Thoughts on Cliff Richards ?
 

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-...ttle-1-9055317


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

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"

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

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 rapists and perverts get off with it.

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?

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.

Honestly have a look around, there a lot of proof


https://cigpapers.blog/2013/04/29/th...le-party-list/


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

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tel-1980s.html

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

He's brought up often in Maddie groups

Oh really? In what capacity?

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.

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

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

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 :/

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

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

Oh yeah he was the guy I was thinking of

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

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/201...e-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

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

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

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

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

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..

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

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

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

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.

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: