Reader comments · Jim Davidson: ‘Gays’ in showbiz more likely to be ‘perverts’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Jim Davidson: ‘Gays’ in showbiz more likely to be ‘perverts’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Trying to inject a little life into your career on top of the scandal of a protracted culture of STRAIGHT abuse? Always was a classless, clueless t0sser.

    Leave him on the scrapheap where he belongs.

    1. ...Paddyswurds 29 Oct 2012, 3:25pm

      You took the words right out of my mouth Valksey. This turd should be ignored and left on the scrapheap where he belongs

      1. Could not aggree more. That’s all he was ever good for — the scrapheap.

  2. There was a time that I used to like this man. That was a very, very long time ago, when he was still popular and I was too young to know any better.

    If the man had bothered to do any research, he would know that most peadophiles are straight. This has been proven on more than one occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is involved in someway too. I mean if he did know it was happening then why didn’t he report it despite not having any proof?

    If I had heard any abuse was going on I would report it whether I had proof or not. This makes him just as guilty as any others involved.

    1. Sadly you are making the same mistake as this Davidson.

      Labelling Peadophiles straight or gay only confuses things. Pedophiles don’t have attractions to adults so their sexuality is neither straight or gay in the adult sense. They are attracted to children. Some are attracted to males, some to females and some to both.

      1. Indeed. Savile appears to have abused children of both sexes. Gender doesn’t seem to have mattered much to him.

        1. Savile clearly enjoyed abusing people whenever he could. He loved the power to ignore people’s boundaries, and he helped carve a huge area of public life where it was (and largely still is) safe to do that.

          Young people were the most vulnerable to him, but, there were many, many adults too, not sexually, but in such ways as abusing children in front of them whilst ensuring they were unable to act to stop him, and thus became unwillingly complicit. One can include the millions who watched it on live television.

          Labeling him simply as pedophile seems to me likely to help allow the many other forms of abuse he practised to continue un-investigated, as part of our institutional cultures. They were equally allowed by those really senior positions whose jobs, positions, or supposed moral authority meant they should have acted to stop him, and may, we must now investigate, have decided they at least approved, in as far as the obvious victims were females who “were asking for it”.

      2. I agree with what you have said but I’m not labeling anyone. I am merely pointing out that statistics have proven that many peadophiles would, in most cases, class themselves as straight.

        1. Concentrating on trying to classify the victims facilitates wider abuse. Those who propose categories for such classification all seem questionable themselves anyway – the psychologist John Money was a prime example, being himself widely abusive, including being a pedophile. We really need to question why his successors still refuse to list Abusive Personality as a disorder category.

          The fact is that those who ignore vital boundaries always do so in multiple ways. Acceptance of any of them as not worth investigating leads to the others, that may be yet more harmful and more hidden, not being uncovered.

          And, while all abuse needs to be stopped, those who can be brought to understand and respect people’s boundaries need handling differently to those who understand them fine, but get a thrill from abusing them. Some who were never allowed their own boundaries become the former type of abuser – hence it running in families – and are capable of becoming reliable actors against abuse.

  3. Peter & Michael 29 Oct 2012, 1:06pm

    The people concerned in this scandal are male and accused of abuse toward girls and young women, seems to us that they are straight and perverted rather than gay, don’t you think Jim ?

  4. Reasoning with him is like trying to have a rational discussion with a rabid mongrel. Ignore the twerp.

  5. What a twat. Surely he should know that most abusers are people with arrested development – he sounds like a prime candidate himself.

    1. “Arrested development”? As in short people?

      Oh you’re a psychology/psychoanalytic student! No, all abusers are people who disregard boundaries, either because they don’t understand them (often because they were never allowed their own, or their social circle imposes that – as in discrimination), or they get a thrill doing so – which clearly was the case with Savile.

      Davidson clearly enjoys talking about ignoring some boundaries, and not just as part of the work of a jester (who challenge and promote thought, and sometimes ease social adjustment to change). He’s arguably promoting hatred – so he would be someone who should be considered – but I wouldn’t say – from what I can see – he was a prime candidate.

