[Livia]

Originally Posted by Sticks

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute

Until you or someone you love gets accused of a crime they didn't commit. Then I suggest that your call for the accused to be named might change in a heartbeat. If they're going to name people who are, in the eyes of the law, innocent, then there should be very loud calls for accusers to be named once the accused is acquitted.

I hope Cliff Richard has Jim Davidson's lawyer on speed dial. And I also hope that the slanderous comments being made online right now are vigorously pursued by his legal team. I'm utterly amazed that people are naive enough to go down the "he's been accused therefore he's guilty" route, and similarly (although less) surprised also that this slander is allowed to stand on a publicly accessible forum.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

i'm just trying to gauge how naive you are.

So you thought you would do that by naively comparing a Hollywood actor's sexual misadventures with a grown woman to a historical allegation of sexual abuse. Right. Jog on.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

So you thought you would do that by naively comparing a Hollywood actor's sexual misadventures with a grown woman to a historical allegation of sexual abuse. Right. Jog on.

nope, it was just a question. i never said it was related to this specific story.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

Until you or someone you love gets accused of a crime they didn't commit. Then I suggest that your call for the accused to be named might change in a heartbeat. If they're going to name people who are, in the eyes of the law, innocent, then there should be very loud calls for accusers to be named once the accused is acquitted.

I hope Cliff Richard has Jim Davidson's lawyer on speed dial. And I also hope that the slanderous comments being made online right now are vigorously pursued by his legal team. I'm utterly amazed that people are naive enough to go down the "he's been accused therefore he's guilty" route, and similarly (although less) surprised also that this slander is allowed to stand on a publicly accessible forum.

just out of curiosity, who do you think has made slanderous comments on this website? i haven't seen anyone make any slanderous comments. name names livia.

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?

[Kazanne]

If Cliff Richards is proven to be guilty ,he deserves the book thrown at him,however if he is not,what happens then? the damage is done

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

just out of curiosity, who do you think has made slanderous comments on this website? i haven't seen anyone make any slanderous comments. name names livia.

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

If Cliff Richards is proven to be guilty ,he deserves the book thrown at him,however if he is not,what happens then? the damage is done

Exactly, Kaz. And yes, if he's guilty throw the book at him. The operative word being "if".

[lostalex]

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.

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by lostalex

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?

That's not the issue here, all persons alleging historical sexual abuse must be treated with scepticism in the first instance until more detailed evidence can be ascertained. Particularly when dealing with rich high profile celebrities who can be a magnet for scammers and people joining the bandwagon looking for cash payoffs.

I for one would prefer to see the rights of the alleged victim on a par with the rights of the alleged attacker ie either both be named or both have anonymity.

Personally given the damage untrue allegations can do I would prefer to see both have there identities protected until the court case had been completed. Then if guilty the convicted persons name should be made public but if innocent then the name of the alleged victim must also be made public so everyone knows this person has a history of making false rape/sexual abuse claims against innocent people. So next time the police can check a database to see if this person is credible from the outset.

The only fault with the current system in my view is that it allows innocent people to be publicly convicted through trial by media and have their reputations ruined regardless of their actual innocence or guilt.

In fact the main reason for actually naming these Celebs is to hope for more people to come forward as it adds weight to any prosecution. So inevitably people are encouraged to come forward to help build a case after 25-40 years.

This can't be right surely ??

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Sticks

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute

[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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

i think our justice system (both the US and the UK all magna carta based justice systems) presumes victims to be liars.

I wonder how you would feel if you were automatically presumed to be a liar if you were the victim of this type of crime lydia. don't you agree that our system makes victims the presumed liars and that the system is designed to let abusers get away with it moire times than not?

Wouldn't you be pissed off as a victim dealing with this system where the abuser is presumed to be innocent and you are presumed to be a liar by default?

You think that's a fair system?

No, the justice systems of both our countries do not presume the victim is a liar, but it does require that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not the defence. You have to have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty. In historic sex abuse cases that evidence - if there was any evidence in the first place - is very hard to come by and would be mostly circumstantial.

In answer to your last question, yes... I think it's a reasonably fair system.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, the justice systems of both our countries do not presume the victim is a liar, but it does require that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not the defence. You have to have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty. In historic sex abuse cases that evidence - if there was any evidence in the first place - is very hard to come by and would be mostly circumstantial.

In answer to your last question, yes... I think it's a reasonably fair system.

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

I did not say it favours abusers over victims. I said you have to have proof. People lie, sadly. You cannot take the word of one person over another.

The problem with the British, the American and ALL legal systems is that they're run by humans, for humans. There is no perfect way. You think it's okay for innocent people to be sent to jail? How about you? How would you feel if you were banged up for something you didn't do? Would you think, ah well, at least the victim has some closure now. "Justice" does not mean imprisoning someone - anyone - just so the victim feels complete. How do you think it could be improved?

And your stats, they're a little off.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

Yet oddly enough, so many come out of the woodwork when a celeb is named in the papers and suddenly remember that they were abused too...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

how can you say it's fair if you just got finished saying that the system favors the abusers over the victims? A FAIR system would be one that get's it right as much as possible, but we have a system that gets it wrong most of the time. It's a system that lets 99 guilty people out of 100 go free just to make sure we don't put 1 innocent person in jail. That's not fair to the victims at all.

How do you know 99 guilty out of 100 are let go? Are you privy to most of these cases? Do you have evidence that the court missed?

I'm quite baffled by your insistence that a justice system requiring evidence to prove someone committed a crime is flawed yet slinging someone in prison on the basis that someone comes forward and says "That man raped me for 40 years ago" is much better?

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by lostalex

You seem to be upset by people making unfounded claims, so please give us evidence of anyone making sladerous claims. Slander is a crime, so you are accusing people of a crime. You wouldn't make accusations without absolute evidence would you?

Technically if it is written down or recorded, it is libel. Slander is when it is spoken and not recorded

[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.

[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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yet oddly enough, so many come out of the woodwork when a celeb is named in the papers and suddenly remember that they were abused too...

It is possible, you remember it happening, where you were and what you were wearing, but that doesn't always pinpoint a specific date or year.

[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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is possible, you remember it happening, where you were and what you were wearing, but that doesn't always pinpoint a specific date or year.

Yeah its possible, however extremely unlikely for the sheer amount of people this miraculous memory loss has happened to tbh

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah its possible, however extremely unlikely for the sheer amount of people this miraculous memory loss has happened to tbh

Memory loss, nobody has had memory loss have they? As with other cases victims came forward at the time but they were not believed or it was covered up in high profile cases.
Even now the fact he has superinjunctions means that certain aspects or accusations cannot be made public so he has afforded to him privilege that some that are accused of abuses don't have.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Memory loss, nobody has had memory loss have they? As with other cases victims came forward at the time but they were not believed or it was covered up in high profile cases.
Even now the fact he has superinjunctions means that certain aspects or accusations cannot be made public so he has afforded to him privilege that some that are accused of abuses don't have.

Thought this was just in the the Saville case..have not seen any mention of this for the more recent accused.