typically, a woman who has been jilted will seek to attack the party jilting her, by making a false allegation. The sad fact is that under the present system, it matters not if someone is innocent or not. Put a person in the dock and make the accusation, especially some time after the claimed event, and there is no way of defending yourself. Then, with the judge not giving the jury guidance as to unsupported allegations, the bloke in the dock will be convicted.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.