Thoughts on Cliff Richards ?

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/south-yorkshire/sheffield/sir-cliff-trying-to-stop-private-information-emerging-during-bbc-court-battle-1-9055317


Is there really smoke without fire ? Why does he want stuff staying hidden ?

[DemolitionRed]

He doesn't want to declare what he was paid in damages by Yorkshire police and I don't blame him

There's probably other things such as his gender status, but we all know when we fill in an application form, even a legal document, when it comes to gender status, we always have the option of "rather not say"

[chuff me dizzy]

Why should he have the privilege to not have his details out there? He's got a LOT to hide IMO

[Vicky.]

Sounds very dodgy to me.

I mean, obviously he wants to clear his name if he is innocent, but fighting for information NOT to be aired in a court case? I am very curious about these so called witness statements. Though if he was not charged, then surely they have been disregarded by the police anyway?

How did he sue the police too? And why on earth is the amount he sued for relevant at all in this case?

The singer originally sued the BBC and South Yorkshire Police.

Mr Justice Mann was told in May 2017 that the dispute with South Yorkshire Police had settled after the force agreed to pay the singer "substantial" damages.

But the judge says he does not know the figure.

BBC bosses say they know how much Sir Cliff was given and want to tell the judge.

Lawyers say the figure is a "material factor" and the judge needs to know. Sir Cliff says he does not consent to Mr Justice Mann being given the figure.

The singer's lawyers say such knowledge could influence Mr Justice Mann's assessment of the amount of damages he might order the BBC to pay.


This sounds off to me. Why would the BBC be pushing for the judge to know this AND why would Cliff be refusing to give it.

I don't know what I think about his guilt/innocence. But the way this is dragging out..well surely it would be best to just ignore it all and it will eventually go away? There will always be people who think he is guilty (and that will never change, and constantly reminding people of it all will just make more think he is guilty..), and yes the BBC raid footage should not really have happened at all, BUT as a celebrity you should expect some element of publicity when something big happens to you. I feel a bit sorry for him, but I also think he is behaving a bit odd over it all tbh.

I don't understand how he could have sued the police though? They did nothing wrong surely, they acted on an allegation? Unless I missed something, which is very possible as these celeb historical allegations things kind of bore me as surely there would be no way to actually prove anything this late on anyway. Its hard enough to get a conviction for present day sexual assaults and rapes, even with obvious evidence that it did happen rapists and perverts get off with it.

[AnnieK]

Sounds very dodgy to me.

I mean, obviously he wants to clear his name if he is innocent, but fighting for information NOT to be aired in a court case? I am very curious about these so called witness statements. Though if he was not charged, then surely they have been disregarded by the police anyway?

How did he sue the police too? And why on earth is the amount he sued for relevant at all in this case?



This sounds off to me. Why would the BBC be pushing for the judge to know this AND why would Cliff be refusing to give it.

I don't know what I think about his guilt/innocence. But the way this is dragging out..well surely it would be best to just ignore it all and it will eventually go away? There will always be people who think he is guilty (and that will never change, and constantly reminding people of it all will just make more think he is guilty..), and yes the BBC raid footage should not really have happened at all, BUT as a celebrity you should expect some element of publicity when something big happens to you. I feel a bit sorry for him, but I also think he is behaving a bit odd over it all tbh.

I don't understand how he could have sued the police though? They did nothing wrong surely, they acted on an allegation? Unless I missed something, which is very possible as these celeb historical allegations things kind of bore me as surely there would be no way to actually prove anything this late on anyway. Its hard enough to get a conviction for present day sexual assaults and rapes, even with obvious evidence that it did happen.

You never know with the Police these days, did you watch that Rachel Nickell thing last night and how far they went to try and get their (wrong) man. Pretty disgusting.

With Cliff, I just don't know. He's always been very private, whether that's because he has anything to hide or just wants a private life remains to be seen I guess?

