Rumoured for years "Police search Cliff Richards home "

[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28790718

Police search Cliff Richard's home
www.bbc.co.uk

[joeysteele]

Just saw this on the news, where is this ever going to end.

[chuff me dizzy]

Just saw this on the news, where is this ever going to end.

He was a regular at that Jersey children's home

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

I kept saying this in various threads about sexual allegations. That I always found it weird that in all the years in the business he's never really been seen in relationships and things like that. Someone said that's not enough to say that someone is suspicious, true, but seems there was something to it as I thought.

I also had doubts about Bruce forsyth, retiring in the midst of all these investigations.

Nyways, let's see.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

He was a regular at that Jersey children's home

beginning to wonder whether the rules were different at the time. Whether they thought there was nothing wrong with going after younger people. Because all these accusations always date back to those times they don't really have victims from recent attacks. I'm not sure if it was because they're older now and too tired to try or they now understand the difference between right and wrong in terms of age.

Actually this would only apply if their victims were 15/16 anything underneath was always clearly unacceptable, even though various artists married younger kids in public like jerry lee lewis.

[arista]

1980s

in South Yorkshire
reports he had under a 16 year old boy.


Ref:SkyNewsHD

[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272253/Timebomb-Elm-Guest-House-Pop-stars-bishop-politician-appear-list-seized-police-investigating-child-abuse-London-hotel-1980s.html

[Ammi]

beginning to wonder whether the rules were different at the time. Whether they thought there was nothing wrong with going after younger people. Because all these accusations always date back to those times they don't really have victims from recent attacks. I'm not sure if it was because they're older now and too tired to try or they now understand the difference between right and wrong in terms of age.

Actually this would only apply if their victims were 15/16 anything underneath was always clearly unacceptable, even though various artists married younger kids in public like jerry lee lewis.

..was it though..I was just reading something the other day on another site about Brooke Shields and that she had been photographed nude and full face make up and around 9/10 yrs old for publicity and her mum agreed to and defended it...it's actually hard to fathom isn't it....

[arista]

..was it though..I was just reading something the other day on another site about Brooke Shields and that she had been photographed nude and full face make up and around 9/10 yrs old for publicity and her mum agreed to and defended it...it's actually hard to fathom isn't it....


Yes Gay Sex with a Boy under 16
was Illegal back then

[arista]

Cliff has said its not true.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/14/cliff-richard-home-searched-police-sexual-abuse-claims

[chuff me dizzy]

Cliff has said its not true.

Of course he has lol ,did you know he was questioned several time in the Jill Dando case ? rumoured she was about to out him

[chuff me dizzy]

Cliff gave up his British passport ,is now a Barbados citizen

[arista]

Cliff gave up his British passport ,is now a Barbados citizen


Thats handy for him

[Ammi]

Yes Gay Sex with a Boy under 16
was Illegal back then
..yeah I wasn't talking about laws Arista...

[Glenn.]

When will this end. I'll be surprised if this was true. Probably someone after a meal ticket.

[Nedusa]

Well Congratulations to the police, from a distance he seemed to be living the perfectly respectable life. But Suddenly out of the shadows comes this news.

Looks like he has been after the young ones after all. I gotta know how this turns out as I suppose for the police its all in the game catching these aging paedos.

I just dont have the heart to believe this, I thought he was stronger than that. I guess whatever view I had of him now I'm going to have to rip it up.




.

[chuff me dizzy]

Thats handy for him

Very handy ,he took off to Barbados when the Saville case broke

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/tony-blair-mossad-jill-dando-cliff-richard-paul-condon-and-the-vip-child-abuse-scandal/

[Kazanne]

Well his career is over now whether he is guilty or not,they really shouldn't name people unless it is proved,I really don't know what to think.

[arista]

Very handy ,he took off to Barbados when the Saville case broke

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/tony-blair-mossad-jill-dando-cliff-richard-paul-condon-and-the-vip-child-abuse-scandal/



yes clever

[Glenn.]

Firm believers of innocent until proven guilty on here I see.

[arista]

When will this end. I'll be surprised if this was true. Probably someone after a meal ticket.



why is it not true?



I can not take that Stars word.



I want the man who was assaulted
on TV.

Then it will all be Clear.

[Alf]

Well Congratulations to the police, from a distance he seemed to be living the perfectly respectable life. But Suddenly out of the shadows comes this news.

Looks like he has been after the young ones after all. I gotta know how this turns out as I suppose for the police its all in the game catching these aging paedos.

I just dont have the heart to believe this, I thought he was stronger than that. I guess whatever view I had of him now I'm going to have to rip it up.




.
Very good you Devil Woman, treat yourself to a Summer Holiday.

[arista]

Firm believers of innocent until proven guilty on here I see.


Sure
But so long as the Truth is not Hushed up.

[Sticks]

Firm believers of innocent until proven guilty on here I see.

Sorry but it's "Guilty if accused" here

And "He must be guilty, otherwise why would they investigate him"

And the ever popular No smoke without fire

Don't forget, Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall said the allegations against them were false :nono:

So it must be true, lets start the petition to strip him of his knighthood right now :bored:

[anne666]

I wonder if it's purely coincidence that this is also under investigation after 30 years, where a certain pop star is alleged to have been a member.

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/2571


http://forums.nodoubt.com/showthread.php?2900-UK-Top-Paedo-list-leaked-online

When someone is arrested it gives courage to others to come forward.

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/14/article-2724827-2087DF5200000578-201_964x368.jpg


Cliff is in Portugal
at this time

[Kazanne]

Also saw the McCanns mentioned there?

[Anaesthesia]

These kind of rumours have been hanging round Ol' Cliff for quite a while...and if there is any substance in them, you are not going to see the investigation stop at one young boy, and it will have implications for a lot of people who must be quaking in their boots right now. Not so much celebrities as politicians and pillars of the community...yes, only rumours right now but I'll be watching this one

[anne666]

He also has a super-injunction against any of the members of Elm Guest House club being named.


https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/tag/cliff-richard/

[arista]

https://cigpapers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/15092011573114.jpg?w=350&h=300

a old paper



But tomorrows later

[Anaesthesia]

Also saw the McCanns mentioned there?

I believe there is some kind of a link there.

[Sticks]

LeatherTrumpet is it appropriate to link videos of someone under investigation for being a child molester?

Would you link in music videos of Rolf Harris and Garry Glitter :nono:

[Marsh.]

I kept saying this in various threads about sexual allegations. That I always found it weird that in all the years in the business he's never really been seen in relationships and things like that. Someone said that's not enough to say that someone is suspicious, true, but seems there was something to it as I thought.

I also had doubts about Bruce forsyth, retiring in the midst of all these investigations.

Nyways, let's see.

The man's in his late 80s and retired from SCD, not from working entirely. How is that at all suspicious? His role on that show has gotten smaller and smaller over the years. :laugh:

[Anaesthesia]

I don't believe the Brucie rumours, but mind you I didn't believe the Rolf Harris ones either :(

[Crimson Dynamo]

LeatherTrumpet is it appropriate to link videos of someone under investigation for being a child molester?

Would you link in music videos of Rolf Harris and Garry Glitter :nono:

He has not been charged with anything and as such is an innocent man unless you know different?


The 2 examples you give are convicted molesters. :notimpressed:

[Anaesthesia]

He also has a super-injunction against any of the members of Elm Guest House club being named.


https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/tag/cliff-richard/

Bumping Anne's post as I think this needs reading.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329484/default/v5/exp-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329491/default/v2/mail-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329492/default/v1/star-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329495/default/v3/mirror-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329493/default/v1/the-sun-1-329x437.jpg


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329498/default/v1/i-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/14/329486/default/v2/tel-1-329x437.jpg

Full house

[Sticks]

Is that not what Rolf Harris said?

[Nedusa]

What the hell do the police think they are going to find in Cliff's Apartment 30 years after the alleged offence took place ? Some petrified condoms perhaps or some old crumbling Polaroids.

And how the hell did they trick a judge into signing a search warrant.

And why did it need 6 police cars and a Helicopter to carry out this pointless search.

This whole story is crazy and if I were Cliff I would be very worried.




.

[joeysteele]

What the hell do the police think they are going to find in Cliff's Apartment 30 years after the alleged offence took place ? Some petrified condoms perhaps or some old crumbling Polaroids.

And how the hell did they trick a judge into signing a search warrant.

And why did it need 6 police cars and a Helicopter to carry out this pointless search.

This whole story is crazy and if I were Cliff I would be very worried.




.


Looking for material that may suggest an unhealthy interest as to a sexual nature, checking computers etc;
Or even any correspondence that could shed further light on any allegations.

[Kizzy]

..was it though..I was just reading something the other day on another site about Brooke Shields and that she had been photographed nude and full face make up and around 9/10 yrs old for publicity and her mum agreed to and defended it...it's actually hard to fathom isn't it....

No.. it really isn't, that is exploitation and it's wrong.

[Cherie]

What the hell do the police think they are going to find in Cliff's Apartment 30 years after the alleged offence took place ? Some petrified condoms perhaps or some old crumbling Polaroids.

And how the hell did they trick a judge into signing a search warrant.

And why did it need 6 police cars and a Helicopter to carry out this pointless search.

This whole story is crazy and if I were Cliff I would be very worried.




.

So far only one "victim" , if it stays like that there is a good chance this is someone jumping on the bandwagon, but after Rolf anything is possible

[Ammi]

No.. it really isn't, that is exploitation and it's wrong.


..that's what I highlighted though that what I posted was never acceptable and yet a mother would defend such a thing which for me is impossible to fathom...

[Kizzy]

Why would he be worried? If there's no evidence there's no case.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is that not what Rolf Harris said?

It what any innocent man would say like the two from Corrie and Jim Davidson.


:facepalm:

[arista]

What the hell do the police think they are going to find in Cliff's Apartment 30 years after the alleged offence took place ? Some petrified condoms perhaps or some old crumbling Polaroids.

And how the hell did they trick a judge into signing a search warrant.

And why did it need 6 police cars and a Helicopter to carry out this pointless search.

This whole story is crazy and if I were Cliff I would be very worried.




.



They did not know for sure he was not in there
burning stuff

[arista]

Why would he be worried? If there's no evidence there's no case.


But the Police has some
its just - we do not know who the bloke
(who was a boy at the time)
is yet

[Kizzy]

But the Police has some
its just - we do not know who the bloke
(who was a boy at the time)
is yet

I meant in the house really but yes, if they can get more than a name on a piece of paper then ..
I believe Saville was protected due to what he knew of others and the establishment, this will be interesting.

[Kizzy]

Well Congratulations to the police, from a distance he seemed to be living the perfectly respectable life. But Suddenly out of the shadows comes this news.

Looks like he has been after the young ones after all. I gotta know how this turns out as I suppose for the police its all in the game catching these aging paedos.

I just dont have the heart to believe this, I thought he was stronger than that. I guess whatever view I had of him now I'm going to have to rip it up.




.

:hehe:

[Nedusa]

Looking for material that may suggest an unhealthy interest as to a sexual nature, checking computers etc;
Or even any correspondence that could shed further light on any allegations.

Surely a judge isn't going to sign a search warrant to search Sir Cliff Richards house unless there is some damming evidence there. To do all of this on the say so from someone that alleges an incident occurred over 30 years ago is quite incredible.

It suggests other agendas are at play here. From what has been publicly disclosed on this it seems a grotesque overreaction.




.

[anne666]

Surely a judge isn't going to sign a search warrant to search Sir Cliff Richards house unless there is some damming evidence there. To do all of this on the say so from someone that alleges an incident occurred over 30 years ago is quite incredible.

It suggests other agendas are at play here. From what has been publicly disclosed on this it seems a grotesque overreaction.




.

He has taken out a superinjunction against another unresolved "agenda".

[Sticks]

If he has taken out a super injunction, then he has obviously something to hide.

[GypsyGoth]

They should throw him off a cliff.

[arista]

If he has taken out a super injunction, then he has obviously something to hide.


Yes it makes matters worse

[joeysteele]

Surely a judge isn't going to sign a search warrant to search Sir Cliff Richards house unless there is some damming evidence there. To do all of this on the say so from someone that alleges an incident occurred over 30 years ago is quite incredible.

It suggests other agendas are at play here. From what has been publicly disclosed on this it seems a grotesque overreaction.




.

Not necessarily, many houses are searched in order to help substantiate circumstantial allegations/possible evidence into more concrete evidence.
They have this allegation/complaint from someone who was under 16 and in the 80s that would be an illegal sexual act.
They have to act on that since the revealing that these cases are now taken more seriously.

A search can be to help the accused as well a s the victim, if they find nothing or little that will be good for whose home is searched,however if it's thought possible that other offences may have been committed,searching the home of someone alleged to have committed a crime is one of the first ways of gathering evidence if any may exist.

No harm done really if it is known there is no evidence or anything else incriminating there to be found anyway.

This may have been alleged to have happened around over 30 years ago but as has been shown celebrities have been found guilty of historic abuses,some really serious too, and some have even pleaded guilty to some of those charges too.
So it has to be acted on and seen through once a complaint is made.

[Cherie]

They should throw him off a cliff.

:laugh2:

oh dear here we go again!

[Crimson Dynamo]

They should throw him off a cliff.

oh you're such a Devil, woman

:nono:

[anne666]

If he has taken out a super injunction, then he has obviously something to hide.

