[Sticks]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Yes, you’re correct Sticks; I cannot find any up-to-date news on this matter so we don’t know whether any investigation is ongoing or not, but I’m quite certain that if Cliff had been charged, or if other ‘victims’ had come forward - ‘Jimmy Savile’ style - with additional allegations, then we would most certainly have heard all about it over the past 5 months.

“Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.”

I think that it absolutely essential that we distinguish between a person who has had an - as yet – unsubstantiated allegation made against him and who is therefore - as yet – still innocent, as in Cliff’s case, and someone who has been charged, tried, and proven guilty.

In Cliff’s case he has had one solitary allegation made against him for an alleged incident in 1985, with no other allegations ‘surfacing’ in the 30 years since and there was absolutely no justifiable reason to divulge his identity to the public.

The ‘case’ against anyone accused of any crime should succeed or fail on its own individual merits by proper investigation into the facts specific to that particular case, without being influenced by any other allegations.

Once such investigation has been rigorously completed, and sufficient evidence discovered which results in the alleged perpetrator being charged with the alleged offence, then - and only then – can publicising the alleged perpetrator’s identity in the interests of enticing other alleged victims to come forward, be justified.

Cliff has already suffered embarrassment and shame, and his image and legacy has been irreparably tarnished, in addition to his lively-hood adversely suffering, because his identity was revealed as a result of this allegation but, as yet, he has not been charged with anything.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Hope you're never falsely accused. I really do. But if you were... it would be kind of poetic justice.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

Agreed Joey,it must be awful to live with the stigma of abuse if you are innocent,some people make their minds up at the first mention of a name,for example,Cliff will always have this hanging over him now,jokes will be made and it's so unfair if someone is innocent,is it so hard for the press to keep their mouths shut until at least after anything is confirmed?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

Exactly.Well said