[arista]

Claims he had a minor
to feck.


http://news.sky.com/story/1401086/pa...rew-sex-claims

[Sticks]

It must be all true, because it has been officially denied

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Bernard (Yes Minister)

[arista]

Could be true
but they cannot prove it
as its USA

[erinp5]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30659629


Buckingham Palace has denied "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors" by Prince Andrew, after he was named in US court papers.

A woman named him in documents she filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.

She claims that between 1999 and 2002 she was forced by Epstein to have sex with the prince when she was a minor.

The palace said it would not comment in detail on the legal proceedings.

But a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "This relates to long-standing and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States, to which the Duke of York is not a party.

"As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue".

[arista]

he will get away with it

[Livia]

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

[kirklancaster]

Surely it is now a matter of some urgency for the law to be changed in all Democratic countries, where, if a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then his/her identity should not be made public until - at the very least - the most rigorous of pre-charge investigations have been carried out into the merit of the allegations.

Once an identity is made public in such a manner as this, it does not matter if the person accused is comprehensively cleared of any wrongdoing and no charges are therefore brought, there are always those so ready to still believe in that person's guilt, and no one totally escapes the stigma of being wrongly accused.

Even now there are considerable numbers of people who still 'believe' that Sir Cliff Richard was "guilty of something" because "there's no smoke without fire".

[Shaun]

Have to agree with Kirk - off topic was Cliff completely cleared? Because if so it's a crying shame because I feel guilty for having that very idea ("Oh, he must be dodgy...") in my head to this day. Anonymity really should be used until they're proven guilty.

[Ninastar]

I wish the bloody media would leave these people alone until they are actually found guilty by the court.

Accusations like these can totally ruin someones lives, not to mention people jumping on the 'they abused me' bandwagon

of course its awful if it happened, but it's not anyone business until it's been agreed by the court or whatever.

[Sticks]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

[Mystic Mock]

Even if it's true he can pay the courts off.

But if his innocent then I feel sorry for him as being accused of any sex crime (especially paedophilia) is a tag that you can never get rid of.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

...yep, but I'm sure that he'll be tried by the media anyway..already the pics of him are the most unflattering ones and to make people think....hmmm/he does look a bit dodgy type thing...and so may of the public are so eager to think badly with things like this...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

Yes, Here we go again it seems.

[Sticks]

Jimmy Saville will be seen as a saint in comparison...

[Nedusa]

Wasn't he involved with some Porn star back in the day ?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Yes, you’re correct Sticks; I cannot find any up-to-date news on this matter so we don’t know whether any investigation is ongoing or not, but I’m quite certain that if Cliff had been charged, or if other ‘victims’ had come forward - ‘Jimmy Savile’ style - with additional allegations, then we would most certainly have heard all about it over the past 5 months.

“Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.”

I think that it absolutely essential that we distinguish between a person who has had an - as yet – unsubstantiated allegation made against him and who is therefore - as yet – still innocent, as in Cliff’s case, and someone who has been charged, tried, and proven guilty.

In Cliff’s case he has had one solitary allegation made against him for an alleged incident in 1985, with no other allegations ‘surfacing’ in the 30 years since and there was absolutely no justifiable reason to divulge his identity to the public.

The ‘case’ against anyone accused of any crime should succeed or fail on its own individual merits by proper investigation into the facts specific to that particular case, without being influenced by any other allegations.

Once such investigation has been rigorously completed, and sufficient evidence discovered which results in the alleged perpetrator being charged with the alleged offence, then - and only then – can publicising the alleged perpetrator’s identity in the interests of enticing other alleged victims to come forward, be justified.

Cliff has already suffered embarrassment and shame, and his image and legacy has been irreparably tarnished, in addition to his lively-hood adversely suffering, because his identity was revealed as a result of this allegation but, as yet, he has not been charged with anything.

[Northern Monkey]

Surely if somebody else comes forward with allegations.Then that should be a seperate case.If anybody has allegations then it is down to them to come forward on their own without media pressure.The media should not be able to print anyones name until they are found guilty.Innocent people are innocent until proven guilty,All that printing the name of innocent people does is encourage all the loonies to come out and make false allegations.

[arista]

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Hope you're never falsely accused. I really do. But if you were... it would be kind of poetic justice.

[Kizzy]

What a strange thing to say...

I hope he's innocent and despite the media nobody is as ghoulish as to want anyone to be an abuser surely?
What is the truth is that celebrities and the royal family are mere mortals and have the same deviances as the rest of us.

[Toy Soldier]

Unfortunately, in the digital / internet age anonymity is impossible without huge levels of censorship and massive controls over the flow of information (e.g. Things like Twitter / Facebook, and forums like this one, could not exist). Currently, even where anonymity is preserved, it's only preserved in the media... E.g. We all know who "the other celebrity that paid Helen Wood for sex that isn't Wayne Rooney" is. We're not allowed to say it, but we all know anyway, because Google. This information gets out whether it's "supposed to" or not. In many cases, that's a good thing.

As awful as it is, I don't think mass censorship is a price worth paying. Not for anything. Let alone to stop a few potentially false allegations.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Unfortunately, in the digital / internet age anonymity is impossible without huge levels of censorship and massive controls over the flow of information (e.g. Things like Twitter / Facebook, and forums like this one, could not exist). Currently, even where anonymity is preserved, it's only preserved in the media... E.g. We all know who "the other celebrity that paid Helen Wood for sex that isn't Wayne Rooney" is. We're not allowed to say it, but we all know anyway, because Google. This information gets out whether it's "supposed to" or not. In many cases, that's a good thing.

As awful as it is, I don't think mass censorship is a price worth paying. Not for anything. Let alone to stop a few potentially false allegations.

Keeping someone's name out of the press until they are found guilty is not censorship. If they're going to name suspects because they're famous, then they should name everyone who is accused of anything. We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

Agreed Joey,it must be awful to live with the stigma of abuse if you are innocent,some people make their minds up at the first mention of a name,for example,Cliff will always have this hanging over him now,jokes will be made and it's so unfair if someone is innocent,is it so hard for the press to keep their mouths shut until at least after anything is confirmed?