It's nothing short of farcical when the information is freely available on the internet. This has been covered up for over 30 years. Too many people in high places involved. I hope the current investigation into it, which began late 2012, achieves something at last.


http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/2571

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272253/Timebomb-Elm-Guest-House-Pop-stars-bishop-politician-appear-list-seized-police-investigating-child-abuse-London-hotel-1980s.html

The alleged Jill Dando connection

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698820/Murdered-Crimewatch-presenter-Jill-Dando-tried-bosses-investigate-alleged-paeodphile-ring-inside-BBC-no-one-wanted-know.html

http://theduckshoot.com/is-the-73-year-old-arrested-in-yewtree-investigation-cliff-richard/

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/jill-dando-murdered-by-state-to-keep.html

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329782/default/v1/160814-daily-express-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329784/default/v1/160814-daily-mirror-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329787/default/v1/160814-the-sun-1-329x437.jpg
Saturdays


[ Cliff Richard 'is returning to Britain' to face
underage sex assault quiz by police as officers
say more people have come forward with information in past 24 hours]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725752/Sir-Cliff-Richard-pictured-performing-stadium-rally-alleged-sexually-abused-underage-boy-fans-urge-stay-strong.html#ixzz3AV0bpIGs

[anne666]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329782/default/v1/160814-daily-express-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329784/default/v1/160814-daily-mirror-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329787/default/v1/160814-the-sun-1-329x437.jpg
Saturdays


[ Cliff Richard 'is returning to Britain' to face
underage sex assault quiz by police as officers
say more people have come forward with information in past 24 hours]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725752/Sir-Cliff-Richard-pictured-performing-stadium-rally-alleged-sexually-abused-underage-boy-fans-urge-stay-strong.html#ixzz3AV0bpIGs

Good!!

[chuff me dizzy]

It's nothing short of farcical when the information is freely available on the internet. This has been covered up for over 30 years. Too many people in high places involved. I hope the current investigation into it, which began late 2012, achieves something at last.


http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/2571

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272253/Timebomb-Elm-Guest-House-Pop-stars-bishop-politician-appear-list-seized-police-investigating-child-abuse-London-hotel-1980s.html

The alleged Jill Dando connection

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698820/Murdered-Crimewatch-presenter-Jill-Dando-tried-bosses-investigate-alleged-paeodphile-ring-inside-BBC-no-one-wanted-know.html

http://theduckshoot.com/is-the-73-year-old-arrested-in-yewtree-investigation-cliff-richard/

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/jill-dando-murdered-by-state-to-keep.html

He befriended Jill Dando a couple of weeks before her death and was the last person who spoke to her, she was working on child abuse case at the time a,dn the massive cover up surrounding it, rumoured to include celebs ,Mps and Royalty

[chuff me dizzy]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329782/default/v1/160814-daily-express-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329784/default/v1/160814-daily-mirror-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/8/15/329787/default/v1/160814-the-sun-1-329x437.jpg
Saturdays


[ Cliff Richard 'is returning to Britain' to face
underage sex assault quiz by police as officers
say more people have come forward with information in past 24 hours]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725752/Sir-Cliff-Richard-pictured-performing-stadium-rally-alleged-sexually-abused-underage-boy-fans-urge-stay-strong.html#ixzz3AV0bpIGs

Hes not home yet how long is the flight from Lisbon ? 4 hours

[chuff me dizzy]

From Martin Brunt today martinbrunt
@skymartinbrunt

#cliff Sir Cliff has appeared in the grounds of his Algarve home with a tennis party of friends. - 16 Aug


No rush then Cliff ?

[Kazanne]

He befriended Jill Dando a couple of weeks before her death and was the last person who spoke to her, she was working on child abuse case at the time a,dn the massive cover up surrounding it, rumoured to include celebs ,Mps and Royalty

The one I read on here Chuff mentioned a friend of the McCanns!

[anne666]

People in high places squealing about poor Cliff as well as the police naming the BBC which already knew about the investigation.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cliff-richard-south-yorkshire-police-complain-to-bbc-over-search-of-singers-home-leak-9674023.html


The manner in which the police search was conducted was condemned by human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC as "unacceptable".


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-way-the-police-have-treated-cliff-richard-is-completely-unacceptable-9672367.html

Tosh. He's suspected of a very serious offence, what makes him any different, apart from is high profile connections.

MP's having their say

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/43839/mps_blast_police_over_cliff_raid.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11039070/Sir-Cliff-left-in-limbo-as-criticism-grows.html

Is this all too close to home after all the years of successful cover up?

[arista]

Typical of Poxy BBC

Hide it away

Never put it on Newsnight

[lostalex]

beginning to wonder whether the rules were different at the time. Whether they thought there was nothing wrong with going after younger people. Because all these accusations always date back to those times they don't really have victims from recent attacks. I'm not sure if it was because they're older now and too tired to try or they now understand the difference between right and wrong in terms of age.

Actually this would only apply if their victims were 15/16 anything underneath was always clearly unacceptable, even though various artists married younger kids in public like jerry lee lewis.


I think it's more to do with the fact that the victims are mature enough now to feel safe and comfortable admitting it, while younger more recent victims are still very traumatized by it.

It is common for victims to not admit the abuse til many years later if ever.

[Sticks]

What about False memory syndrome?

[Sticks]

Oops, whose side am I on :blush:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well done Tony Blackburn for playing a cliff hit on radio 2 yesterday

[the truth]

I think it's more to do with the fact that the victims are mature enough now to feel safe and comfortable admitting it, while younger more recent victims are still very traumatized by it.

It is common for victims to not admit the abuse til many years later if ever.

its more common for people to lie about this in order to make money

[Nedusa]

Poor Cliff Richard is getting online abuse, he's got himself some spying talking tweeting walking living trolls....

[Cherie]

Poor Cliff Richard is getting online abuse, he's got himself some spying talking tweeting walking living trolls....

:laugh:

[lostalex]

its more common for people to lie about this in order to make money

i don't think it is. If it was common to just lie then wouldn't there be thousands of women claiming it? every woman within a 50 miles radius could claim it if they wanted to, so there would be a lot more if women just wanted to lie for money.

you make it sound like claiming to be abused is winning the lottery. edit

[Sticks]

Poor Cliff Richard is getting online abuse, he's got himself some spying talking tweeting walking living trolls....

What about the poor victims :nono:

Abusers seldom abuse just one victim, as the trial of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall proved.

[Nedusa]

What about the poor victims :nono:

Abusers seldom abuse just one victim, as the trial of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall proved. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[Z]

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

[anne666]

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

I disagree. In the case of Rolf Harris this was suppressed for 5 weeks
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/19/rolf-harris-lawyers-leveson-suppress-arrest


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28102238
Lawyers for Harris wrote to media organisations including the BBC at the time warning them against naming their client and threatening libel action.

When he was arrested again in March 2013 the Met did not name Harris and he was not identified in the mainstream media until a few weeks later.

The other women who gave evidence in court contacted police after Harris's arrest was made public and he was charged in August of that year.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681956/How-secret-justice-stopped-MoS-naming-Rolf-Harris-let-abusers-free.html

Anti-secrecy campaigners have repeatedly warned that many historical abuse cases may never come to court or be successfully prosecuted unless names are issued on arrest. Failing to name suspects also stops other victims from coming forward.

[the truth]

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

i agree, the majority are liars and false accusers and the false accussers should be named shamed arrested and imprisoned.....falsely accusing someone of rape or molestation is almost as evil as the crime of rape itself

[Z]

I disagree. In the case of Rolf Harris this was suppressed for 5 weeks
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/19/rolf-harris-lawyers-leveson-suppress-arrest


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28102238





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681956/How-secret-justice-stopped-MoS-naming-Rolf-Harris-let-abusers-free.html

Fair enough but I think my point still stands that it's unfair to name people before they've been convicted, the accusation alone can ruin someone's life because people read the headline and forever associate that person with the crime even if they didn't commit it.

[Kazanne]

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

100% agree with this,Cliff is done now ,whether he's guilty or not.

[Z]

It's a shame if he's innocent because Cliff Richard has always made a point of keeping his private life private; and now people are assuming that's because he has something to hide. Of course, people have always speculated that he's hiding something (his sexuality) but now it's taken a very dark turn with people assuming he's a criminal because of this... which isn't fair, if he's innocent.

[lostalex]

people seem to be obsessed with this idea that it's so unfair for decent men to be named, what about all of the innocent victims of abuse who suffer in silence? no one seems to be worried about them. For every 1 innocent man falsely accused there are 100 victims who never get justice.

[joeysteele]

It's a shame if he's innocent because Cliff Richard has always made a point of keeping his private life private; and now people are assuming that's because he has something to hide. Of course, people have always speculated that he's hiding something (his sexuality) but now it's taken a very dark turn with people assuming he's a criminal because of this... which isn't fair, if he's innocent.

I totally agree, I just don't know when all these 'cases' are going to end.
There issomething that just doesn't always register with me these cases,even the ones where a guilty verdict has been given.

I know we don't get to hear all the evidence but I still cannot get in the Rolf Harris case for instance, it was said one of his victims was 7 or 8 years old when the incident took place.
Waht, surely they know exactly where and when and certainly should know if she was actually 7 or 8 years old.

This with Cliff Riichard,if it turns out to be a false allegation and nothing is done as to charges, I hope there is a review as to how these complaints are actually treated again.
I also think the time has come,correctly for anyone who has committed these abuses to face up to them but equally so, if someone has made a false allegation then they should face the music too.

[Z]

people seem to be obsessed with this idea that it's so unfair for decent men to be named, what about all of the innocent victims of abuse who suffer in silence? no one seems to be worried about them. For every 1 innocent man falsely accused there are 100 victims who never get justice.

It's not a competition or a case of one versus the other. It is unfair to tarnish the life of an innocent person. Therefore, the media shouldn't be naming anyone until they have been convicted of a crime. As for the victims who never get justice - they can come forward with their allegations and let the courts deal with them. There is simply no need for the sensationalist aspect to the accusation. If my uncle raped me when I was 10, there wouldn't be a media headline about it and I wouldn't want there to be one, I'd want it to be dealt with properly and get my justice. This culture of trying to shock the country by naming and shaming celebrities as being morally bankrupt criminals (Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Tulisa...) is just not okay in my opinion, regardless of whether they were guilty or not. Let it be known if they are proven guilty; otherwise they should be granted the same anonymity as any other accused person.

[lostalex]

I totally agree, I just don't know when all these 'cases' are going to end.
There issomething that just doesn't always register with me these cases,even the ones where a guilty verdict has been given.

I know we don't get to hear all the evidence but I still cannot get in the Rolf Harris case for instance, it was said one of his victims was 7 or 8 years old when the incident took place.
Waht, surely they know exactly where and when and certainly should know if she was actually 7 or 8 years old.

This with Cliff Riichard,if it turns out to be a false allegation and nothing is done as to charges, I hope there is a review as to how these complaints are actually treated again.
I also think the time has come,correctly for anyone who has committed these abuses to face up to them but equally so, if someone has made a false allegation then they should face the music too.


how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

[lostalex]

It's not a competition or a case of one versus the other. It is unfair to tarnish the life of an innocent person. Therefore, the media shouldn't be naming anyone until they have been convicted of a crime. As for the victims who never get justice - they can come forward with their allegations and let the courts deal with them. There is simply no need for the sensationalist aspect to the accusation. If my uncle raped me when I was 10, there wouldn't be a media headline about it and I wouldn't want there to be one, I'd want it to be dealt with properly and get my justice. This culture of trying to shock the country by naming and shaming celebrities as being morally bankrupt criminals (Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Tulisa...) is just not okay in my opinion, regardless of whether they were guilty or not. Let it be known if they are proven guilty; otherwise they should be granted the same anonymity as any other accused person.


I agree that it shouldn't be sensationalized, but at the same time, there's no need to demonize the victims and cal them opportunists just desperate for cash, or blame the victims for the media's bad behavior.

[Z]

I agree that it shouldn't be sensationalized, but at the same time, there's no need to demonize the victims and cal them opportunists just desperate for cash, or blame the victims for the media's bad behavior.

I didn't intend to demonise anyone, I was just making a point that for every case where a celebrity has been convicted of historical abuse, there's a case where such accusations have turned out to be false but the damage has already been done because the media have named these people. There are people out there who will sell stories and tell lies just to make a quick buck and that's because of our red top tabloid culture which encourages that behaviour. It's demeaning to actual victims of sexual abuse that there are people out there willing to lie and risk going to jail by getting a five figure sum from a classless newspaper to claim they were sexually assaulted, abuse or raped by someone famous. It's appalling.

[joeysteele]

how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

Well I am only 22 I guess but I can just about remember every important detail as to my life from being 5 really.
An incident like that,I would certainly remember for sure and my point was there must have to be evidence of time, place and where and when this happened and surely the exact age must be known from that.
Otherwise all you have is likely circumstantial evidence or in fact even little that anything took place at all.

Things have to be exact and substantiated in a courtroom and aged 7 or 8 doesn't sound that convincing to me.
There could be up to a whole year involved in that frame.

I didn't see or hear all the evidence,I admit to that but they must know where it was and then both age and event have a place, time,event and age fully known.
Yet even now after the case, it is said he had an incident with a girl when she was 7 or 8, I don't get that.
Were I the defending counsel in such a case,I would have made a massive meal of that point alone.

[lostalex]

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children. They know they can get away with it and they usually do.

[joeysteele]

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children.

I agree 100% with you as to that Lostalex,and I always hope real justice is done for anyone who has been abused but it does also have to proven beyond all doubt.

I accept we do not hear all the evidence,I am just puzzled in this one that they don't even know the exact age of the person abused.
I find that odd from where and what I have been able to read about this case.
I'd have thought just about near all the charge would have to revolve around that as to the whole incident.

Guess we may never know unless on appeal more is revealed as to this one.

[Z]

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children. They know they can get away with it and they usually do.

And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.

[lostalex]

And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.

there are plenty of other successful british artists who don't have these allegations though, so if it's just about opportunists trying to get money wouldn't all british super stars have these kind of allegations against them?

If it's so common for people to just make allegations to make money, why don't all successful men have these allegations?

[joeysteele]

And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.

Even if no charges are brought, it is now out there and for many the 'no smoke wthout fire' words get taken on board.
I just feel in investigating these historic abuse cases, it has gone too far one way and needs to be curbed back a little and only when strong evidence is found then begin the naming process.