[chuff me dizzy]

There is proof online of Cliff being involved in the Elm House scandal

[AnnieK]

There is proof online of Cliff being involved in the Elm House scandal

What kind of proof though? I'm not doubting you by the way, just asking.

[chuff me dizzy]

Honestly have a look around, there a lot of proof


https://cigpapers.blog/2013/04/29/the-elm-guest-house-vip-paedophile-party-list/


The BBC didnt go to his villa ,recording it for nothing

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.freeandfearless.org.uk/elm-guest-house-list/

[chuff me dizzy]

Hes not named here ,but just shows how deep and dirty the goings on were there

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

[Niamh.]

I don't anything about it really but I always got the feeling there was something off about him :worry: I know, I know, that's not evidence of anything before I get roasted :laugh:

[chuff me dizzy]

I don't anything about it really but I always got the feeling there was something off about him :worry: I know, I know, that's not evidence of anything before I get roasted :laugh:

Gut feelings are seldom wrong

[chuff me dizzy]

I don't anything about it really but I always got the feeling there was something off about him :worry: I know, I know, that's not evidence of anything before I get roasted :laugh:

He's brought up often in Maddie groups

[Niamh.]

He's brought up often in Maddie groups

Oh really? In what capacity?

[bots]

I believe the police tipped off the BBC that they were going to search his house and that's why they had a film crew at the event, and that's why they got sued. As the BBC were partners in that turn of events and want the figure published, it will be to ensure that they don't pay more than the police did for their part in the event I would have thought.

I think Cliff Richard behaved incorrectly in this matter, he is a celeb and has become a wealthy man through that celebrity status. Once in the public eye, you can expect a media circus if there is the potential for gossip. It goes with the territory.

I don't like him, he pretends to be something he is not. Does that make him guilty? No, but I have a feeling stuff will come pouring out once he is 6ft under.

[chuff me dizzy]

Oh really? In what capacity?

Paedo ,as what it strong in Maddie case ,lots of paedo links to Maddie case (Cliff not mentioned in her case but Elm House )

[Vicky.]

Honestly have a look around, there a lot of proof


https://cigpapers.blog/2013/04/29/the-elm-guest-house-vip-paedophile-party-list/


The BBC didnt go to his villa ,recording it for nothing

Will have a look at this later, but from the scan, that 'guestlist' could have been by anyone. And it also says on the article that people used false names, so someone could have just been using his I guess.

The whole PIE thing freaks the **** out of me though. How it was all supported, mainly by Labour MPS. I did not know until a few months ago that PIE is the main reason some idiots link being gay to paedophilia..was because PIE purposely attached themselves to the LGB movement :S

[chuff me dizzy]

Will have a look at this later, but from the scan, that 'guestlist' could have been by anyone. And it also says on the article that people used false names, so someone could have just been using his I guess.

The whole PIE thing freaks the **** out of me though. How it was all supported, mainly by Labour MPS. I did not know until a few months ago that PIE is the main reason some idiots link being gay to paedophilia..was because PIE purposely attached themselves to the LGB movement :S

When I have more time i will dig for the proof that Kitty WAS Cliff

[Vicky.]

I believe the police tipped off the BBC that they were going to search his house and that's why they had a film crew at the event, and that's why they got sued. As the BBC were partners in that turn of events and want the figure published, it will be to ensure that they don't pay more than the police did for their part in the event I would have thought.

I think Cliff Richard behaved incorrectly in this matter, he is a celeb and has become a wealthy man through that celebrity status. Once in the public eye, you can expect a media circus if there is the potential for gossip. It goes with the territory.

I don't like him, he pretends to be something he is not. Does that make him guilty? No, but I have a feeling stuff will come pouring out once he is 6ft under.Well yeah I guess, but then why on earth would Cliff be refusing to give the judge the info though?! The judge is surely unlikely to be swayed by it anyway and will award damages based on his/her own opinion of the case. If I was the judge I would be a bit pissed off with the reasoning given..basically saying the judge will not do their job and will just call for the same amount :/

[Niamh.]

