[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Keeping someone's name out of the press until they are found guilty is not censorship. If they're going to name suspects because they're famous, then they should name everyone who is accused of anything. We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

[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

[Gstar]

He has aged so much look at his teeth

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

...yeah I agree that it wouldn't stop internet speculation etc the same as if it was compared to a local new story and people would speculate and indeed some would know who that person was/and gossip etc.. but that person still wouldn't be allowed to be officially named... and why should anyone famous/in the public eye.. have any lesser rights..because as Liv said, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such and that's far from being censorship, surely it's the exact opposite in a way...I just don't think that we can say...oh well, they would be known anyway..and that be a reason for it being allowed for their names to be published when charges haven't even been brought against them...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

I believe that it also 'fundamentally damaging' to continue to allow certain vile websites and individuals to make the most vicious attacks on people and peddle deliberate lies on the internet without some form of official concerted effort to close them down and punish them.

Democratic 'Free Speech' and 'Informed Opinion' is one thing, but undemocratic, unjust, and unpalatable, malicious slander and libel against innocent people, is wholly another.

The internet is a truly great innovation which is invaluable, but it is also the refuge of evil and very psychologically disturbed entities who inflict very real damage on innocent people and their families with their spewing of evil unsubstantiated bile against them, and this criminality should not be tolerated.

I have seen websites which contain comprehensive, well written and compelling articles which would have us believe that Cliff Richard was Lord Boothby's gay lover, Ronnie Kray's gay lover, that Cliff was actively involved in the murder of Jill Dando, and that Cliff has already been arrested for counts of pedophilia but that intervention by MI5 had forced the police to drop charges and destroy all documentation and 'evidence'.

The same horse**** website states that Tony Blair is a cross-dressing paedo who attended sordid parties with his cross dressing paedo friend Cliff where they .... Yawn. ZZZZ.

The point is, that this - and other poison pen articles on other sites - are written in such an authoritative style with photos and other quasi - authentic evidence, that many 'mentally dim' readers are going to be convinced of the truth of the lies, and come away to repeat such dross. And as 'birds of a feather flock together' their equally as 'mentally dim' cronies listening to the BS, are going to go away and repeat and embroider the 'facts' to their equally as 'mentally dim' cronies.

Before you can say 'Freedom of Speech' huge numbers of people are saying the same things so it must be true.

[arista]

Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007
She told extraordinary story of three years working for billionaire Epstein
Said that she was paid to give erotic massages to tycoon and associates

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3NqGj77oC


Virginia honey
are you Sure you knew who was Up You
back then?

[Kizzy]

She was 17 so not that long ago to remember, if you're judged by the company you keep then for a prince Epstein the convicted peadophile was not the wisest choice.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...yeah I agree that it wouldn't stop internet speculation etc the same as if it was compared to a local new story and people would speculate and indeed some would know who that person was/and gossip etc.. but that person still wouldn't be allowed to be officially named... and why should anyone famous/in the public eye.. have any lesser rights..because as Liv said, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such and that's far from being censorship, surely it's the exact opposite in a way...I just don't think that we can say...oh well, they would be known anyway..and that be a reason for it being allowed for their names to be published when charges haven't even been brought against them...

More sense there Ammi as usual.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She was 17 so not that long ago to remember, if you're judged by the company you keep then for a prince Epstein the convicted peadophile was not the wisest choice.

Yes in Florida
thats a minor


And the Prince, of course
will claim he did not know about
Epstein's private life.

[bitontheslide]

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

I even heard a malicious and extremely distressing rumour that he once had a serious relationship with a "Ginger" , Urrugghhh !!!!

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I even heard a malicious and extremely distressing rumour that he once had a serious relationship with a "Ginger" , Urrugghhh !!!!

I won't even start on some of the rumours relating to Ginger

[arista]

[MB.]

I mean... I'm not going to say anything about what the background of that photo looks like, but...

[Kizzy]

[the truth]

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a prson is charged

[arista]

Originally Posted by the truth

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a person is charged

Sure
but its out of the bag now

[lostalex]

He probably did it. Shame on him.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

Yeah that's the otherside of it of course, the same thing has been happening with all the child abuse by priests who would have been almost above the law over here up until recently

[LeatherTrumpet]

i could care less about him

[Niamh.]

couldn't*

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

couldn't*

i could care less about him couldn't

[Niamh.]

That's better

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by arista

Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007
She told extraordinary story of three years working for billionaire Epstein
Said that she was paid to give erotic massages to tycoon and associates

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3NqGj77oC

Virginia honey
are you Sure you knew who was Up You
back then?

True and funny Arista.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by the truth

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a prson is charged

Well said Truth as usual.