[lostalex]

And the accuser is also tainted for life. No one escapes from this situation unscathed. She is also tainted by it, and haunted by it forever. You make it sound like it's easy on her. She also was destroying her life and taking a huge risk by coming forward. Even if she can't prove it, she took a huge risk to come forward.

[Z]

there are plenty of other successful british artists who don't have these allegations though, so if it's just about opportunists trying to get money wouldn't all british super stars have these kind of allegations against them?

If it's so common for people to just make allegations to make money, why don't all successful men have these allegations?

They do, though, that's precisely my point. All these people are coming out of the woodwork since Jimmy Savile died - which in itself was a point of contention; why did all those men and women wait for all that time when there were so many of them? Cover ups, not being taken seriously, being afraid... it's all become clear now, but I think as that unfolded it's become clear to opportunists that they can target just about any entertainer and take it to the papers. That's wrong. Take it to the police. Of course, many allegations get thrown out because they're implausible and being made by very stupid people and that much is clear from the outset, but if the allegation is made by someone more credible, or in a way that's more credible, then it will of course be investigated, which is only right. It's just appalling that the BBC 'got the scoop' and more or less blackmailed the police investigation for a headline! I think that's wrong.

And the accuser is also tainted for life. No one escapes from this situation unscathed. She is also tainted by it, and haunted by it forever. You make it sound like it's easy on her. She also was destroying her life and taking a huge risk by coming forward. Even if she can't prove it, she took a huge risk to come forward.

Except, crucially, the accuser hasn't been named and shamed in the media. The accuser can anonymously name the abuser and the British public aren't made aware of their identity. That is fair. Naming the abuser isn't, not while they're still innocent until proven guilty. Of course it's not easy on the victim - but the same logic should be applied to the accused; we don't know if they're guilty or not, that is the point of a trial. It's brave to come forward and log your complaint with the police; if it's on file then even if it's not proven, the evidence will still be kept for a number of years on that person's file and if anyone else ever came forward it would surely count against them. It's just not right to involve the media. It damns the accused even when they're innocent.

[lostalex]

so let me ask you a question. do you think Hugh Grant picked up a prostitute? or you think it was all just a misunderstanding?

[Z]

so let me ask you a question. do you think Hugh Grant picked up a prostitute? or you think it was all just a misunderstanding?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Wtf

[lostalex]

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Wtf

i'm just trying to gauge how naive you are.

[Sticks]

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute

:mad:

[Livia]

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute

:mad:


Until you or someone you love gets accused of a crime they didn't commit. Then I suggest that your call for the accused to be named might change in a heartbeat. If they're going to name people who are, in the eyes of the law, innocent, then there should be very loud calls for accusers to be named once the accused is acquitted.

I hope Cliff Richard has Jim Davidson's lawyer on speed dial. And I also hope that the slanderous comments being made online right now are vigorously pursued by his legal team. I'm utterly amazed that people are naive enough to go down the "he's been accused therefore he's guilty" route, and similarly (although less) surprised also that this slander is allowed to stand on a publicly accessible forum.

[Z]

i'm just trying to gauge how naive you are.

So you thought you would do that by naively comparing a Hollywood actor's sexual misadventures with a grown woman to a historical allegation of sexual abuse. Right. Jog on.

[lostalex]

So you thought you would do that by naively comparing a Hollywood actor's sexual misadventures with a grown woman to a historical allegation of sexual abuse. Right. Jog on.

nope, it was just a question. i never said it was related to this specific story.

[lostalex]

Until you or someone you love gets accused of a crime they didn't commit. Then I suggest that your call for the accused to be named might change in a heartbeat. If they're going to name people who are, in the eyes of the law, innocent, then there should be very loud calls for accusers to be named once the accused is acquitted.

I hope Cliff Richard has Jim Davidson's lawyer on speed dial. And I also hope that the slanderous comments being made online right now are vigorously pursued by his legal team. I'm utterly amazed that people are naive enough to go down the "he's been accused therefore he's guilty" route, and similarly (although less) surprised also that this slander is allowed to stand on a publicly accessible forum.

just out of curiosity, who do you think has made slanderous comments on this website? i haven't seen anyone make any slanderous comments. name names livia.

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?

[Kazanne]

If Cliff Richards is proven to be guilty ,he deserves the book thrown at him,however if he is not,what happens then? the damage is done

[Livia]

just out of curiosity, who do you think has made slanderous comments on this website? i haven't seen anyone make any slanderous comments. name names livia.

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?


Cliff Richard is an innocent man until he's found guilty of a crime in a court of law. That's the way it works. Anyone calling for his songs not to be played, or suggesting he's taken foreign citizenship for a dubious reason or that he was involved in some negative way with the Jill Dando case (even though he was never prosecuted so maybe the police missed some stuff that people on this forum are privy to) are slanderous at worst, and naively deluded at best. I don't need to name names Alex, the posts are here for the whole world to read.

Yes I am upset by people making unfounded claims. Imagine it was you who was accused by someone and you knew you were innocent but before you get to court to clear your name people with no real evidence or idea about the claims had already made up their minds you were guilty.

[Livia]

If Cliff Richards is proven to be guilty ,he deserves the book thrown at him,however if he is not,what happens then? the damage is done

Exactly, Kaz. And yes, if he's guilty throw the book at him. The operative word being "if".

[lostalex]

Cliff Richard is an innocent man until he's found guilty of a crime in a court of law. That's the way it works. Anyone calling for his songs not to be played, or suggesting he's taken foreign citizenship for a dubious reason or that he was involved in some negative way with the Jill Dando case (even though he was never prosecuted so maybe the police missed some stuff that people on this forum are privy to) are slanderous at worst, and naively deluded at best. I don't need to name names Alex, the posts are here for the whole world to read.

Yes I am upset by people making unfounded claims. Imagine it was you who was accused by someone and you knew you were innocent but before you get to court to clear your name people with no real evidence or idea about the claims had already made up their minds you were guilty.

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?

[Nedusa]

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?


That's not the issue here, all persons alleging historical sexual abuse must be treated with scepticism in the first instance until more detailed evidence can be ascertained. Particularly when dealing with rich high profile celebrities who can be a magnet for scammers and people joining the bandwagon looking for cash payoffs.

I for one would prefer to see the rights of the alleged victim on a par with the rights of the alleged attacker ie either both be named or both have anonymity.

Personally given the damage untrue allegations can do I would prefer to see both have there identities protected until the court case had been completed. Then if guilty the convicted persons name should be made public but if innocent then the name of the alleged victim must also be made public so everyone knows this person has a history of making false rape/sexual abuse claims against innocent people. So next time the police can check a database to see if this person is credible from the outset.

The only fault with the current system in my view is that it allows innocent people to be publicly convicted through trial by media and have their reputations ruined regardless of their actual innocence or guilt.

In fact the main reason for actually naming these Celebs is to hope for more people to come forward as it adds weight to any prosecution. So inevitably people are encouraged to come forward to help build a case after 25-40 years.

This can't be right surely ??

[Crimson Dynamo]

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute

:mad:

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[joeysteele]

Cliff Richard is an innocent man until he's found guilty of a crime in a court of law. That's the way it works. Anyone calling for his songs not to be played, or suggesting he's taken foreign citizenship for a dubious reason or that he was involved in some negative way with the Jill Dando case (even though he was never prosecuted so maybe the police missed some stuff that people on this forum are privy to) are slanderous at worst, and naively deluded at best. I don't need to name names Alex, the posts are here for the whole world to read.

Yes I am upset by people making unfounded claims. Imagine it was you who was accused by someone and you knew you were innocent but before you get to court to clear your name people with no real evidence or idea about the claims had already made up their minds you were guilty.

No surprise me saying this but as to this post and the one above, what superb posts Livia.

This hasn't even got to interviewing under caution yet,never mind arrest.
Why should Clif Richard do anything different or be treated differently at this time.
The further information to the Police, may well be further allegations or it may even actually be information relevant to the refuting of the original allegation too.
We don't know and speculation doesn't help in these cases,espeically when the name has been published.

It was said earlier,his records should not be played, the one that was played, was included on a programme planned weeks in advance on 'pick of the pops'.
They play the top 20 from 2 selected weeks from selected years each week, this week it was 1964 and 1975,Cliff just happened to be in the top 10 of the 1964 chart,hence his record being played,and why not.

Again, really great and fair posts Livia.

[Livia]

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?


No, the justice systems of both our countries do not presume the victim is a liar, but it does require that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not the defence. You have to have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty. In historic sex abuse cases that evidence - if there was any evidence in the first place - is very hard to come by and would be mostly circumstantial.

In answer to your last question, yes... I think it's a reasonably fair system.

[lostalex]

No, the justice systems of both our countries do not presume the victim is a liar, but it does require that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not the defence. You have to have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty. In historic sex abuse cases that evidence - if there was any evidence in the first place - is very hard to come by and would be mostly circumstantial.

In answer to your last question, yes... I think it's a reasonably fair system.

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

[Livia]

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

I did not say it favours abusers over victims. I said you have to have proof. People lie, sadly. You cannot take the word of one person over another.

The problem with the British, the American and ALL legal systems is that they're run by humans, for humans. There is no perfect way. You think it's okay for innocent people to be sent to jail? How about you? How would you feel if you were banged up for something you didn't do? Would you think, ah well, at least the victim has some closure now. "Justice" does not mean imprisoning someone - anyone - just so the victim feels complete. How do you think it could be improved?

And your stats, they're a little off.

[Vicky.]

how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

Yet oddly enough, so many come out of the woodwork when a celeb is named in the papers and suddenly remember that they were abused too...

[Marsh.]

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

How do you know 99 guilty out of 100 are let go? Are you privy to most of these cases? Do you have evidence that the court missed?

I'm quite baffled by your insistence that a justice system requiring evidence to prove someone committed a crime is flawed yet slinging someone in prison on the basis that someone comes forward and says "That man raped me for 40 years ago" is much better? :conf:

[Sticks]

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?

Technically if it is written down or recorded, it is libel. Slander is when it is spoken and not recorded

[Sticks]

It was said earlier,his records should not be played, the one that was played, was included on a programme planned weeks in advance on 'pick of the pops'.
They play the top 20 from 2 selected weeks from selected years each week, this week it was 1964 and 1975,Cliff just happened to be in the top 10 of the 1964 chart,hence his record being played,and why not.


This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC? :nono:

[Livia]

This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC? :nono:

No charges have been brought so far, he's not even been arrested. He is, right now, an innocent man. That's the bottom line.

[Crimson Dynamo]

This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC? :nono:

Its not comparable at all

Cliff is not going to trial

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

Yet oddly enough, so many come out of the woodwork when a celeb is named in the papers and suddenly remember that they were abused too...

It is possible, you remember it happening, where you were and what you were wearing, but that doesn't always pinpoint a specific date or year.

[joeysteele]

No charges have been brought so far, he's not even been arrested. He is, right now, an innocent man. That's the bottom line.

:wavey:Thank you Livia, you saved me a fair bit of typing there.

[Vicky.]

It is possible, you remember it happening, where you were and what you were wearing, but that doesn't always pinpoint a specific date or year.

Yeah its possible, however extremely unlikely for the sheer amount of people this miraculous memory loss has happened to tbh

[Kizzy]

Yeah its possible, however extremely unlikely for the sheer amount of people this miraculous memory loss has happened to tbh

Memory loss, nobody has had memory loss have they? As with other cases victims came forward at the time but they were not believed or it was covered up in high profile cases.
Even now the fact he has superinjunctions means that certain aspects or accusations cannot be made public so he has afforded to him privilege that some that are accused of abuses don't have.

[Vicky.]

Memory loss, nobody has had memory loss have they? As with other cases victims came forward at the time but they were not believed or it was covered up in high profile cases.
Even now the fact he has superinjunctions means that certain aspects or accusations cannot be made public so he has afforded to him privilege that some that are accused of abuses don't have.

Thought this was just in the the Saville case..have not seen any mention of this for the more recent accused.

[Kizzy]

Thought this was just in the the Saville case..have not seen any mention of this for the more recent accused.

If it's a case of historic abuse they will be wanting people to come forward that feel Cliff has a case to answer too I guess.
He can keep things tied up for so long but if the weight of the evidence is enough to go to court then it will come out.

[Vicky.]

Well honestly..all putting his name all over the press does is encourage those who are bull****ting for compensation to come forward IMO

[Kizzy]

Well honestly..all putting his name all over the press does is encourage those who are bull****ting for compensation to come forward IMO

He has used the law to keep most under wraps it seems, to suggest those who come forward are lying is as strange as saying he is lying as without hearing the evidence we just don't know do we?
How many people are willing to go through the stress and humiliation of a trial and are bul****ting... not many I would say.
If there is no evidence there is no case, so it would have to be corrosponding dates, times,distinguishing physical characteristics, sexual preferences.. Only then would there be enough to warrant a case, if that's been found then he will have to now answer some of these allegations I guess.

[AnnieK]

To remove all doubt of people lying they should do something about the right to claim compensation.....if people truly want the perpetrator of sexual assault to get their comeuppance, whether they get compensation or not should not be a factor. I know that people will say that if they are victims they should be compensated for having their lives affected/ruined and I do agree but I just fear that a lot of people making allegations are more driven by money than justice

[Vicky.]

He has used the law to keep most under wraps it seems, to suggest those who come forward are lying is as strange as saying he is lying as without hearing the evidence we just don't know do we?
How many people are willing to go through the stress and humiliation of a trial and are bul****ting... not many I would say.
If there is no evidence there is no case, so it would have to be corrosponding dates, times,distinguishing physical characteristics, sexual preferences.. Only then would there be enough to warrant a case, if that's been found then he will have to now answer some of these allegations I guess.
I am not saying anyone in particular is lying..just that I do not believe hundreds(probably into the thousands by now) all kept quiet/were covered up/ I dont believe all of the saville victims are real, though no doubt a lot are. I believe a lot to be motivated by tyhe thought of compensation and that there is unlikely to be proof after all this time anyway so why not try it on...