Paedo ,as what it strong in Maddie case ,lots of paedo links to Maddie case (Cliff not mentioned in her case but Elm House )

Yeah the paedo links are weird alright, the gasper statement and that ex politician paedo guy Lord something?

[chuff me dizzy]

Yeah the paedo links are weird alright, the gasper statement and that ex politician paedo guy Lord something?

Clement Freud involved too, The Mcs went to dinner at his place in Pdl

[chuff me dizzy]

Why did Cliff give up British citizenship when the **** started to hit the fan ?

[Niamh.]

Clement Freud involved too, The Mcs went to dinner at his place in Pdl

Oh yeah he was the guy I was thinking of

[chuff me dizzy]

If Cliff is guilty he needs outing, he shouldn't be shielded

[chuff me dizzy]

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

Cliff was also one of the last people to talk to Jill Dando before her murder, rumour has it,she was killed as she had been researching into Elm House and was ready to spill what she had found (how true I don't know) but once again ..... Smoke and fire

[Niamh.]

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

Cliff was also one of the last people to talk to Jill Dando before her murder, rumour has it,she was killed as she had been researching into Elm House and was ready to spill what she had found (how true I don't know) but once again ..... Smoke and fire

I swear no one would have even entertained conspiracies like that only for the whole Jimmy Saville stuff coming out

[Kizzy]

I think he's up to his neck in something...That said if he was that worried why pursue a case at all?

[chuff me dizzy]

I swear no one would have even entertained conspiracies like that only for the whole Jimmy Saville stuff coming out

No Saville was the opening of so many things, it proved the cover up that goes on to protect people

[Kizzy]

There are those who still mock at the suggestions that there are high profile peadophiles operating ... Even following the Saville case and others. :/

[Niamh.]

No Saville was the opening of so many things, it proved the cover up that goes on to protect people

Yep, it's crazy, if people had come on here while saville was alive with accusations of everything he did, they'd have been told to get the tin foil hats out

[chuff me dizzy]

Yep, it's crazy, if people had come on here while saville was alive with accusations of everything he did, they'd have been told to get the tin foil hats out

Exactly ,he hid behind charity like Richards and McCanns have hidden behind God ,its what keeps them safe from criticism

[Vicky.]

There are those who still mock at the suggestions that there are high profile peadophiles operating ... Even following the Saville case and others. :/

I know people who still claim Saville was innocent ffs, its ridiculous. Apparently every single one of the accusers was just lying just to get some compensation because the guy is dead so cannot defend himself :umm2: Depressing how some people think false accusations are so rampant.

Though these historical cases, as I said I don't really get it given its near impossible to get people convicted for current day sexual assaults/rapes even with a lot of evidence. Where surely after like 30+ years there would be NO evidence at all.

But no way would I ever believe that hundreds of people were lying. Its not as if its just a case of saying to the police 'oh, X sexually assaulted me 40 years ago' and thats all. There is intense questioning and such too..

[Vicky.]

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

[chuff me dizzy]

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

VERY dodgy ........... You often hear of abused children turning into abusers ,same as children who saw their dads hit their mam doing the same in adulthood,theres a lot of evidence against Richards, but no doubt it will be kept secret until after his death

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2lGAhasxj0

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbLrROuVdA

[Twosugars]

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

It does sound simplistic, but apparently it happens, although the link is still under scrutiny.
e.g
Current data suggest that sexual abuse in childhood is more prevalent among people who commit sexual assault than among the general public. In addition, it may be slightly more prevalent among people who sexually abuse children.
there's more here: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFOHUm1vCE Richards /Jill Dando

[Tom4784]

No smoke without fire basically translates to guilty until proven innocent, it's **** logic.