  6. I think he is just stereo typing as most homophobes do. Can we link him with Nick Griffin please can we please they sound as tho they came from the same age!!!!

  7. I think he’s a vile man. I remember the incident with Brian Dowling very well – it was shocking and upsetting because it was vicious.

    How sad to see that Davidson has apparently learnt nothing from that and continues to promote homophobia.

  8. Jim Davidson is such a thoroughly unpleasant specimen that it’s degrading even to comment on his semi-literate witterings. He and Nick Griffin make a fine pair.

    1. seen davidson in a supermarket in a town in hampshire!talk about attention seeking!

  9. Rt Rev Dr Barry Rathbone 29 Oct 2012, 1:31pm

    This spent force of comedy should crawl back under the rock he probably hit his latest wife with to numb her enough to find him acceptable as a human, let alone a husband. As someone who has lived as a ‘victim’ of child abuse, AND been accused (by a member of our family) of the same on my own children 15 year’s ago after I came out, with the full support, at the time, of my now ex wife, I well understand the ignorance that still exists that Davidson so ineloquently displayed in this blog. Empirical evidence shows a strong lean towards heterosexual identity within convicted or ‘treated’ paedophiles. There are equally rare discussions about the number of women who abuse. I’m not saying there aren’t some lgbtu paedophiles, as there may well be, but generalisation like this really does not help. Why are people like him not passing on the ‘stories’ they have to the police? More importantly, why did they not report them AT THE TIME!

    1. “Why are people like him not passing on the ‘stories’ they have to the police? More importantly, why did they not report them AT THE TIME!” – probably because he thought it was something to joke about, as opposed to treat seriously – part of the institutionally abusive culture that clearly is endemic still.

  10. I’m surprised you even bothered to report what this disgusting man says.

  11. I have left skidmarks deeper than him

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Oct 2012, 1:32pm

    So raping and sexually harassing women doesn’t involve hetero perverts, abusers and sexual deviants? What would he be saying if it was only heteros committing sex crimes against underage girls? Would he say that showbiz is full of hetero perverts? Hetero men soliciting prostitutes is just as perverted and deviant. It’s interesting and revealing that when bigots like this ridicule and denigrate gay offenders because of their orientation, straight offenders seem to escape having their orientation called into question let alone derided to foment heterophobia. He’s not only a bigot, but a hypocrite.

  13. Midnighter 29 Oct 2012, 1:35pm

    If he’s inferring more gays are perverts, clearly that’s crap: the proportions of child abusers in both populations are generally equivalent.

    In terms of numbers, he’s not stating anything surprising (but I’m sure the Daily Mail will gleefully quote him on this).

    Eg consider those who like chocolate cake. Obviously if a population has more of a particular sub group (eg polish people) then there will be more polish people who like chocolate cake. It doesn’t mean polish people like chocolate cake *more* than english people, just that there are more of them which we already knew.
    (Swap ‘liking chocolate cake’ for ‘child abusers’ and polish for ‘gays’).

    1. Midnighter 29 Oct 2012, 1:42pm

      Re-reading the article it seems that it is Pink News’ own headline that is drawing the inference which we are all taking issue with – there is nothing in what Jim is currently quoted as saying that is technically incorrect as I pointed out above.

      Did he say something else or are we all being led to jump to incorrect conclusions here?

      1. That’s true, the headline is misleading, reading what he actually said, he doesn’t imply that gays are more likely to be perverts, he implies that it’s just as likely, which is exactly what everyone here on the forum is saying. Ah well, shame people can’t read (or write).

        He’s still god-awful though and clearly wants to sling some mud around to tarnish the gays. We all know most of the nasty pedos are white privilidged middle-aged men, it’s a theme as old as celebrity culture.

      2. Midnighter 29 Oct 2012, 5:51pm

        To those of you anonymously voting this comment down, would you care to explain why you are taking issue with it? I can only assume you haven’t got an answer to my question so I’m baffled why this seems to have offended people.