To remove all doubt of people lying they should do something about the right to claim compensation.....if people truly want the perpetrator of sexual assault to get their comeuppance, whether they get compensation or not should not be a factor. I know that people will say that if they are victims they should be compensated for having their lives affected/ruined and I do agree but I just fear that a lot of people making allegations are more driven by money than justice

Agreed 100%

[Kizzy]

To remove all doubt of people lying they should do something about the right to claim compensation.....if people truly want the perpetrator of sexual assault to get their comeuppance, whether they get compensation or not should not be a factor. I know that people will say that if they are victims they should be compensated for having their lives affected/ruined and I do agree but I just fear that a lot of people making allegations are more driven by money than justice

Compensation is offered in a lot of claims for criminal damages, what makes you think that it's a contributory factor in seeking justice in cases of sexual assault only?

[AnnieK]

Compensation is offered in a lot of claims for criminal damages, what makes you think that it's a contributory factor in seeking justice in cases of sexual assault only?

I don't Kizzy....I know how it works. I was talking about these historic celebrity cases, high profile often wealthy celebs and I would have hope that was pretty clear

[Kizzy]

I am not saying anyone in particular is lying..just that I do not believe hundreds(probably into the thousands by now) all kept quiet/were covered up/ I dont believe all of the saville victims are real, though no doubt a lot are. I believe a lot to be motivated by tyhe thought of compensation and that there is unlikely to be proof after all this time anyway so why not try it on...





Unlike savile cliff is alive, he can defend himself.
Like I said, why would anyone want to try it on?.. Meaning the stress of the media, cross examination, details of your life and relationships scrutinised? It's not going to be pretty.

[Vicky.]

Unlike savile cliff is alive, he can defend himself.
Like I said, why would anyone want to try it on?.. Meaning the stress of the media, cross examination, details of your life and relationships scrutinised? It's not going to be pretty.

They dont get the stress of the media though do they...the people they accuse do

[Kizzy]

I don't Kizzy....I know how it works. I was talking about these historic celebrity cases, high profile often wealthy celebs and I would have hope that was pretty clear

No it wasn't clear, and the fact they are famous is irrelevant... if they've committed a crime then that will be investigated, the fact they're wealthy shouldn't be an issue. Victims ( if there are any) deserve justice, that's the bottom line.

[Kizzy]

They dont get the stress of the media though do they...the people they accuse do

Yes they do, look at the guy who accused that lord wotsit... he was on newsnight.

[Vicky.]

One guy, from thousands.

[AnnieK]

No it wasn't clear, and the fact they are famous is irrelevant... if they've committed a crime then that will be investigated, the fact they're wealthy shouldn't be an issue. Victims ( if there are any) deserve justice, that's the bottom line.

I quite agree and I have never said they shouldn't be investigated o where you ave that from I've no idea or that they shouldn't because they are wealthy....I said that compensation payments from the accused should not be a contributory factor. Justice should be the bottom line you're right

[Kizzy]

One guy, from thousands.

There have been others, and those who go to court won't be handled with kid gloves will they it'll be brutal.
My feeling is it's been covered up for years high profile abusers being protected for whatever reason, association with certain groups and organisations.
That's the thing about conspiracy theories sometimes they turn out to be true, will this rock the establishment? No, they may feel a slight shudder.

[Kizzy]

I quite agree and I have never said they shouldn't be investigated o where you ave that from I've no idea or that they shouldn't because they are wealthy....I said that compensation payments from the accused should not be a contributory factor. Justice should be the bottom line you're right

Where have you got the opinion that compensation is a contributory factor from?

[AnnieK]

Where have you got the opinion that compensation is a contributory factor from?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-28101045

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2676457/Up-dozen-women-seeking-compensation-Rolf-Harris-multi-million-pound-fortune-series-claims-dealt-lawyers-handling-Savile-victims.html

Just a couple...

[Livia]

To remove all doubt of people lying they should do something about the right to claim compensation.....if people truly want the perpetrator of sexual assault to get their comeuppance, whether they get compensation or not should not be a factor. I know that people will say that if they are victims they should be compensated for having their lives affected/ruined and I do agree but I just fear that a lot of people making allegations are more driven by money than justice

Couldn't agree more Annie.

So many people have made up their minds that Cliff Richard is guilty, I think mainly because he lives a lifestyle that's different from theirs. He's never married, he's openly Christian... there must be something wrong with him, right? Speculation is rife about what he's supposed to have done. And yet, we're not allowed to speculate about the truth in the allegations made against him?

I honestly thought that people understood "innocent until proven guilty" but this forum suggests that's not the case at all.

[Kizzy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-28101045

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2676457/Up-dozen-women-seeking-compensation-Rolf-Harris-multi-million-pound-fortune-series-claims-dealt-lawyers-handling-Savile-victims.html

Just a couple...

The BBC... Oh it's not in their best interests to have scandals downplayed and turn public perception against the victims is it?

[chuff me dizzy]

Paedos should always be outed, they have hidden behind their celebrity status,Christian,charity helper for too long ,

[Livia]

Innocent. Until proven guilty. That is all.

[Kizzy]

Well that's how it works, everyone is aware of that in every case aren't they? I don't see the need to keep reiterating that point.
This one will be no different, other than the media attention.

[chuff me dizzy]

Innocent. Until proven guilty. That is all.

If the police hadn't done what they have this would have gone unpunished ,unless its brought to the public eye victims will not come forward ,think of the relief his victims must feel that finally they will get their justice

[Cherie]

Jim Davidson, Michael le Vell, Ken Roache have all carried on with their careers even though they were named, I don't agree with naming until there is concrete evidence, that said this is the system we have and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon.

[Kizzy]

If the police hadn't done what they have this would have gone unpunished ,unless its brought to the public eye victims will not come forward ,think of the relief his victims must feel that finally they will get their justice

Yes it's a shame the victims aren't afforded the same courtesy and are being found guilty of exploiting the case before it's even begun.

[Cherie]

Yes it's a shame the victims aren't afforded the same courtesy and are being found guilty of exploiting the case before it's even begun.

Agreed.

[Livia]

If the police hadn't done what they have this would have gone unpunished ,unless its brought to the public eye victims will not come forward ,think of the relief his victims must feel that finally they will get their justice

What would have "gone unpunished"? You can't punish an innocent man until he's been found guilty of a crime.

You mean IF they get their justice assuming that he will eventually be charged... or even arrested ,let alone found guilty. If he is not charged, or if he is charged but later found not guilty, I'd like to see the people who made the accusations named and then charged with wasting police time, attemping to pervert the course of justice... maybe even perjury.

[Livia]

Yes it's a shame the victims aren't afforded the same courtesy and are being found guilty of exploiting the case before it's even begun.

They are afforded anonimity whereas the accused has been named publicly. That's the difference.

[Kizzy]

They are afforded anonimity whereas the accused has been named publicly. That's the difference.

I meant by the public not the courts.

[the truth]

What would have "gone unpunished"? You can't punish an innocent man until he's been found guilty of a crime.

You mean IF they get their justice assuming that he will eventually be charged... or even arrested ,let alone found guilty. If he is not charged, or if he is charged but later found not guilty, I'd like to see the people who made the accusations named and then charged with wasting police time, attemping to pervert the course of justice... maybe even perjury.

I agree with every single word of this. whilst we want to see the criminals banged up , Lets also see justice for the falsely accused and hold false accusers to acocunt for this and for wasting of crucial police time and money, time and money which could have been spent on other urgent crimes. The false accusers should be treated as serious criminals and locked away for years. not to mention civil costs for slander

[user104658]

What would have "gone unpunished"? You can't punish an innocent man until he's been found guilty of a crime.

You mean IF they get their justice assuming that he will eventually be charged... or even arrested ,let alone found guilty. If he is not charged, or if he is charged but later found not guilty, I'd like to see the people who made the accusations named and then charged with wasting police time, attemping to pervert the course of justice... maybe even perjury.

You're contradicting yourself. Just because someone isn't charged with something, does not mean they are definitely innocent. Far from it. People get away with all sorts of things, every day. Now... that's not a judgement on whether or not Cliff Richards IS guilty - I'm just saying, if he isn't convicted of anything, it's because he "hasn't been found guilty" - NOT because he is "definitely innocent".

With this in mind; if he hasn't been proven "definitely innocent" (which is all but impossible), then his accusers cannot be proven guilty of wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

They, too, must be afforded the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I find it VERY unlikely that guilt could be proven.


Basically... you're demanding that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty and yet seem very keen to throw away that right for the accusers.


Honestly, I can't imagine a worse possible outcome for a historic assault allegation case where the victim genuinely WAS assaulted, than there not being enough evidence for a conviction - the attacker found not guilty - and then the victim being thrown in jail :facepalm:.


I fully agree with the legal mantra of innocence until guilt is proven. I fully agree that it's worse for an innocent person to go to jail than for two guilty people to walk. However you'd have to be exceptionally naive to believe that everyone who leaves a courtroom unconvicted is innocent... some (many) are 100% guilty. Innocent until proven guilty means that it's not up to us to decide WHO is guilty... but, statistically, the fact that guilty men get away with sexual assault, rape, murder, drug offences... whatever... is just a certainty. It happens.

If we start putting every accuser on trial when the accused is found not guilty, no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting any crime. People will realise that no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting a crime. The risks involved in committing a crime then exponentially decrease... with a corresponding increase in criminal activity.

No - people MUST be able to accuse with impunity. It's vital.

[Cherie]

You're contradicting yourself. Just because someone isn't charged with something, does not mean they are definitely innocent. Far from it. People get away with all sorts of things, every day. Now... that's not a judgement on whether or not Cliff Richards IS guilty - I'm just saying, if he isn't convicted of anything, it's because he "hasn't been found guilty" - NOT because he if "definitely innocent".

With this in mind; if he hasn't been proven "definitely innocent" (which is all but impossible), then his accusers cannot be proven guilty of wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

They, too, must be afforded the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I find it VERY unlikely that guilt could be proven.


Basically... you're demanding that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty and yet seem very keen to throw away that right for the accusers.


Honestly, I can't imagine a worse possible outcome for a historic assault allegation case where the victim genuinely WAS assaulted, than there not being enough evidence for a conviction - the attacker found not guilty - and then the victim being thrown in jail :facepalm:.


I fully agree with the legal mantra of innocence until guilt is proven. I fully agree that it's worse for on innocent person to go to jail than for two guilty people to walk. However you'd have to be exceptionally naive to believe that everyone who leaves a courtroom unconvicted is innocent... some (many) are 100% guilty. Innocent until proven guilty means that it's not up to us to decide WHO is guilty... but, statistically, the fact that guilty men get away with sexual assault, rape, murder, drug offences... whatever... is just a certainty. It happens.

If we start putting every accuser on trial when the accused is found not guilty, no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting any crime. People will realise that no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting a crime. The risks involved in committing a crime then exponentially decrease... with a corresponding increase in criminal activity.

No - people MUST be able to accuse with impunity. It's vital.


:clap1:

[Nedusa]

You're contradicting yourself. Just because someone isn't charged with something, does not mean they are definitely innocent. Far from it. People get away with all sorts of things, every day. Now... that's not a judgement on whether or not Cliff Richards IS guilty - I'm just saying, if he isn't convicted of anything, it's because he "hasn't been found guilty" - NOT because he is "definitely innocent".

With this in mind; if he hasn't been proven "definitely innocent" (which is all but impossible), then his accusers cannot be proven guilty of wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

They, too, must be afforded the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I find it VERY unlikely that guilt could be proven.


Basically... you're demanding that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty and yet seem very keen to throw away that right for the accusers.


Honestly, I can't imagine a worse possible outcome for a historic assault allegation case where the victim genuinely WAS assaulted, than there not being enough evidence for a conviction - the attacker found not guilty - and then the victim being thrown in jail :facepalm:.


I fully agree with the legal mantra of innocence until guilt is proven. I fully agree that it's worse for an innocent person to go to jail than for two guilty people to walk. However you'd have to be exceptionally naive to believe that everyone who leaves a courtroom unconvicted is innocent... some (many) are 100% guilty. Innocent until proven guilty means that it's not up to us to decide WHO is guilty... but, statistically, the fact that guilty men get away with sexual assault, rape, murder, drug offences... whatever... is just a certainty. It happens.

If we start putting every accuser on trial when the accused is found not guilty, no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting any crime. People will realise that no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting a crime. The risks involved in committing a crime then exponentially decrease... with a corresponding increase in criminal activity.

No - people MUST be able to accuse with impunity. It's vital.

Good Post, I agree with the points you raise however my point as was raised in my earlier post was that accusers of crimes of a sexual nature must be prepared for their names to be made public if the name of the accused is made public. I'm not advocating retribution against the accusers merely that if the person they accuse has no anonymity then nor should they.

In fact the best solution would be both accuser and accused both to have anonymity at least until after the trial then the question would be if the accused is guilty certainly name and shame but if the accused is innocent then the accuser must be named, so should they make any future allegations at least police would know that that person had a track record and could treat their allegations armed with this knowledge.





.

[Kizzy]

Why just sexual abuse cases? Surely being wrongly accused of any crime is damaging.
There has to be some evidence for a trial to be considered they don't do these for fun they cost tens of thousands...
How would other witnesses or victims come forward if the accused was anonymous?

[JoshBB]

Why just sexual abuse cases? Surely being wrongly accused of any crime is damaging.
There has to be some evidence for a trial to be considered they don't do these for fun they cost tens of thousands...
How would other witnesses or victims come forward if the accused was anonymous?

That's what I was thinking. Unless people grouped together to target the same person, which is unlikely because I understand they're from different backgrounds, there's no other way it could have happened.

