Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911596)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-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:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9911595)

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.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9911591)

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-as...d-perpetrators

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911602)

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.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911601)

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.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911602)

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.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9911508)

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:

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9911690)

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?

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9911518)

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.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911571)

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

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9911800)

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 :(

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9911804)

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.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9911602)

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.

Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 9911499)

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?

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 9911922)

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

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 9911952)

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....