Rumoured for years "Police search Cliff Richards home "

[Crimson Dynamo]

There really is no need to be so aggressive and rude. Why is it "pedantic ranting" or some other such dismissive insult whenever anyone rightfully responds to a post - even if that post is not specifically in response to him - yet it's perfectly all right for you to do so, as you constantly do on here?

I was not ranting at all; I was correctly pointing out - once again - your persistent misrepresentation of what is being said in other posts, so that it allows you to then argue against the 'misrepresented' points.

It is a Strawman tactic which you regularly carry out in discussions with me, and I'm afraid such continued tactics eventually destroy in me the desire to post anymore which is not fair.

In my opinion, Livia is one of the most intelligent and erudite members on here and also one of the most 'spirited', so I am certain that she does not need anyone to defend her or 'fight her corner' and I was not doing in all honesty, but merely using this exchange between you both to illustrate just how unfair misrepresentation is.

Again, this post from me is not a personal attack, nor is it insulting or aggressive, it is a polite and perfectly civil response to what can only be perceived as an aggressive and rude post from you.

:clap1:

[Kizzy]

There really is no need to be so aggressive and rude. Why is it "pedantic ranting" or some other such dismissive insult whenever anyone rightfully responds to a post - even if that post is not specifically in response to him - yet it's perfectly all right for you to do so, as you constantly do on here?

I was not ranting at all; I was correctly pointing out - once again - your persistent misrepresentation of what is being said in other posts, so that it allows you to then argue against the 'misrepresented' points.

It is a Strawman tactic which you regularly carry out in discussions with me, and I'm afraid such continued tactics eventually destroy in me the desire to post anymore which is not fair.

In my opinion, Livia is one of the most intelligent and erudite members on here and also one of the most 'spirited', so I am certain that she does not need anyone to defend her or 'fight her corner' and I was not doing in all honesty, but merely using this exchange between you both to illustrate just how unfair misrepresentation is.

Again, this post from me is not a personal attack, nor is it insulting or aggressive, it is a polite and perfectly civil response to what can only be perceived as an aggressive and rude post from you.

'Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
Good for you.

As a footnote - and quite civilly and politely - could I please ask you not to post any responses to my existing posts and not to quote them either, so that I do not have to answer you, because from this post onwards, I have resolved NOT to post on the Serious Debate and News Thread, only Chat and Games.

That way, we can avoid each other. Thank you.'


How about you just stick to discussing the topic and not me or my interactions with other members? Whatever your view of them is of no interest to me.
Once again it's appearing more and more like tag teaming.

[kirklancaster]

'Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
Good for you.

As a footnote - and quite civilly and politely - could I please ask you not to post any responses to my existing posts and not to quote them either, so that I do not have to answer you, because from this post onwards, I have resolved NOT to post on the Serious Debate and News Thread, only Chat and Games.

That way, we can avoid each other. Thank you.'


How about you just stick to discussing the topic and not me or my interactions with other members? Whatever your view of them is of no interest to me.
Once again it's appearing more and more like tag teaming.

You know only too well the reason why I was disheartened enough to post the above, but on reflection I resolved not to let unfairness drive me from this forum. I have many friends on here after all who would miss me.

[Kizzy]

You know only too well the reason why I was disheartened enough to post the above, but on reflection I resolved not to let unfairness drive me from this forum. I have many friends on here after all who would miss me.

I don't want to know what your state of mind is kirk... address the topic and not me this is getting boring.

[Niamh.]

Discuss the topic not other posters, thanks

[kirklancaster]

:clap1:

Thanks LT. I genuinely appreciate this.

[user104658]

Yes, he possibly does have a deep, dark sexual history. So might you have. But you'd take exception to people blackening your name when you were, in the eyes of the law, innocent. And of course you're entitled to have a low opinion of someone based on nothing at all... but you're not allowed to slander or libel him because you imagine you know something about him. Which really, none of us do.

Ahh well... I never was one for being particularly arsed about what is or isn't "allowed". Sir Cliff is free to sue me for a 42" TV, a PS4, a custom built PC and £15,000 of student debt if he so chooses. I think he probably has bigger fish to fry right now, though.

[Kizzy]

Of course we don't know anything that's stating the obvious, what's the point of a debate if both arguments can't be discussed?
If he is being investigated in an abuse case that's going to be the topic, and it's not uncommon to question whether or not you believe the alleged crime to be true or not.

[kirklancaster]

Ahh well... I never was one for being particularly arsed about what is or isn't "allowed". Sir Cliff is free to sue me for a 42" TV, a PS4, a custom built PC and £15,000 of student debt if he so chooses. I think he probably has bigger fish to fry right now, though.