I don't really see why anyone would cover for Cliff Richard of all people tbh, if they didn't charge him then it was probably because he didn't do what he was accused of. The whole privacy thing might be more to do with the fact that he seems pretty closeted and isn't interested in coming out which he might have to do if it means clearing his name.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless there's charges and a case brought against him, it's all speculation and opinion.

[Vicky.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cliff-richard-sex-abuse-blackmail-police-rape-a7089896.html

Some of the stories are swaying me back and forth on this now D: Though

He said in a statement: “Other than in *exceptional cases, people who are facing *allegations should not be named publicly until charged.

“I have always maintained my innocence. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point.”

Sir Cliff will face no further action over allegations after a South Yorkshire Police investigation this week found there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute".

I wonder what he would class as an 'exceptional case'.

So many seem to think insufficient evidence = guilty. And that insufficient evidence automatically means the accuser is lying too. Just been reading on another forum people going mad that some guy was accused of rape but got a not guilty verdict due to insufficient evidence, they are baying for the accusers blood as apparently this proves it was all made up and he is clearly innocent :umm2:

[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cliff-richard-sex-abuse-blackmail-police-rape-a7089896.html

Some of the stories are swaying me back and forth on this now D: Though



I wonder what he would class as an 'exceptional case'.

So many seem to think insufficient evidence = guilty. And that insufficient evidence automatically means the accuser is lying too. Just been reading on another forum people going mad that some guy was accused of rape but got a not guilty verdict due to insufficient evidence, they are baying for the accusers blood as apparently this proves it was all made up and he is clearly innocent :umm2:

Saville was an exceptional case too !

[Vicky.]

No smoke without fire basically translates to guilty until proven innocent, it's **** logic.

I don't really see why anyone would cover for Cliff Richard of all people tbh, if they didn't charge him then it was probably because he didn't do what he was accused of. The whole privacy thing might be more to do with the fact that he seems pretty closeted and isn't interested in coming out which he might have to do if it means clearing his name.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless there's charges and a case brought against him, it's all speculation and opinion.

Or that there is little/no evidence after such a long period of time.

The standard of evidence thats required in normal assault/rape trials is insane. And even DNA evidence, cctv and many injuries sometimes are not accepted. So..in a historical case it must be even harder to build a case. Its a bit silly to say that because enough evidence could not be gathered, he is probably innocent tbh. he might be innocent, but him not being charged means nothing really. Certainly does not prove innocence.

[Vicky.]

It does sound simplistic, but apparently it happens, although the link is still under scrutiny.
e.g

there's more here: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

[Niamh.]

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

It depends on how you choose to deal with it I suppose, you may grow up thinking that's what normal sexual relations are or it could make you bitter and twisted and think now it's your turn to be the one with the power etc. It's not right of course but I can see how being abused could send someone down that path (wrongly of course)

[chuff me dizzy]

Or that there is little/no evidence after such a long period of time.

The standard of evidence thats required in normal assault/rape trials is insane. And even DNA evidence, cctv and many injuries sometimes are not accepted. So..in a historical case it must be even harder to build a case. Its a bit silly to say that because enough evidence could not be gathered, he is probably innocent tbh. he might be innocent, but him not being charged means nothing really. Certainly does not prove innocence.

Little evidence is not the same as no evidence,and while there is a tiny bit of evidence it should be investigated and if proven to be guilty then he should be charged and locked up

[Twosugars]

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

What Niamh said.
Also, as there are data supporting a link, they need to try and come up with explanations.
from the same link I posted above
Several authors reviewed various studies assessing the rate of child sexual abuse reported by 1 717 male perpetrators of sexual assault who had admitted their crimes. Despite a high degree of variability across the samples (from 0% to 75% of the perpetrators reported being sexually victimized), the researchers were able to determine that, overall, 23% of the perpetrators had experienced sexual abuse with physical contact in childhood.1 The authors of this review, as well as other researchers who have examined this issue, concluded that the prevalence of sexual abuse in childhood among people who commit sexual assault later on in life is higher than the average prevalence rate of such abuse among adult males in the general population (10%).2,3
Of course even if this is true, it still is a minority of abusers (1 in 5) that can make that claim and it does not excuse their actions anyway.