[Livia]

You're contradicting yourself. Just because someone isn't charged with something, does not mean they are definitely innocent. Far from it. People get away with all sorts of things, every day. Now... that's not a judgement on whether or not Cliff Richards IS guilty - I'm just saying, if he isn't convicted of anything, it's because he "hasn't been found guilty" - NOT because he is "definitely innocent".

With this in mind; if he hasn't been proven "definitely innocent" (which is all but impossible), then his accusers cannot be proven guilty of wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

They, too, must be afforded the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I find it VERY unlikely that guilt could be proven.


Basically... you're demanding that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty and yet seem very keen to throw away that right for the accusers.


Honestly, I can't imagine a worse possible outcome for a historic assault allegation case where the victim genuinely WAS assaulted, than there not being enough evidence for a conviction - the attacker found not guilty - and then the victim being thrown in jail :facepalm:.


I fully agree with the legal mantra of innocence until guilt is proven. I fully agree that it's worse for an innocent person to go to jail than for two guilty people to walk. However you'd have to be exceptionally naive to believe that everyone who leaves a courtroom unconvicted is innocent... some (many) are 100% guilty. Innocent until proven guilty means that it's not up to us to decide WHO is guilty... but, statistically, the fact that guilty men get away with sexual assault, rape, murder, drug offences... whatever... is just a certainty. It happens.

If we start putting every accuser on trial when the accused is found not guilty, no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting any crime. People will realise that no one in their right mind is going to risk reporting a crime. The risks involved in committing a crime then exponentially decrease... with a corresponding increase in criminal activity.

No - people MUST be able to accuse with impunity. It's vital.

People accused of a crime are considered, in the eyes of the law, to be innocent until they are proven guilty. If they are not guilty in the eyes of the law, then we have to accept that or it gets messy. No one can be "found innocent" but the pre-trial presumption of innocence is vital... and yet this thread suggests to me that some people can't get their head around that. You cannot assume someone is guilty because someone has made an accusation against them and their house has been searched. Read through the thread and you will see that some people have found him guilty already.

If an accuser is found to have lied, then they should feel the full force of the law. If there are glaring inconsistencies in their evidence, then that should be investigated. Obviously I wasn't suggesting if someone simply loses a case they should be prosecuted, that's just stupid. There are females who have been proven to have lied about a rape case and have suffered very few consequences, very light sentences, if any, when really they should have had the book thrown at them as they tried to ruin a man's life and also weakened the case of every woman reporting a genuine rape.

My biggest bugbear with this case, and with cases like this involving celebrities, is that celebrities are publicly named and therefore cnsequently are treated differently from "ordinary" people.

TS, you express yourself beautifully, you don’t need to embroider it for me with emoticons.

[Livia]

Why just sexual abuse cases? Surely being wrongly accused of any crime is damaging.
There has to be some evidence for a trial to be considered they don't do these for fun they cost tens of thousands...
How would other witnesses or victims come forward if the accused was anonymous?

Cases to go court every day on weak or circumstantial evidence.

How do other witnesses or victims come forward if the accused is not a celebrity and therefore not named? Unless you're suggesting we make special cases of famous people. If you're going to name one person then everyone accused should also be named. Everyone's equal in the eyes of the law, so why is one section of society, ie celebrities, being singled out this way?

[Kizzy]

Cases to go court every day on weak or circumstantial evidence.

How do other witnesses or victims come forward if the accused is not a celebrity and therefore not named? Unless you're suggesting we make special cases of famous people. If you're going to name one person then everyone accused should also be named. Everyone's equal in the eyes of the law, so why is one section of society, ie celebrities, being singled out this way?

Well then it would be in local not national newspapers, cases are referred via CPS they have to fulfill criteria or would be considered a waste of public funds.
Media attention will be on the celebrity due to their saleability I would say, is that the fault of the victims?. No.

It's well known that it's innocent until proven guilty, nobody is disputing that.
How often does a case occur where the victim has fabricated the whole senario?...
If you look through this thread that is suggested of the victim/s in this case too, why?

[Livia]

Well then it would be in local not national newspapers, cases are referred via CPS they have to fulfill criteria or would be considered a waste of public funds.
Media attention will be on the celebrity due to their saleability I would say, is that the fault of the victims?. No.

It's well known that it's innocent until proven guilty, nobody is disputing that.
How often does a case occur where the victim has fabricated the whole senario?...
If you look through this thread that is suggested of the victim/s in this case too, why?

Yes... I am aware of how cases get to court.

Name one, name all. Equality in the eyes of the law.

I have no control over what other people say. I have not suggested that the people making the claims concerned with this case are lying, only that it's wrong to assume guilt before someone's even found guilty, or even charged - or even arrested - because they have been accused.

[Kizzy]

Yes... I am aware of how cases get to court.

Name one, name all. Equality in the eyes of the law.

I have no control over what other people say. I have not suggested that the people making the claims concerned with this case are lying, only that it's wrong to assume guilt before someone's even found guilty, or even charged - or even arrested - because they have been accused.

Equality for whom the accused or the victim?

'Speculation is rife about what he's supposed to have done. And yet, we're not allowed to speculate about the truth in the allegations made against him?'

You might not have suggested it but you did speculate about it, you are as guilty of it as anyone here.

It is usual for someone accused of a crime to be discussed as to their innocence or guilt it doesn't always mean members are prejudging ..... but the victim?

[Livia]

Equality for whom the accused or the victim?

'Speculation is rife about what he's supposed to have done. And yet, we're not allowed to speculate about the truth in the allegations made against him?'

You might not have suggested it but you did speculate about it, you are as guilty of it as anyone here.

It is usual for someone accuse of a crime to be discussed as to the innocence or guilty it doesn't always mean they are prejudging ..... but the victim?

Equality for all.

So everyone else is supposed to be able to speculate with impunity... but you single out my post where I'm making that particular point. LOL... If his name hadn't been made public no one would be speculating about anything.

I don't understand your last sentence.

Something else we're not going to agree on. Might as well leave it there.

[Kizzy]

Equality for all.

So everyone else is supposed to be able to speculate with impunity... but you single out my post where I'm making that particular point. LOL... If his name hadn't been made public no one would be speculating about anything.

I don't understand your last sentence.

Something else we're not going to agree on. Might as well leave it there.

I corrected my last post, you were the only one to suggest you weren't though, I'm not putting words in your mouth.
It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing, that is just how the law works in this country as you know.

[Livia]

I corrected my last post, you were the only one to suggest you weren't though, I'm not putting words in your mouth.
It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing, that is just how the law works in this country as you know.

Kizzy, I understand how the law works. As YOU know.

[the truth]

I dont think anyone can argue with what Livia is stating here. It's a shame these spineless poiliticians cant grow some backbone and rectify this hideous situation.

[lostalex]

I dont think anyone can argue with what Livia is stating here. It's a shame these spineless poiliticians cant grow some backbone and rectify this hideous situation.

kizzy CAN argue with anyone. and she does.

it kinda makes me like her.

its a contrarian attitude that i can relate to.

that being said, she's wrong. ;)

[Sticks]

What about the verdict they have in Scotland of Not Proven, in addition to Proven and not Guilty

Many believe it means "We think you did it, but the police have failed to prove it" Some see that getting a verdict of Not Proven means there is always a cloud or stain on your character.

Anyone from north of the border who can cast light on this?

[lostalex]

That;s exasct;y what it means. just because you can't prove someone guilty, doesn't mean they are innocent.

it just means you can't prove them guilty.

[Kizzy]

kizzy CAN argue with anyone. and she does.

it kinda makes me like her.

its a contrarian attitude that i can relate to.

that being said, she's wrong. ;)

How can I be wrong when we are labouring the same point that all people involved in the case are innocent until proven guilty...
We all have an opinion alex.

[Kizzy]

Kizzy, I understand how the law works. As YOU know.

Good for you, yet that has no bearing on your speculation about the victims of cases such as this .. That was my issue.
From the point of a victim of assault this attitude is what stops people coming forward.

[Livia]

Good for you, yet that has no bearing on your speculation about the victims of cases such as this .. That was my issue.
From the point of a victim of assault this attitude is what stops people coming forward.



If the accused had remained anonymous as usually and rightly happens, I would have no speculation about the alleged victims at all. You don't seem to have taken so much time and trouble picking up the people who's attitude is that Cliff Richard is guilty before he's even been arrested because his identity has been revealed. That's my issue.

[Kizzy]

If the accused had remained anonymous as usually and rightly happens, I would have no speculation about the alleged victims at all. You don't seem to have taken so much time and trouble picking up the people who's attitude is that Cliff Richard is guilty before he's even been arrested because his identity has been revealed. That's my issue.

It doesn't happen though does it?

'Protecting the identity of people accused of rape would be damaging and harmful both for victims and for society, campaigners have argued after it was revealed that three out of four people would be in favour of defendants remaining anonymous until they were convicted.

Under current legislation, people who complain they have been the victims of sexual offences automatically receive anonymity, but suspects do not. However according to a Comres poll commissioned by the Independent there is strong public support for changing the law.
However Sarah Green, the campaigns manager from End Violence Against Women, says protecting the identity of the accused go against fundamental principles of the British justice system. '

I don't agree with anyone being judged guilty before any court action, accused or victim. I never have.
Why anyone would speculate about the victims is what I'm having an issue with ... why are they speculated against? it isn't their fault the British justice system affords them anonymity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/02/rape-accusations-false-accusations-jimmy-savile-_n_3201155.html

[Livia]

It doesn't happen though does it?

'Protecting the identity of people accused of rape would be damaging and harmful both for victims and for society, campaigners have argued after it was revealed that three out of four people would be in favour of defendants remaining anonymous until they were convicted.

Under current legislation, people who complain they have been the victims of sexual offences automatically receive anonymity, but suspects do not. However according to a Comres poll commissioned by the Independent there is strong public support for changing the law.
However Sarah Green, the campaigns manager from End Violence Against Women, says protecting the identity of the accused go against fundamental principles of the British justice system. '

I don't agree with anyone being judged guilty before any court action, accused or victim. I never have.***
Why anyone would speculate about the victims is what I'm having an issue with ... why are they speculated against? it isn't their fault the British justice system affords them anonymity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/02/rape-accusations-false-accusations-jimmy-savile-_n_3201155.html

***Maybe take the discussion to those who have done JUST that in this thread, instead of continuing with this with me when I said a few posts ago that a discussion between us is futile.

[Kizzy]

Nobody has judged, a few have speculated including you and since you chose to quote me we have discussed the topic.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Surprised they're playing summer holiday this afternoon on ITV3.

[Sticks]

Disgraceful, has ITV got no respect for the victims?

[Livia]

Disgraceful, has ITV got no respect for the victims?

There might not be any victims. We don't know yet.

Have you no respect for the law?

[Sticks]

While he is under investigation, we expect some decorum from the media, such as when Channel 5 suspended animal hospital when Rolf Harris was charged.

Sometimes it is safest to go Guilty until proven innocent, in terms of PR issues and taste.

[Livia]

While he is under investigation, we expect some decorum from the media, such as when Channel 5 suspended animal hospital when Rolf Harris was charged.

Sometimes it is safest to go Guilty until proven innocent, in terms of PR issues and taste.

Cliff Richard has not been charged though, has he. And until he is I see no reason for a silly knee-jerk reaction that TV and radio stations may later regret.

Stuff PR and "taste". You can't change the law because it suits your agenda.

[joeysteele]

Cliff Richard has talked to the Police voluntarily, he has been interviewed under caution and he is now again free,with no arrest at this time, no bail necessary and no sign yet as to any arrest or charges either.

This means he is as free and as innocent at this time as I and anyone else who has no convictions.
So hardly surprising his music can still be played and his films shown.
Absolutely no reason at present,and I am guessing likely for the future too,not to do so.

[Sticks]

Surely it would be prudent to ban his songs and films, until such time the police announced they were taking no further action or he is acquitted after a trial.

Suppose the police decide to charge and it turns out he is guilty after all just like Rolf Harris. To his victims, any station playing his films or music could be seen as condoning child sex abuse by giving his work air time.

It is better to be safe than sorry and ban all his work, forthwith ...

[joeysteele]

Surely it would be prudent to ban his songs and films, until such time the police announced they were taking no further action or he is acquitted after a trial.

Suppose the police decide to charge and it turns out he is guilty after all just like Rolf Harris. To his victims, any station playing his films or music could be seen as condoning child sex abuse by giving his work air time.

It is better to be safe than sorry and ban all his work, forthwith ...

I can understand that 'if' he was even arrested, the Police have just talked to him under caution,with him going to them voluntarily, they haven't seen fit to even arrest him after that and then therefore bail him so this is starting to look like this allegation has little legs to it really.

So in light of that,he is a totally free individual with as yet no legal blot on his character at all.
It would be really bad if people in this situation were suspended from their work or lost status when it appears there is nothing as yet to answer to.
Were the Police to think in the future as to arresting him and then bailing him, then it would look more serious.

As to Rolf Harris, he was arrested,not interviewd under caution, he was arrested,bailed and then charged,finally to be found guilty of those charges, that is a world away from what is the situation at present with Cliff Richard.

You cannot punish or restrict innocent people and at this time, and even after talking to the police under caution, that is the position that remains as to Cliff Richard.
He has nothing more to answer,even in the view of the police.

Of course they will look into further allegations,if there are any but at this time they feel they have an allegation against him, they have searched his home, he has talked to them and they must have been clearly satisfied with whatever he has said at that interview so far.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Surprised they're playing summer holiday this afternoon on ITV3.

why?:shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Surely it would be prudent to ban his songs and films, until such time the police announced they were taking no further action or he is acquitted after a trial.

Suppose the police decide to charge and it turns out he is guilty after all just like Rolf Harris. To his victims, any station playing his films or music could be seen as condoning child sex abuse by giving his work air time.