:laugh::laugh: Don't worry anyway T.S. I sent Cliff an email and told him you're kosher really and he's promised not to sue. :joker: (Feck the student debt.)

[kirklancaster]

Of course we don't know anything that's stating the obvious, what's the point of a debate if both arguments can't be discussed?
If he is being investigated in an abuse case that's going to be the topic, and it's not uncommon to question whether or not you believe the alleged crime to be true or not.

I think the very real problem with some of the posts on this thread is that they transcend mere opinion as to the probability of Cliff's guilt and not only actually dismiss any possibility that he may be innocent, but also concur with punitive measures which are being implemented against Cliff in the real world outside this forum.

This is a democracy built upon foundations of Law, and one of the cornerstones of our democratic law, is that 'A man is deemed innocent until proven guilty', so while it is one thing to cover Cliff in the 'Black Skin' of unsubstantiated rumour and unproven allegation, it is altogether quite another thing to be forming a 'noose' in the 'Rope' of personal hatred and prejudice and be placing it around Cliff's neck then eyeing up the nearest tree.

'A man is innocent until proven guilty' and Cliff Richard has not been arrested, charged, tried nor convicted of any crime under the laws of this democracy, therefore Cliff Richard is a totally innocent man. Therefore no one has the right to sully his reputation by creating or circulating malicious rumours, nor does any D.J or Radio Station have the right to stop playing his records through personal prejudice or bias, nor does any TV Company have the right to stop screening his films for the same prejudicial reasons, because all these actions deprive Cliff of his livelihood, and are unlawfully punitive.

'A man is innocent until proven guilty' is a law, and The Law - like The Truth - cannot be ignored, bent, or twisted, to suit our personal biases - whether such biases are individual or collective. We cannot 'Cherry Pick' from our laws - we either obey all laws or we set a very dangerous precedent and open the floodgates to vigilantism and anarchy.

If anyone does not like a particular law, then he must set about in earnest trying to have such a law modified or rescinded by due democratic process. There simply is no other way in a democracy.

None of us on here who have posted views expressing the above concerns are saying unequivocally that Cliff is not guilty of any alleged wrongdoing, but what we are saying is that under the laws of this country - he is unequivocally INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.

And in the above contention, we are irrefutably CORRECT.

[bots]

Kirk, I think you are mixing up law with perception. If the public perceive someone as being guilty, then that perception is a perfectly legitimate position to take. Similarly, one does not need to be proven guilty of any crime to decide that someones records will not be played on a radio station, its the way the cookie crumbles. Many people have been guilty as sin and yet cases have not gone to court or there has been insufficient evidence to prove guilt. Are the public wrong to perceive the person as guilty, of course not.

I don't know enough about the Cliff case to form an opinion one way or another, but if some think he is guilty, they are entitled to hold that opinion.

[bots]

No, Bitontheside, I'm not confusing law and perception, because I actually state in my post that opinion as to the probability of his guilt is legitimate, but that to transcend that and concur with punitive actions against him or agree or contribute to defaming his character and reputation is wrong and unlawful when he is by lawful definition 'an innocent man'.

It is morally wrong because it is prejudicial, and it is legally wrong because it breaks our laws on Slander and Libel.

I also qualify my examples of DJ's and Radio Stations refusing to play his records by the inclusion of the words; " through personal prejudice or bias" and in the case of TV Companies refusing to screen his films by the inclusion of: "for the same prejudicial reasons".

Of course D.J's and Radio Stations and TV Companies have a right to schedule as they deem commercially fit, but to deliberately NOT schedule a much loved artists works who still has many millions of fans purely because he is subject to unproved allegation, is legally and morally wrong and smacks of fascism.

Someone on here expression shock that one of his films was still being screened on television, which kind of proves my point, because Cliff has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, so it is irrefutably wrong to damage his livelihood by inflicting punitive actions upon him when he is lawfully an innocent man.

If he is eventually arrested and charged, then tried and convicted, then obviously this changes the issue dramatically, but until he is, then we should treat him like any other innocent person.

Its you that is putting that label on it though, accusing people of prejudice and bias. It is not legally wrong at all to stop playing someones music if they so wish ... that's the best one I've heard in a long time :laugh:

[Josy]

The personal arguing and bickering better stop in these threads or those involved will be banned, other members are sick of threads being ruined by it and we dont blame them, if you can't debate like an adult without baiting with veiled insults then this section isn't for you.

No need for anyone to quote this post, just take notice.