      3. Yes. I strongly dislike the man but the quote in the article is by no means as offensive as implied in the headline. It greatly misrepresents Davidson’s actual words, presumably for the sake of outrage

        1. Midnighter 30 Oct 2012, 2:39pm

          As do I. I am very concerned that as a community we risk discrediting ourselves if we go off ‘half cocked’ (as it were) and ultimately look foolish. Better to be clear that we are offended on the basis of something he clearly *did* say, specifically – as Iris says below – the deceitful way in which he brought sexuality into it in the first place.

    2. But he had no need to mention gay people at all. He was talking about the Saville inquiry. No-one else who’s commented on this has felt the need to drop in comments about gay people.

      1. Midnighter 29 Oct 2012, 5:29pm

        I totally agree.

  14. What an objectionable, common little man!

  15. ‘Kiddy Fiddlers’ are most often low life Heterosexual men who cannot accept that they are deeply unattractive to women – so they use their age, build, and authority to take advantage of young people – usually women – who cannot speak out – I wonder how deeply scared this untalented, obnoxious, misogynist and homophobe is feeling – in case his underage abuses of women come out!

    Jim ‘Scumbag’ Davidson – Greatest living argument for mercy killings!

    1. RoBCottrell 29 Oct 2012, 4:34pm

      No mercy about killing this scumbag!

  16. I really think that this story about Jim Davidson is incredibly………oh wait……no, can’t be bothered, he’s always been a ***, not gonna waste my time.

  17. Davidson, a misoygnistic, racist, homophobic, alcoholic wife beater.

  18. What a wanker.

  19. James Savik 29 Oct 2012, 2:19pm

    Has beens are always gay bashing to get their names back in circulation.

    The proper response is to ignore them. They have already gone away.

  20. Miss Priapism 29 Oct 2012, 2:25pm

    Does anyone else think he’s making just a bit too much noise about this?

  21. I’ll bank this knowledge and revisit it should there ever come a time again when anything Jim Davidson says is remotely relevant or something to concern myself with.

  22. Bill (Scotland) 29 Oct 2012, 2:42pm

    I’ve always found this man vile and his latest publicity-seeking comments give me no reason to change that view. I always found Savile deeply-unpleasant, too, but could never put my finger on precisely why.

    There are a number of other high-profile entertainers who similarly give me the heebie-jeebies and, quite frankly, I won’t be surprised if a few of them end up being ‘interviewed by the police’ fairly soon.

    The BBC Radio4 ‘Thought for the Day’ this morning was from a Roman Catholic person who gave the usual noisome ‘justification’ for why his sky-fairly cult didn’t deal properly with the crimes committed by some of its own paid agents (by reporting the matter to the civil authorities rather than covering the matter up and moving the criminals to other areas where they could repeat their offences) until they were faced with severe financial penalties, particularly in the US.

    Many of the media hypocrites saying they ‘knew’ about Savile, but did nothing, are just as bad.

  23. Anyone think Mr Davidson might have contacted Max Clifford in recent days?

  24. Just another, never was funny in the first place, homophobic non-celeb. desperate for publicity. I dare him to name names; and see multiple libel writs fly in…

  25. Child sex abuse is not about being gay. Nor is it about being weird, or wearing unusual clothes, or seeming creepy. it’s about committing a serious offence that wrecks people’s lives.

    Stereotyped ideas of a paedophile as someone who “dresses and acts like a nonce” did not help Saville’s victims, and won’t help future victims. Stereotypes about child abuse are the reason that Saville’s victims were ignored and feared being disbelieved.

    Of course many paedophiles are conspicuously creepy. Saville certainly was. My grandmother was a nurse, and she forbade me to write to Jim’ll Fix It when I was a child because she told me she had met him and suspected he was a paedophile.

    But many abusers hide it very well, and even Saville got away with it for decades because his charitable work and TV success did not fit people’s stereotypes.

    We need less stereotyping of “just another pervert”, and more listening to children, or Saville will not be the last prominent person to abuse.