It is better to be safe than sorry and ban all his work, forthwith ...

give it up FFS:nono:

[Sticks]

It would be really bad if people in this situation were suspended from their work or lost status when it appears there is nothing as yet to answer to.
Were the Police to think in the future as to arresting him and then bailing him, then it would look more serious.

But in some professions and some jobs, the allegation is enough to get them suspended until they have been positively cleared, such as police officers and teachers

[Ammi]

..is that not for obvious reasons though Sticks...they're in a position of trust which celebrities aren't as such...but even with them..police officers/teachers etc..it can still be so damaging to their career and how people judge generally even if they were not then charged or found innocent..which is really a good example of why people shouldn't be named...

[Sticks]

Celebrities are held up as role models by some, and examples to emulate, which is similar to being in a position of trust.

[Livia]

Celebrities are held up as role models by some, and examples to emulate, which is similar to being in a position of trust.

Firstly, how may impressionable youths do you think are out there trying to emulate Cliff Richard? Secondly, do you really think people are so stupid to think, hey, my favourite celebrity has been questioned over an alleged attack on an under aged person, and now his film's on the telly! So I'm going to do the same.

Really, your arguments are getting weaker and sillier as the thread goes on.

[Kizzy]

Not at all, the suggestion that you 'cant change the law to suit your agenda' is false as you can if you have the money for a super-injunction for instance?
Whether in a position of trust or not people have to be treated equal in the eyes of the law as far as I see it as a civil liberty.
And that includes celebrities.

[Sticks]

There are reports that Cliff Richard may have abused more than one person.

See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793)

When are they going to charge him?

[Helen 28]

There are reports that Cliff Richard may have abused more than one person.

See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793)

When are they going to charge him?

I should imagine if and when they get enough evidence like everybody else.

[AnnieK]

I should imagine if and when they get enough evidence like everybody else.

:clap1:

[user104658]

:joker: People really are absolutely desperate to believe that lovely Cliff isn't just another grubby ol' bugger, aren't they? Like it would be some sort of step too far... "Not Cliff too!!". Let's inject even just a touch of realism, here... they may be lacking in evidence (as with other cases that have been thrown out), they are obviously trying hard to gather more, he may well never be charged / convicted BUT... let's face it... he probably has had his hands in the cookie jar :shrug:.

There is a wealth of information out there that suggests that Cliff has been mixed up in a whole mess of "unsavory stuff", all fairly well documented and quite compelling, I personally wouldn't want to start reposting it or linking to it but I'll just say that it's not particularly hard to find if you happen to be interested in looking around. I personally suspect, like a certain other Knight of the Realm, we won't know the whole story until he's dead.

[Kizzy]

Has he even stepped foot in the UK since the allegations?

[kirklancaster]

I can understand that 'if' he was even arrested, the Police have just talked to him under caution,with him going to them voluntarily, they haven't seen fit to even arrest him after that and then therefore bail him so this is starting to look like this allegation has little legs to it really.

So in light of that,he is a totally free individual with as yet no legal blot on his character at all.
It would be really bad if people in this situation were suspended from their work or lost status when it appears there is nothing as yet to answer to.
Were the Police to think in the future as to arresting him and then bailing him, then it would look more serious.

As to Rolf Harris, he was arrested,not interviewd under caution, he was arrested,bailed and then charged,finally to be found guilty of those charges, that is a world away from what is the situation at present with Cliff Richard.

You cannot punish or restrict innocent people and at this time, and even after talking to the police under caution, that is the position that remains as to Cliff Richard.
He has nothing more to answer,even in the view of the police.

Of course they will look into further allegations,if there are any but at this time they feel they have an allegation against him, they have searched his home, he has talked to them and they must have been clearly satisfied with whatever he has said at that interview so far.

:clap1: I've just got to applaud your balance and honesty Joey. Another good post.

Another point to remember as well, is that after all the heavy criticism the police have come in for after Jimmy The Bastard Savile and cronies, they will be extra, extra, diligent and far more draconian in judging what level of evidence constitutes a 'reasonable' case, therefore, if after all this time, and despite what can be reasonably assumed to be extra exhaustive investigations being carried out, there are still no charges against Cliff, then I for one feel sure that there is nothing to charge him with.

[joeysteele]

:clap1: I've just got to applaud your balance and honesty Joey. Another good post.

Another point to remember as well, is that after all the heavy criticism the police have come in for after Jimmy The Bastard Savile and cronies, they will be extra, extra, diligent and far more draconian in judging what level of evidence constitutes a 'reasonable' case, therefore, if after all this time, and despite what can be reasonably assumed to be extra exhaustive investigations being carried out, there are still no charges against Cliff, then I for one feel sure that there is nothing to charge him with.

Thank you for that Kirk.
If people make allegations then the Police to be fair to them, have to investigate.

More allegations still do not in themselves prove any guilt,as with the first allegation, Cliff came to the UK and went and voluntarily talked to the Police,as I said last year, clearly they were satisfied with what he said as to that, to not arrest him or even bail him or set a date to return to even just talk to them again.

Even with the extra allegation/s,as yet the Police have not sought to even arrest him or ask him to come and talk to them again.

So although still under some investigation, Cliff Richard still has nothing to answer to.
What may happen in the future,or not as the case may be,no one can or should be considered guilty of anything when they haven't even as yet been formally arrested by the Police even.

[Sticks]

What ever happened to "No smoke without fire"?

[kirklancaster]

What ever happened to "No smoke without fire"?

The only trouble with that old chestnut Sticks, is that too often what is perceived as 'smoke' turns out to have been 'Scotch Mist', but for some unfortunate people, such a discovery of truth is far too late.

Here's just three of my favourite 'Miscarriages of Justice' from hundreds in the UK, courtesy of WIKIPEDIA:

1) Barry Michael George was wrongly convicted on 2 July 2001 of the murder of British television presenter Jill Dando, but his conviction was subsequently judged unsafe by the Court of Appeal and was quashed in 2007. After a retrial, he was acquitted on 1 August 2008.

2)Timothy Evans's wife and young daughter were killed in 1949. Evans was convicted of the murder of his daughter and was hanged in 1950. An official inquiry conducted 15 years later determined that the real killer of Evans's daughter had been Evans's co-tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie. Christie was also responsible for the death of Evans's wife, his own wife, and six other women. He was the chief witness against Evans at his trial because the police accepted all of his statements as fact. The police were incompetent in their several searches of the house at Rillington Place, missing bones of earlier victims exposed in the tiny garden of the property. They also concocted false confessions from Evans to justify their accusations against him. The case was important in leading directly to the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 in the UK.

3) Stefan Kiszko was convicted in 1976 for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old Lesley Molseed in 1975. He spent 16 years in prison before he was released in 1992, after a long campaign by his mother. He died of a heart attack the following year at the age of 41. His mother died a few months later. In 2007, Ronald Castree, of Shaw, near Oldham, was found to have the same DNA as Lesley's attacker and was convicted at Bradford Crown Court.

And a few others out of thousands. These courtesy of LIST 25.com:

A) In 2007 Sally Clark died of alcohol poisoning after not being able to recover from the horrors and false accusations of her conviction and imprisonment. Psychiatric issues like alcohol dependency syndrome stemmed from the alleged murders of her 2 sons, one in 1996 and the other in 1998. In January 2003 her convictions were all overturned stating the deaths were of natural causes and that evidence had been tampered with.

B) The case of Sally Clark was not the only one of its kind. There were several and one of the worse is Angela Cannings’ ordeal. After her sons’ deaths in 1991 and 1999 and serving her sentence for a year, the results of further investigation revealed that her family had a significant history of sudden death syndrome. In 2003 her conviction was overturned but her family was already split apart and a prison inmate continued harassing her.

C) Being falsely accused by your own daughter of raping her several times is probably a father’s worst nightmare. Because some of the evidence seemed so authentic, Thomas Kennedy was sentenced to 15 years in prison. After 9 years, Cassandra, his daughter owned up to falsely accusing her father and confessed that the physical evidences of rape were because she had sexual relations with a boy in second grade. The boy, already an adult by the time she revealed the truth, released a statement saying that what she said was indeed true.

D) Nora Wall is a former Irish nun of the Sisters of Mercy who was wrongfully convicted of rape in June 1999, and served four days of a life sentence in July 1999, before her conviction was quashed. Wall was the first woman in the history of the Irish State to be convicted of rape, the first person to receive a life sentence for rape and the only person in the history of the state to be convicted on repressed memory evidence.

E) Yet another case of a DNA evidence swinging the proceedings in favor of the accused is the case of Lynn DeJac who was convicted of murdering her daughter. She was exonerated years later when the DNA analysis results pointed to her companion, Dennis Donohue who was before that also linked to a case separate from DeJac’s.

F) Although there was no evidence linking Darryl to the alleged rape he was being convicted of, a supposedly racist jury went ahead and convicted him anyway. He served 19 years starting in 1984 but thanks to DNA testing, he was cleared of the rape and is now fighting back by helping others in his postion.

G) The case that brothers, Ray, Peter and Brian Mickelberg were involved in was famously known as the Perth Mint swindle, a robbery of 49 gold bars weighing 68 kilograms that was valued at $2.02 million in 2011. And yes, like the others on the list, they didn’t do it. A movie and a book were produced and published to present the real story behind their infamous ordeal since the 2 surviving brothers are still fighting to win the case against the Western Australia Police for allegedly framing them.

H) Dewey is a former amateur boxer who is best known for being imprisoned for a conviction which was eventually overturned. Convicted in 1983 for the murder of an elderly woman, Bozella served 26 years in prison before his conviction was overturned in 2009. Lawyers discovered new evidence that had been suppressed by prosecutors showing Bozella was in fact innocent and had been framed.

I) For murdering and dismembering his wife, Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen was executed in 1910. In 2007, with the help of genetic evidence, it was found that the body under the brick floor of the basement that was initially said to be of his wife’s was actually of a man’s. Even with this development, the authorities still will not hear the case to overturn his conviction.

J) Alfred Dreyfus was a French artillery officer of Jewish background whose trial and conviction in 1894 on charges of treason became one of the most tense political dramas in modern French and European history. Known today as the Dreyfus Affair, the incident eventually ended with Dreyfus’s complete exoneration.

K) When you’re in the right place at the right time, either you’re given an incredible opportunity or a horrible twist of fate befalls you. Mahmood Hussein Mattan is a victim of the latter. After he arrived in Wales he was wrongfully accused of killing a woman. In spite of testimonies stating that he wasn’t the culprit, certain evidence was twisted and used to convict him, eventually leading to a death sentence. He was the last person hanged in Cardiff prison and the only convict who’s family was ever compensated after he was exonerated more than 40 years after his death.

L) When law enforcement is corrupt…the people suffer. Arthur Allan Thomas learned this all too well when he was convicted of a double murder case in 1970 all because of a rifle cartridge case that was planted in the garden of the house where the murders took place. Although the police who planted the case are now dead, the authorities are still conducting a thorough review of the original investigation to get to the bottom of the incident.

M) Rubin “Hurricane” Carter fought professionally as a middleweight boxer from 1961 to 1966. In 1966, he was arrested and wrongly convicted for a triple homicide in the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey. He and another man, John Artis, were tried and convicted twice for the murders, but after the second conviction was overturned in 1985, prosecutors chose not to try the case for a third time.

N) A 14 year old Canadian student was sentenced to death in 1959 for the murder of a classmate. He was supposed to be the youngest person ever placed on death row but a temporary reprieve was granted to postpone the execution and eventually was commuted to life imprisonment. Things turned around in his favor and almost 50 years later, Truscott was awarded $6.5 million in compensation after he was acquitted.

O) Being accused of beating to death his pregnant wife Marilyn Reese Sheppard landed him 10 years in the state penitentiary. He was then convicted of murder and earned a sentence of life imprisonment. Although he insisted that his wife was killed by a man with thick dark hair in a white shirt who attacked him as well, no one believed his story until in 1966 when his conviction was overturned in light of new evidence.

[Z]

Perhaps getting 5 when I add 2 and 2 together, but I'm thinking all this religious nonsense was part of his expression of guilt over what he did and he's spent most of his adult life trying to repent for taking advantage of vulnerable people who admired him or otherwise couldn't resist his advances.

[Helen 28]

:joker: People really are absolutely desperate to believe that lovely Cliff isn't just another grubby ol' bugger, aren't they? Like it would be some sort of step too far... "Not Cliff too!!". Let's inject even just a touch of realism, here... they may be lacking in evidence (as with other cases that have been thrown out), they are obviously trying hard to gather more, he may well never be charged / convicted BUT... let's face it... he probably has had his hands in the cookie jar :shrug:.

There is a wealth of information out there that suggests that Cliff has been mixed up in a whole mess of "unsavory stuff", all fairly well documented and quite compelling, I personally wouldn't want to start reposting it or linking to it but I'll just say that it's not particularly hard to find if you happen to be interested in looking around. I personally suspect, like a certain other Knight of the Realm, we won't know the whole story until he's dead.

We have innocent until proved guilty in this country thankfully.

I'm not a Cliff fan at all but to go round saying he's probably guilty because somebody on Facebook reckons he is or some bloke in the pub thinks he looks strange isn't quite enough to be jailed.

[user104658]

Whilst it's obviously true that there are miscarriages of justice, kirk, it's interesting that you have listed a whole plethora of examples of people who have been wrongly found guilty when they were innocent... And yet seem unwilling to consider that someone might be found to be innocent (or never even charged) when they are in fact guilty?

In fact, it's probable that FAR more guilty men walk free, than innocent men find themselves behind bars.

[user104658]

We have innocent until proved guilty in this country thankfully.

I'm not a Cliff fan at all but to go round saying he's probably guilty because somebody on Facebook reckons he is or some bloke in the pub thinks he looks strange isn't quite enough to be jailed.
No, and like I said above if there isn't enough evidence then he won't go to jail, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything either way. It means what it means - there isn't enough evidence. It is obviously right that when evidence is lacking, no charges are brought. I for one WOULD rather see ten guilty men walk free than one innocent be locked away.

