[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-...ttle-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]

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?

[chuff me dizzy]

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

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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/th...le-party-list/


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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.

[Niamh.]

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

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Gut feelings are seldom wrong

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

He's brought up often in Maddie groups

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

He's brought up often in Maddie groups

Oh really? In what capacity?

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 )

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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?

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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 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?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I sort of thought he was one of those rare people who are asexual, i.e have no interest in sex 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/2016/06/2...-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.

[bitontheslide]

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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 :/

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[chuff me dizzy]

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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