  26. And most Jim Davidsons are wannabe losers sweetie. Now get back in your box and let the grown ups talk!!

  27. Why is he making this distinction, its absurdly redundant. Jimmy Savile was a straight paedophile by all the news reports so shouldn’t Mr Davidson’s statement actually read: “Straight entertainers are more lightly to be sexual abusers”. … It’d be a little more relevant, if only slightly less redundant.

  28. He’s also an active Freemason.

    He’s been accused of beating his wife and evading tax over the years, but no prosecution seem to stick to him.

    Funny that.

    1. A lot funnier than his dated material

  29. Can anyone take this guy seriously after this quote about him…?

    “Mr Davidson, who has had four failed marriages and battled alcoholism for six years of his life, was accused by ex-wife Alison Holloway of being a drunken brute who used to beat her, drove her to have an abortion and led her to attempt suicide.

    It was claimed that within three months of their wedding he had he had blackened her eye twice , kicked her downstairs and damaged her ribs with a training weight”

    Sorting out your own life Mr Davidson would possibly be a more useful use of your time or, when in a hole, stop digging!

    1. I didn’t know all that about him. (the wife beating!) The last thing I ever heard was that he was the founder of an organisation that entertained troops in war zones, a sort of modern ENSA, which made me think he was a ‘good guy’. But the one thing we’ve all woken up to since the Savile thing broke is that being a ‘good guy’ and doing charity and good works doesn’t make anybody into a saint. For all the good he’s done in one sense, he’s undone it all with actions of this sort. I mean Davidson, not Savile, although it looks like one was no better than the other.

  30. He must be a very inadequate person to continually make offensive remarks about others to boost his self esteem and career. Never liked him – even less so now.

  31. Repulsive little turd! Clearly doesn’t understand the difference between Homosexuality and Paedophilia. It seems that his only function was to give a coarse and loud voice to the vast cohort of low-IQ “Sun” readers….sadly a pretty large caucus in the wonderful lands of Great Britain. I believe that Jim D. feels that he is in the same comedic category as, and in direct succession to, such great comedians as Max Miller…..Never, my dear little runt….never!

  32. Ted Staines 29 Oct 2012, 4:05pm

    Rubbish, 80% of pediphilles are str8. Trouble people believe him. Yes leave him on the scrapheap.

  33. casparthegood 29 Oct 2012, 4:08pm

    Apparently he has a book coming out soon – oh well ….

  34. Jim Davidson: “What time does the next bandwagon pass?”

  35. Not even worth a comment

  36. Jesus Mohammed 29 Oct 2012, 4:47pm

    Interesting. When I heard last week that the police are now investigating lots of other entertainers of the 70s and 80s, I immediately thought they’re likely to look into Jim Davidson. He was very goodlooking back then and I know for a fact that he was out on the tiles till way into the wee hours.

    Maybe this is his way of throwing the police and the red-tops off his scent?

  37. he’s a has been….

    1. More an never was!

  38. GingerlyColors 29 Oct 2012, 4:49pm

    Let’s get a couple of things strait, Mr. Davidson. To start with Jimmy Savile was not gay, he was a paedophile, and secondly don’t go round assuming that gay = paedophile. We have no sexual interest in children whatsoever on this site.

  39. Don’t you even dare say gay in the same BREATH as that man Davison. Frankly you’re a vile creature yourself who is a misogynist, homophobic and a waste of skin in my eyes!

    That man was straight straight straight!…he wasn’t gay and we are no more likely to be perverted, whether we’re in entertainment or not, than any straight human being, be they a w****r or not!!

  40. Jock S. Trap 29 Oct 2012, 4:57pm

    Sorry but Anyone who ‘knew’ what was going on but Chose to do nothing are just as back as Savile themselves!

    Jim Davidson is a has been clearly trying to get some press coverage by saying such crap but it He any better…. I think not!

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Oct 2012, 4:58pm

      Sorry did mean are just as bad as Savile!

  41. OrtharRrith 29 Oct 2012, 5:28pm

    Isn’t he dead yet? Or was that just his career?