However it in no way necessitates altering one's personal opinions or suspicions. I believe there's more to this than meets the eye. There is some quite compelling evidence freely available if you care to look, like I said, not just "Facebook and down the pub". Obviously not enough to warrant criminal charges of any kind, all circumstantial, however certainly enough to cast the man in a very different light and "make you wonder".

[Helen 28]

No, and like I said above if there isn't enough evidence then he won't go to jail, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything either way. It means what it means - there isn't enough evidence. It is obviously right that when evidence is lacking, no charges are brought. I for one WOULD rather see ten guilty men walk free than one innocent be locked away.

However it in no way necessitates altering one's personal opinions or suspicions. I believe there's more to this than meets the eye. There is some quite compelling evidence freely available if you care to look, like I said, not just "Facebook and down the pub". Obviously not enough to warrant criminal charges of any kind, all circumstantial, however certainly enough to cast the man in a very different light and "make you wonder".

Circumstantial how ever compelling means absolutely nothing, as a very small cog in the legal industry I can tell you I have come across loads of cases where everything pointed to guilty. After investigation they were groundless.

Judges simply discount evidence that can't be proved which is how it should be.

I have no idea if Cliff Richard is guilty of anything other than some cringworthy songs, time will tell.

[user104658]

Circumstantial how ever compelling means absolutely nothing, as a very small cog in the legal industry I can tell you I have come across loads of cases where everything pointed to guilty. After investigation they were groundless.

Judges simply discount evidence that can't be proved which is how it should be.

I have no idea if Cliff Richard is guilty of anything other than some cringworthy songs, time will tell.
Well exactly but that's the point: I'm not talking about the "justice" system... The justice system gets it wrong plenty. Innocent people are charged (maybe not every day, but plenty), guilty people go home to their families, and that does happen every day.

What happen in a police station or court room does not define guilt. Only the facts define guilt. And when the facts have been successfully obscured, eroded by time, or (as is often the case) are a case of one persons word against another, then they become useless in "legal terms".

[Nedusa]

I fear the net may now be closing in for Sir Cliff, more than one allegation has now been received and this will give grounds for his arrest and possible charges may be brought.

for years Sir Cliff has been dogged by rumours of underage gay sex and he has worked very hard to quash all such innuendo but in the light of all the recent Celebrity sex scandals it was only a matter of time before he would be included in this ongoing investigation.

Could this be possibly why he has taken up Barbadian citizenship, are there extradition treaty's in place with this Island ?

who knows if he has a case to answer or could it be more of a cash for silence scam.

After Rolf Harris all bets are off and I would not be shocked at hearing the arrest now for historical sex offences of anyone.

[kirklancaster]

Whilst it's obviously true that there are miscarriages of justice, kirk, it's interesting that you have listed a whole plethora of examples of people who have been wrongly found guilty when they were innocent... And yet seem unwilling to consider that someone might be found to be innocent (or never even charged) when they are in fact guilty?

In fact, it's probable that FAR more guilty men walk free, than innocent men find themselves behind bars.

No, this is a misconception T.S. taken out of context.

I posted the lists of 'Miscarriages of Justice' in direct response to 'Sticks' post in which he asked; "What ever happened to "No smoke without fire"? because I wanted to illustrate just some of the very many examples of 'Smoke Without Fire'.

Far from being "unwilling to consider that someone might be found to be innocent or never charged when they are in fact guilty" I am very aware that this does happen, but I did not explore as much in my response to 'Sticks' because his question did not beggar such an inclusion of that subject.

As I say, I do concede that sometimes a guilty person will not be charged because the Crown Prosecution Service does not deem that the available 'prima facie' evidence will support a conviction, or, if the case does proceed to court, he may escape justice because the case collapses, or if he is found 'Not Guilty' and acquitted, but I strongly doubt your contention that such cases outweigh miscarriages of Justice where innocents are convicted.

In any event, the above scenarios are all 'part and parcel' of the way our democratic Criminal and Judicial systems work, so there is little we can do about it and we must accept them, whereas miscarriages of justice where innocent people are convicted, jailed, or even executed by the State, are not a legitimate part of our Criminal and Judicial systems but are simply unforgivable failures of those systems and we should never ever accept them.

As the old adage goes, and as you yourself have quoted; "It is better that ten guilty men walk free than one innocent be locked away".

Whether Cliff Richard has committed any crime or not, I do not know, but what I do know, is that under our Law, until he is charged and tried in a Court of Law then found guilty, he is innocent, and in my opinion, no innocent man should be shamed, ostracized, victimised or have his reputation sullied, or his career damaged in any way - least of all by Internet Kangaroo Courts where even the most intellectual of accusers know diddly squat and can prove even less.

Rumours and allegations can often be like rivers, no matter how many tributaries exist, they can be traced back to one source. Here, the source may be lies, desire for fame or fortune, or merely pure fantasy.

As Helen says; Time will tell.

[Kizzy]

The fact is the victims in cases of sexual abuse are alive, in your examples the victims were dead so it's not comparable really.

[Vanessa]

Not Sir Cliff ! D:

[kirklancaster]

The fact is the victims in cases of sexual abuse are alive, in your examples the victims were dead so it's not comparable really.

I honestly do not know whether you are addressing me or not, but it is irrelevant anyway because your post really does not make any sense.

If you will explain just what you mean, then I will be glad to respond - assuming that it is me you are addressing.

[Kizzy]

I was referring to your wiki excerpts, the majority being murder victims... that is not the case here is it, the victims are alive to give their accounts.

Interestingly, in another thread there's only the suggestion that a man has made a derogatory remark, but it's on the whole accepted that he should be beaten unconcious... Is this an example of an internet kangaroo court?

[kirklancaster]

I was referring to your wiki excerpts, the majority being murder victims... that is not the case here is it, the victims are alive to give their accounts.

Interestingly, in another thread there's only the suggestion that a man has made a derogatory remark, but it's on the whole accepted that he should be beaten unconcious... Is this an example of an internet kangaroo court?

:facepalm: Oh dear.

I'll take your confused Wiki excerpts comments first:

"I was referring to your wiki excerpts, the majority being murder victims... that is not the case here is it, the victims are alive to give their accounts."


Are you really being serious? Are you genuinely - once again - misunderstanding what I have I have so clearly posted in the Queen's English?

As I have explained twice already in two previous posts had you read them, the whole purpose of my reproducing the list from Wiki was to illustrate to 'Sticks' - who asked in his post "What ever happened to No smoke without fire"? - just some of the very many examples of 'Smoke Without Fire'.

THE NATURE OF THE CRIMES AND THE FATE OF THE VICTIMS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THIS CONTEXT because it is the FACTS OF THE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE, WHERE INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED, TRIED AND CONVICTED OF CRIMES WHICH THEY DID NOT COMMIT which is THE WHOLE POINT of the LIST ie; CASES WHERE THERE MOST DEFINITELY HAS BEEN 'SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE'.

If we are finally clear on this point, I will now address your equally as confused other point:

"Interestingly, in another thread there's only the suggestion that a man has made a derogatory remark, but it's on the whole accepted that he should be beaten unconcious... Is this an example of an internet kangaroo court?"

This has absolutely no relevance in the context of this thread or my posts in it:

In that thread, we were working from a premise - doubly stated - that a bullying yob had made repeated homophobic comments to a gay man. Based upon that - doubly stated - premise and the additional information provided in the preamble, and the linked video footage, members were giving their opinions.

The above is FAIR COMMENT on a DISCUSSION FORUM and constituted AFTER THE FACT opinion.

Being AFTER THE FACT, no one was forming PREJUDICIAL VERDICTS as in this case of Cliff Richard who - as yet has not been charged or tried or convicted of any crime.

Posting AFTER THE FACT OPINIONS on a DISCUSSION FORUM ,after analysis of the VISUAL and AUDITORY EVIDENCE AT HAND is not PREJUDICIAL.

Whereas LAYMEN on an internet forum CONDEMNING and INDICTING Cliff Richard of BEING A KIDDY FIDDLER when they have no DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE POLICE INVESTIGATION OF CLIFF RICHARD and therefore also have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, ARE TRYING HIM IN AN 'INTERNET KANGAROO COURT'.

Is it not arrogant and extremely idiotic to presume that one has more EVIDENCE in this case than the POLICE have? And if they deem that there is - as yet - insufficient evidence to warrant any charges, then to try and convict this INNOCENT man on a discussion forum is not only UNJUST it is TRIAL BY KANGAROO COURT.

See? There is a huge and very real difference in the two cases you mistakenly linked. IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRIAL AND AN INQUEST. Google them.

All OK now? Good.

[Niamh.]

Whilst it's obviously true that there are miscarriages of justice, kirk, it's interesting that you have listed a whole plethora of examples of people who have been wrongly found guilty when they were innocent... And yet seem unwilling to consider that someone might be found to be innocent (or never even charged) when they are in fact guilty?

In fact, it's probable that FAR more guilty men walk free, than innocent men find themselves behind bars.

Indeed. Especially in this type of crime, it's extremely difficult to actually prove

[Kizzy]

No need to get upset.... I know your response was to the no smoke without fire comment, I still don't find the majority of your examples relevant.

Out of interest does a 'doubly stated - premise' mean two people presume the same thing?....

[Livia]

It's easier to disprove. I read about Jim Davidson's case... one of the women making allegations said he attacked her in a particular place, and that he was driving a particular car. Turns out he could prove he was nowhere near the place she claimed, and that the car she mentioned had been sold quite some time earlier.

I am quite shocked that people aren't more outraged that people can destroy a man's career with allegations that, if proved to be false, still means his career is in tatters and the accusers get off scot free without even their name being released.

My feeling is there will be no case to answer. But right now, there's nothing to say because he is innocent, he hasn't been found guilty, he hasn't even been charged, so it's all nothing more than salacious gossip right now.

And for the record... there is often smoke without fire, literally and figuratively.

[kirklancaster]

No need to get upset.... I know your response was to the no smoke without fire comment, I still don't find the majority of your examples relevant.

Out of interest does a 'doubly stated - premise' mean two people presume the same thing?....

I'm not upset.

They are relevant because they are valid illustrations of 'Smoke Without Fire', so I don't know how you can STILL maintain they are not relevant????

The 'Doubly Stated' premise means that the Thread Title stated that "The GAYS" are fighting back" which can only be taken as The Gay referred to was REACTING not ACTING, and this was reinforced in the linked video itself with: "Man, insults Gay and get beat on the subway" and "man insulted a gay, in the subway, and was beaten" - so the PREMISE is actually TRIPLY STATED.

[Kizzy]

They are examples of miscarriages of justice not smoke without fire imo.
I could say something 100 times... wouldn't make it right or true would it?
There's only half a story as there is here, some presumed by the reaction that the man being attacked was guilty, and here some are presuming due to the huge investigation that CR is guilty of something it seems?

[kirklancaster]

They are examples of miscarriages of justice not smoke without fire imo.
I could say something 100 times... wouldn't make it right or true would it?
There's only half a story as there is here, some presumed by the reaction that the man being attacked was guilty, and here some are presuming due to the huge investigation that CR is guilty of something it seems?

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.

[chuff me dizzy]

Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas 19s20 seconds ago Some major news due to break shortly regarding the ongoing ‪#‎CliffRichard‬ child sex abuse investigation OpKaddie


From Twitter

[Kizzy]

Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas 19s20 seconds ago Some major news due to break shortly regarding the ongoing ‪#‎CliffRichard‬ child sex abuse investigation OpKaddie


From Twitter

Will be watching for that then.

[Kizzy]

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.

Fair enough.

[joeysteele]

It's easier to disprove. I read about Jim Davidson's case... one of the women making allegations said he attacked her in a particular place, and that he was driving a particular car. Turns out he could prove he was nowhere near the place she claimed, and that the car she mentioned had been sold quite some time earlier.

I am quite shocked that people aren't more outraged that people can destroy a man's career with allegations that, if proved to be false, still means his career is in tatters and the accusers get off scot free without even their name being released.

My feeling is there will be no case to answer. But right now, there's nothing to say because he is innocent, he hasn't been found guilty, he hasn't even been charged, so it's all nothing more than salacious gossip right now.

And for the record... there is often smoke without fire, literally and figuratively.

Excellent post.
Also to add to your points of, .... ''he hasn't been found guilty,he hasn't even been charged''....., he hasn't even been officially arrested either.

[Z]

Fair enough.

Sassy :smug:

[Sticks]

Excellent post.
Also to add to your points of, .... ''he hasn't been found guilty,he hasn't even been charged''....., he hasn't even been officially arrested either.

There's still time....

[empire]

the way freddie starr was treated was, disgusting, the public and police where looking for a pawn to use, social workers told him that he could not be alone with his children, when they could not protect children in rotherham, I hope he wins his court case for suing the police and the person who threw defamatory at him, I would hate to be a famous person, because you are more vunlnerable to allegations like this, people do anything low for money, its are biggest sin in this world,lionel blair said he is going to stop working with children, because one claim, its over for you,even if it was a false lie,

[the truth]

the way freddie starr was treated was, disgusting, the public and police where looking for a pawn to use, social workers told him that he could not be alone with his children, when they could not protect children in rotherham, I hope he wins his court case for suing the police and the person who threw defamatory at him, I would hate to be a famous person, because you are more vunlnerable to allegations like this, people do anything low for money, its are biggest sin in this world,lionel blair said he is going to stop working with children, because one claim, its over for you,even if it was a false lie,

agreed. this all started with the greed and lies of radical feminists. The bent sexist male hating laws have created a two tier system where any man regardless of innocence can have his entire life, career, family and reputation destroyed in a millisecond on the back of a pack of lies by a sick gold digger.....these matters should remain anonymous in the hands of the police until the man is taken to court.

[Tom4784]

agreed. this all started with the greed and lies of radical feminists. The bent sexist male hating laws have created a two tier system where any man regardless of innocence can have his entire life, career, family and reputation destroyed in a millisecond on the back of a pack of lies by a sick gold digger.....these matters should remain anonymous in the hands of the police until the man is taken to court.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/6b717d862059382c29547b6fb0d6324c/tumblr_n2rvyfX1Em1r57ykoo1_250.gif

[arista]

Why is this in the News again
this time the Police are not telling us any data
and not sending a pre set up Bloated BBC Helicopter.


Prove he is Guilty
or get it off my fecking news

[chuff me dizzy]

the way freddie starr was treated was, disgusting, the public and police where looking for a pawn to use, social workers told him that he could not be alone with his children, when they could not protect children in rotherham, I hope he wins his court case for suing the police and the person who threw defamatory at him, I would hate to be a famous person, because you are more vunlnerable to allegations like this, people do anything low for money, its are biggest sin in this world,lionel blair said he is going to stop working with children, because one claim, its over for you,even if it was a false lie,
Cliff case is totally different to Freddies, theres LOTS of evidence and history in this case

[Livia]

Oh here we go... someone on a Big Brother forum imagine they are privy to the amount and the quality of the information and evidence the police have. If they had that much evidence they'd have charged him by now. Some people just want him to be guilty. I am reminded of those women who used to sit around the guillotine, knitting and cackling.

[Kizzy]

Oh here we go... someone on a Big Brother forum imagine they are privy to the amount and the quality of the information and evidence the police have. If they had that much evidence they'd have charged him by now. Some people just want him to be guilty. I am reminded of those women who used to sit around the guillotine, knitting and cackling.

Nobody WANTS him to be guilty what a ridiculous statement. To mock anyone who feels the building case has any merit like this is just odd, across threads the usual patter is leave things to the police... and then when they begin an investigation we're just meant to expect that to amount to nothing?

[Nedusa]

I fear it's going to be just plain old Mr Cliff Richard soon.

[Sticks]

Or prisoner number .....

[user104658]

Oh here we go... someone on a Big Brother forum imagine they are privy to the amount and the quality of the information and evidence the police have. If they had that much evidence they'd have charged him by now. Some people just want him to be guilty. I am reminded of those women who used to sit around the guillotine, knitting and cackling.

That's not necessarily true, especially not with someone who has such a high profile. If evidence gathering is still progressing, I doubt they would arrest and charge him until it has been exhaustively stockpiled.

Also, the suggestion that people "want him to be guilty" is a bit much. Who "wants" people to have been abused in the past? I "want" for no one to have ever been assaulted or abused, but it happens. In this case I suspect that he probably is guilty of historic offenses. I don't "know" anything but, frankly, suggesting that people can't form opinions and suspicions about a person's character without it having been proven in a court of law, is utterly ridiculous. Obviously you can't outright accuse someone of something that hasn't yet been proven but stating that I believe his character not to be as "sparkly white" as he has portrayed is perfectly legitimate :shrug:.

So, no, I don't think anyone "wants" him to be guilty. I think people suspect he IS guilty, and what they (we) want is, if that is the case, for him to be found guilty and appropriately punished. What people DON'T want is him being guilty, but there being insufficient evidence for anything to stick. That is a perfectly legitimate, and realistic, concern.

[Kizzy]

Supposing it IS all rubbish?

That would rock public confidence in the media AND the police, and at a time when the establishment is under scrutiny for similar behaviours...
Then like the boy who cried wolf when the net closes in again on a high profile abuser what would the reaction from the public be?.... 'yeah, yeah it's rubbish'
:suspect:

[Livia]

That's not necessarily true, especially not with someone who has such a high profile. If evidence gathering is still progressing, I doubt they would arrest and charge him until it has been exhaustively stockpiled.

Also, the suggestion that people "want him to be guilty" is a bit much. Who "wants" people to have been abused in the past? I "want" for no one to have ever been assaulted or abused, but it happens. In this case I suspect that he probably is guilty of historic offenses. I don't "know" anything but, frankly, suggesting that people can't form opinions and suspicions about a person's character without it having been proven in a court of law, is utterly ridiculous. Obviously you can't outright accuse someone of something that hasn't yet been proven but stating that I believe his character not to be as "sparkly white" as he has portrayed is perfectly legitimate :shrug:.

So, no, I don't think anyone "wants" him to be guilty. I think people suspect he IS guilty, and what they (we) want is, if that is the case, for him to be found guilty and appropriately punished. What people DON'T want is him being guilty, but there being insufficient evidence for anything to stick. That is a perfectly legitimate, and realistic, concern.

Well, thanks for the lesson in law... This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face.

You can't really think that some of the views expressed on here are objective. Some people are positively gleeful that he's been named and while he is still innocent and unconvicted, one in particular was moaning about how awful if is for the "victims" that the BBC screened a film of his. Most of the posts are well thought through, some show an insane ignorance of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty.

[kirklancaster]

Well, thanks for the lesson in law... This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face.

You can't really think that some of the views expressed on here are objective. Some people are positively gleeful that he's been names and while he is still innocent and unconvicted, one in particular was moaning about how awful if is for the "victims" that the BBC screened a film of his. Most of the posts are well thought through, some show an insane ignorance of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Kizzy]

Well, thanks for the lesson in law... This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face.

You can't really think that some of the views expressed on here are objective. Some people are positively gleeful that he's been named and while he is still innocent and unconvicted, one in particular was moaning about how awful if is for the "victims" that the BBC screened a film of his. Most of the posts are well thought through, some show an insane ignorance of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty.

The police usually expose all the evidence prior to a case do they?
You would have to be ignorant and/or blinkered to believe that when there is a continuing investigation that it is for no good reason. Nobody is 'gleeful' and if I remember correctly when the initial accusations were leveled at Jimmy Saville many said the same, that it was all rubbish...

[user104658]

Well, thanks for the lesson in law... This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face.

You can't really think that some of the views expressed on here are objective. Some people are positively gleeful that he's been named and while he is still innocent and unconvicted, one in particular was moaning about how awful if is for the "victims" that the BBC screened a film of his. Most of the posts are well thought through, some show an insane ignorance of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty.
People are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty, personal opinions of people have absolutely nothing to do with that, other than the fact that you can't state as fact that someone has committed a crime until they've been found guilty.

I believe that Cliff Richard has a dodgy past, has had dodgy associations in the past, is far from the good and holy image that he has tried to forge, and quite possibly buy does have a "questionable" sexual history. I don't need legal approval for my opinions. Lack of such approval will not magically make me think that the man is a saint.

That's where this all gets a but muddled. You absolutely do not need someone to have been found guilty in court to hold, or to state, a low opinion of someone. Having a clean criminal record does not mean that the entire world has to believe and state that you are morally upstanding. I think Sir Cliff has many, varied, deep, very dark secrets. I don't feel particularly inclined to hide that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

People are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty, personal opinions of people have absolutely nothing to do with that, other than the fact that you can't state as fact that someone has committed a crime until they've been found guilty.

I believe that Cliff Richard has a dodgy past, has had dodgy associations in the past, is far from the good and holy image that he has tried to forge, and quite possibly buy does have a "questionable" sexual history. I don't need legal approval for my opinions. Lack of such approval will not magically make me think that the man is a saint.

That's where this all gets a but muddled. You absolutely do not need someone to have been found guilty in court to hold, or to state, a low opinion of someone. Having a clean criminal record does not mean that the entire world has to believe and state that you are morally upstanding. I think Sir Cliff has many, varied, deep, very dark secrets. I don't feel particularly inclined to hide that.

why do you think that of Cliff?

[Livia]

The police usually expose all the evidence prior to a case do they?
You would have to be ignorant and/or blinkered to believe that when there is a continuing investigation that it is for no good reason. Nobody is 'gleeful' and if I remember correctly when the initial accusations were leveled at Jimmy Saville many said the same, that it was all rubbish...

Of course they don't expose all the evidence prior to a case. Where have I said that? You hate it when people misquote you and put words in your mouth and yet you're perfectly happy to do it yourself.

Actually, I don't remember the same reaction when Jimmy Saville's case came to light. What I DO remember though, is saying then what I'm saying now. There is no point discussing this until there is something to discuss.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and to be honest no one was surprised about saville, certainly not anyone who met him, but i doubt that cliff would have any parallels

[Livia]

People are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty, personal opinions of people have absolutely nothing to do with that, other than the fact that you can't state as fact that someone has committed a crime until they've been found guilty.

I believe that Cliff Richard has a dodgy past, has had dodgy associations in the past, is far from the good and holy image that he has tried to forge, and quite possibly buy does have a "questionable" sexual history. I don't need legal approval for my opinions. Lack of such approval will not magically make me think that the man is a saint.

That's where this all gets a but muddled. You absolutely do not need someone to have been found guilty in court to hold, or to state, a low opinion of someone. Having a clean criminal record does not mean that the entire world has to believe and state that you are morally upstanding. I think Sir Cliff has many, varied, deep, very dark secrets. I don't feel particularly inclined to hide that.

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.

[Kizzy]

Of course they don't expose all the evidence prior to a case. Where have I said that? You hate it when people misquote you and put words in your mouth and yet you're perfectly happy to do it yourself.

Actually, I don't remember the same reaction when Jimmy Saville's case came to light. What I DO remember though, is saying then what I'm saying now. There is no point discussing this until there is something to discuss.

'you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence'

Nobody at this stage would be aware if they had was my point.

Some thought it was suspect that it only surfaced after his death and it was simply women out to cash in as I remember, that's hardly objective is it?

[Livia]

'you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence'

Nobody at this stage would be aware if they had was my point.

Some thought it was suspect that it only surfaced after his death and it was simply women out to cash in as I remember, that's hardly objective is it?

That's taken completely out of context.

Anyway, I don't have anything more to add to my last post.

[kirklancaster]

The police usually expose all the evidence prior to a case do they?
You would have to be ignorant and/or blinkered to believe that when there is a continuing investigation that it is for no good reason. Nobody is 'gleeful' and if I remember correctly when the initial accusations were leveled at Jimmy Saville many said the same, that it was all rubbish...

I did not see anything in Livia's post to justify your response. So could you please clear my utter confusion and explain just how you deduce the above from Livia's post which is reproduced below in its entirety:

Quote: Originally Posted by Livia:
"Well, thanks for the lesson in law... This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face.

You can't really think that some of the views expressed on here are objective. Some people are positively gleeful that he's been named and while he is still innocent and unconvicted, one in particular was moaning about how awful if is for the "victims" that the BBC screened a film of his. Most of the posts are well thought through, some show an insane ignorance of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty."

What you infer Livia said:

A) "The police usually expose all the evidence prior to a case do they?
You would have to be ignorant and/or blinkered to believe that when there is a continuing investigation that it is for no good reason."

What Livia actually said:

B) "This has been going on for a while now so you'd think at least they'd have a couple of pieces of evidence after all, how much longer are they thinking of dragging this out? I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept. "

A) and B) above are totally different in meaning and the comments in A) cannot possibly be justified by what has been stated in B).

When Livia states "I suspect the police are struggling to get something the CPS will accept", it qualifies everything she writes which precedes it; ie; "That in the considerable time that the investigation into Cliff has been ongoing, one would think that, if there was any credible evidence against him which would satisfy the CPS that there was a reasonable case against him, it ought to have surfaced by now".

There is absolutely no way that it can be logically inferred from her statement that she is saying that: "The police usually expose all the evidence prior to a case" as you contend that she does.

This being so, your statement that she would have to be; "ignorant and/or blinkered to believe that when there is a continuing investigation that it is for no good reason." is both totally unnecessary and frankly needlessly offensive in my opinion. .

As for your rebuttal that: "Nobody is 'gleeful'", then this is just not true, because analysis of some of the posts in this thread will attest that while no one has actually expressed those very words, their posts do impart to the reader a definite impression of an almost perverse delight in these allegations against Cliff in addition to a tangible if unspoken desire for him to be actually guilty.

Further: Livia's statement that: "My own opinion is that the South Yorkshire Police made themselves look ridiculous by tipping off the BBC in the first place, and are now looking desperately to scrape the egg off their collective face" is perfectly reasonable when one considers that usually in cases where investigations have been ongoing for such a long time with no discernible progress, the police issue a formal statement that the case is no longer being investigated.

Now, of course, the absence of any such statement could mean that further information has come to light at the 11th hour, but it could also quite feasibly mean - as Livia rightly theorises - that South Yorkshire police, having embarrassed themselves with their ham-fisted initial handling of the case, are actually deferring formally closing the case in the desperate hope that some solid evidence does turn up with which to build a case against Cliff.

Finally; it is totally redundant to state that: "If I remember correctly when the initial accusations were leveled at Jimmy Saville many said the same, that it was all rubbish." because Livia never stated that these accusations which are leveled against Cliff are all rubbish; to the contrary she is on record as saying:

"Yes, he possibly does have a deep, dark sexual history."

"I have no control over what other people say. I have not suggested that the people making the claims concerned with this case are lying, only that it's wrong to assume guilt before someone's even found guilty, or even charged - or even arrested - because they have been accused."

"If they had that much evidence they'd have charged him by now."

"You can't punish an innocent man until he's been found guilty of a crime."

"And yes, if he's guilty throw the book at him. The operative word being "if".

In all honesty, how do the above statements justify your comment that: "If I remember correctly when the initial accusations were leveled at Jimmy Saville many said the same, that it was all rubbish." because by the inclusion of the words; "many said the same" you are definitely implying that Livia said that accusations being leveled at Cliff are "all rubbish".

Quite obviously, she did not say or imply anything remotely like that did she?

[Kizzy]

No I won't pander to your pedantic rantings sorry, if Livia has an issue I'm sure she'll holler.

[kirklancaster]

No I won't pander to your pedantic rantings sorry, if Livia has an issue I'm sure she'll holler.

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.