Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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?