  42. A has been trying to get back in the limelight. Ignore the fool.

  43. Sounds like he’s trying to deflect attention away from himself and any role he may have had in all this.

  44. Davidson has always been cheap!

  45. Well, he should certainly know! As the old saying goes ‘It takes one to know one’!

  46. PLEAASSEE his career was over before the ark… mostly because he’s a dinosaur and the rest of the world moved on! Why is Pink News even writing stuff about this has-been? Sorry, this is not news.

  47. Sounds to me like he’s a bit nervous they might be investigating him soon…. deflect the attention from himself by accusing ‘the gays’.

  48. DIckhead dinosaur. Ignore him.

  49. Davidson is racist, sexist and a reknown woman beater.He should have been knee capped years ago. End of.

  50. A lower-class piece of council house trash.

  51. Ben Foster 29 Oct 2012, 6:48pm

    What makes Davidson think HE is above suspicion? The culture of celebs getting sex on a plate extends to him, too, and groupies rarely carry their birth certificates to the theature.

  52. How does he KNOW about all these so-called Gay perverts. Does perversion naturally come up in conversation when he’s around? I hope he’s on the police list.

  53. It hasn’t yet been proven that Savile WAS a paedo, it has to be said. The only evidence is anecdotal. I can’t help wondering what will happen if the case falls apart and it turns out to be some kind of mass hysteria thing like a modern day Crucible. I know 300 alleged victims seems conclusive, but it isn’t, really. I really do wonder where it is all going to go and where the hammer will finally fall, and upon whom.

  54. Who cares what a has-been hack of a pig ignorant former celebrity like that thinks? And incidentally, Jimbo mate, Jimmy Saville’s victims all seem to have been girls or young women.

    From what I understand, Davidson has a history of such moronic remarks. Is there any chance of an organised boycott to torpedo what’s left of his career, or is his caeer past tense?

  55. I think he(Jim Davidson) is a dangerous person when he runs his mouth off! He is openly homophobic. It is NOT more likely that gay people are abusers, in fact figures show it is heterosexuals that have much higher figures!

  56. Why dignify the repellent rumblings of this idiot by reporting them?

    1. Sorry – I of course meant ‘ramblings’.

      1. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:23pm

        rumblings works, too.

  57. One word to describe the erudite Jim Davidson: fool.

  58. so some boring homophobe who think is funny has made homophobic comment on a boring blog just to be noticed, how very desperate

  59. Dennis Velco 29 Oct 2012, 10:21pm

    A complete wanker.

    Thanks for this article and your reporting. What you do is appreciated.

    I posted it to my LGBT Group on LinkedIn to spur members to read your article and to make comment. I also scooped it at Scoop.It on my LGBT Times news mashup.

    Link to group >>

    All LGBT+ and community allies…. please come join me and 16,000+ of your soon to be great connections on LinkedIn. The member base represents 80% of the world’s countries.

    It’s core value is – Visibility can lead to awareness which can lead to equality. Come stand with us and increase our visibility on the globe’s largest professional networking site. Be a professional who just happens to be LGBT – or a welcomed community ally.

  60. I think he might be on a career come back and he is probably seeking some attention. Ignor this witless tit . His jokes were never funny and giving him this attention (yes me too) will just feed his head and ego with hot air!

  61. That There Other David 29 Oct 2012, 11:02pm

    Jim who?

  62. Clearly what he says is offensive. He was however very supportive of our local HIV charity when it was still a very gay issue, allowing us to leaflet and hand our condoms at his show. Paul O Grady was the only person to ever refuse.

    1. Lesley Hedges 30 Oct 2012, 9:42am

      But the serious side of this is that abuse tends to be ignored when perpetrated by what are seen by many as supposedly ‘normal’ people. When someone gives to charity and is heterosexual people find it hard to see them as abusers or otherwise parasitic on vulnerable people. Would Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe have been rumbled sooner if they hadn’t been married and apparently the ‘man next door’ ? As long as these stereotypes are perpetuated by the likes of Davidson, who will get plenty of coverage in the tabloids, vulnerable people including young women and girls will continue to suffer.

