Well it appears no action is being taken against Jim Davidson.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754
One of the things which bothers me about all this is that any number of people have or are going to have their names associated with this abuse and for those who're innocent there's virtually no way they can ever prove it. If it isn't incumbent upon the CPS to clarify just what they mean when they say 'insufficient evidence' perhaps it ought to be. It seems to me that the term 'insufficient' is extremely vague and doesn't allow the public to distinguish between 'virtually no hard evidence' and 'not quite enough evidence' for example. Where such accusations are shown to have been malicious I'd also like to see a great deal more publicity of that fact since it's extremely unfair on the those falsely accused if the facts aren't made very clear for all to see.