[hijaxers]

I don't anything about it really but I always got the feeling there was something off about him :worry: I know, I know, that's not evidence of anything before I get roasted :laugh:

No but i have a gut feeling too, are we all wrong ?

[Twosugars]

I sort of thought he was one of those rare people who are asexual, i.e have no interest in sex :shrug: dunno why but that was the vibe I was getting from him
and so anything connecting him to sexual activity came as a surprise to me
didn't he also sort of come out saying he's had long term male partner?

[jaxie]

His lack of relationships has always seemed odd to me, most people in the public eye are photo'd with girlfriends or boyfriend's even if very private but his almost cold fish lack of romance of any sort just feels odd.

[jet]

I sort of thought he was one of those rare people who are asexual, i.e have no interest in sex :shrug: dunno why but that was the vibe I was getting from him
and so anything connecting him to sexual activity came as a surprise to me
didn't he also sort of come out saying he's had long term male partner?

Yeah, I had the vibe he was asexual then changed to thinking he was deeply closeted.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/06/23/cliff-richard-my-sexuality-is-private-and-ill-take-it-to-the-grave/

I don’t mind talking about things but there are things that are mine. That will go with me to my grave.

“And I’ve given up for instance, I don’t talk about my family, I certainly don’t talk about my sexuality.

[smudgie]

I believe the police tipped off the BBC that they were going to search his house and that's why they had a film crew at the event, and that's why they got sued. As the BBC were partners in that turn of events and want the figure published, it will be to ensure that they don't pay more than the police did for their part in the event I would have thought.

I think Cliff Richard behaved incorrectly in this matter, he is a celeb and has become a wealthy man through that celebrity status. Once in the public eye, you can expect a media circus if there is the potential for gossip. It goes with the territory.

I don't like him, he pretends to be something he is not. Does that make him guilty? No, but I have a feeling stuff will come pouring out once he is 6ft under.
More or less this.
I am not a fan either, however I don't blame him for suing for damages as it goes far against his clean and religious image.

[Kizzy]

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

I thought 'the cycle of abuse' was a well established theory? Horrible as it sounds it was in a documentary into the Cromwell st murderers the wests that I first heard that and looked into it :(

[smudgie]

I thought 'the cycle of abuse' was a well established theory? Horrible as it sounds it was in a documentary into the Cromwell st murderers the wests that I first heard that and looked into it :(

It can happen.
But looking at it from another view, how many people that are sexually abused as a child never say a word to anybody, so not reported or taken into account statistically...yet they never go on to abuse.

[Kizzy]

It can happen.
But looking at it from another view, how many people that are sexually abused as a child never say a word to anybody, so not reported or taken into account statistically...yet they never go on to abuse.

Well of course not everyone will it depends on so many other factors, it would be impossible to pinpoint how or why some abused go on to abuse others. The sad fact is they do.

[Beso]

He used to get called kitty...he likes to watch and wank whilst others abuse children

[Beso]

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

Being abused as a kid can actually be the driving force for your sexual preferences as an adult. It would make you numb to pain both for yourself and others....

[Brillopad]

You never know with the Police these days, did you watch that Rachel Nickell thing last night and how far they went to try and get their (wrong) man. Pretty disgusting.

With Cliff, I just don't know. He's always been very private, whether that's because he has anything to hide or just wants a private life remains to be seen I guess?

I don’t know either - but I do agree he is a private man and that may be all it is.

[chuff me dizzy]

He used to get called kitty...he likes to watch and wank whilst others abuse children

Yes he was Kitty at Elm House and his vicar boyfriend was Gladys

[chuff me dizzy]

Being abused as a kid can actually be the driving force for your sexual preferences as an adult. It would make you numb to pain both for yourself and others....

I agree