  63. racist, sexist, and now homophobic. What some ‘over the hill wannwbe ‘celebs will do for the publicity. Not a surprise really, has very poor judgement especially when it comes to his personal relationships. A shame really in the twilight of a failing career. Jim ‘who’ ?

  64. Jim Davidson 30 Oct 2012, 2:56pm

    Hello It’s Jim here. what I meant to say was that as most of the celebos I know at the BBc are gay they cannot be linked to these accusations. I am truly sorry.I am guilty of bad Writing not Homophobia.Please believe me JIM

    1. Utter Rubbish!
      You wrote: “To me he was just another pervert”. There are lots of them (= perverts) in showbiz. There seems to be more gay (perverts) ones than straight, but that’s because there are probably more gays in showbiz than most professions”.

      You’re just embarrassed that your homophobia has been exposed. Truly disgusting.

    2. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:28pm

      Well, assuming this is the real person, and not a joke, i just have to say, sorry, I don’t believe your explanation . Your history of saying offensive things about gays goes against you.

      BTW, as you haven’t been employed by the BBC for donkeys years, just how many celebs, gay or straight, working there, do you actually KNOW to the extent that you can comment on their personal proclivities?

      1. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:31pm

        I was going to add a comment about you admitting to being a bad writer, but I think I’d rather rise above your level, Jim.

  65. Wait, I’m confused. Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter are (were) gay???, that’s why they have abused/raped little girls?
    Did I miss something or is this just another homophobe trying to use a hot topic to make a homophobic statement?
    That’s a rhetorical question.

  66. David Josef 30 Oct 2012, 4:37pm

    Wankers in showbiz are more than likely to be Jim Davidson

  67. “Hmmm. I knew… and didn’t do anything. Mind you I had no proof. To me he was just another pervert”.

    So Jim Davidson has gone on record saying he is an accomplice to a nonce?

  68. Stonewall should have nominated this homophobe for there bigot of the year award. The only reason he spurts this twaddle is to get himself into the media spotlight and nothing else! He’s just vile!

  69. Astonishing to think that not so long ago he was ‘Mr BBC One Saturday Night’ – or at least that’s what they attempted to make him. You wouldn’t believe that now, would you? It’s about as unreal as imagining Jimmy Savile as a kids TV presenter…….oh wait…

  70. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
    Half of the women he has dated were barely legal!
    Straight men are just as likely if not more likely to be paedophiles than gay men.
    Most of these were abused as kids themselves.
    Those who weren’t are worse than the others.
    However people end up as paedophiles,
    It is still very wrong to take away a childs innocence.
    Just remember, not all paedophiles are men!

  71. Whatever people’s views of Jim Davidson, or his lifestyle, or views on homosexuality:

    This article is shoddy journalism, and some ill-conceived comments.

    False headline: JD: ‘Gays’ in showbiz more likely to be ‘perverts’

    He didn’t say that, he might be guilty of irrelevance by mentioning gays, but he didn’t say they were more likely to be perverts. This same article explains further on that he said they were probably no more likely to be perverts – just that there were probably more gays in showbiz, thus probably more perverts in showbiz were gay.

    Can any of the commentators review what they’re writing about please.

    Can the journalist change the utterly misleading headline?

    Also, those who complain of Jim Davidson’s allegedly horrific behaviour in his private life are perhaps entitled to do so, but hypocrisy doesn’t make someone’s position correct, or incorrect. If someone is ‘right’ – whether or not they are hypocritical, or even merely a ‘bad’ person doesn’t change that.

    1. P.s. The last comment wasn’t intended to imply that Jim Davidson’s observations/assumptions were correct. I hold no particular view, and feel the question he raises is much less relevant (if at all relevant) than the other related issues.

    2. The journalists and the commenters were right, it’s you who have got a problem with reading comprehension.

      1. Peter M, can you explain why, or at least address the arguments I put?

  72. bet he wishes he hadnt made those comments now that we know he is a sexual predator of young girls

  73. P A Crawley 18 Mar 2013, 5:18am

    Is Davidson wrong?
    Isn’t the whole of the BBC populated by perverts of all sexualities who use their powerful fascism to protect their evil?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.