[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

Cliff Richard is an innocent man until he's found guilty of a crime in a court of law. That's the way it works. Anyone calling for his songs not to be played, or suggesting he's taken foreign citizenship for a dubious reason or that he was involved in some negative way with the Jill Dando case (even though he was never prosecuted so maybe the police missed some stuff that people on this forum are privy to) are slanderous at worst, and naively deluded at best. I don't need to name names Alex, the posts are here for the whole world to read.

Yes I am upset by people making unfounded claims. Imagine it was you who was accused by someone and you knew you were innocent but before you get to court to clear your name people with no real evidence or idea about the claims had already made up their minds you were guilty.

No surprise me saying this but as to this post and the one above, what superb posts Livia.

This hasn't even got to interviewing under caution yet,never mind arrest.
Why should Clif Richard do anything different or be treated differently at this time.
The further information to the Police, may well be further allegations or it may even actually be information relevant to the refuting of the original allegation too.
We don't know and speculation doesn't help in these cases,espeically when the name has been published.

It was said earlier,his records should not be played, the one that was played, was included on a programme planned weeks in advance on 'pick of the pops'.
They play the top 20 from 2 selected weeks from selected years each week, this week it was 1964 and 1975,Cliff just happened to be in the top 10 of the 1964 chart,hence his record being played,and why not.

Again, really great and fair posts Livia.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It was said earlier,his records should not be played, the one that was played, was included on a programme planned weeks in advance on 'pick of the pops'.
They play the top 20 from 2 selected weeks from selected years each week, this week it was 1964 and 1975,Cliff just happened to be in the top 10 of the 1964 chart,hence his record being played,and why not.

This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Sticks

This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC?

No charges have been brought so far, he's not even been arrested. He is, right now, an innocent man. That's the bottom line.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

No charges have been brought so far, he's not even been arrested. He is, right now, an innocent man. That's the bottom line.

Thank you Livia, you saved me a fair bit of typing there.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Sticks

This is comparable with Rolf Harris before his trial. He had recorded episodes of Animal Hospital, which were pulled by Channel 5. With that other program they could have re-cut it to pick a year or week he did not feature, or at least, say, for legal reasons it would not be playing that record.

Remember this is a man, being investigated for suspected child molestation. A respectable media company has no business taking action which could bring it into disrepute. What would people say, if he was convicted, that even though the investigation was going on, they still piled pain on the victims by playing his songs.

Channel 5 got it right, why not the BBC?

Its not comparable at all

Cliff is not going to trial