[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

[Kizzy]

I think he's up to his neck in something...That said if he was that worried why pursue a case at all?

[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

[Kizzy]

There are those who still mock at the suggestions that there are high profile peadophiles operating ... Even following the Saville case and others. :/

[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

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Exactly ,he hid behind charity like Richards and McCanns have hidden behind God ,its what keeps them safe from criticism

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There are those who still mock at the suggestions that there are high profile peadophiles operating ... Even following the Saville case and others. :/

I know people who still claim Saville was innocent ffs, its ridiculous. Apparently every single one of the accusers was just lying just to get some compensation because the guy is dead so cannot defend himself Depressing how some people think false accusations are so rampant.

Though these historical cases, as I said I don't really get it given its near impossible to get people convicted for current day sexual assaults/rapes even with a lot of evidence. Where surely after like 30+ years there would be NO evidence at all.

But no way would I ever believe that hundreds of people were lying. Its not as if its just a case of saying to the police 'oh, X sexually assaulted me 40 years ago' and thats all. There is intense questioning and such too..

[Vicky.]

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

VERY dodgy ........... You often hear of abused children turning into abusers ,same as children who saw their dads hit their mam doing the same in adulthood,theres a lot of evidence against Richards, but no doubt it will be kept secret until after his death

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2lGAhasxj0

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbLrROuVdA

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I did not know that 9 people accused Cliff..thought it was just one. Hmm.

Apparently the fact that one of his accusers is a rapist himself should go against the accuser or something. Rapists are clearly scum, but being a rapist does not mean that you could not be sexually abused as a child. The guy reckons its Cliffs fault for how he is today, which is also nonsensical to me tbh. If you were abused as a child, why would that make you in turn abuse others..bad excuse.

Never looked very far into this Cliff Richards thing. Have skim read a couple of threads about it all. But reading a bit more into it..does seem a bit dodgy even from the start

It does sound simplistic, but apparently it happens, although the link is still under scrutiny.
e.g

Current data suggest that sexual abuse in childhood is more prevalent among people who commit sexual assault than among the general public. In addition, it may be slightly more prevalent among people who sexually abuse children.

there's more here: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-as...d-perpetrators

[chuff me dizzy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFOHUm1vCE Richards /Jill Dando

[Tom4784]

No smoke without fire basically translates to guilty until proven innocent, it's **** logic.

I don't really see why anyone would cover for Cliff Richard of all people tbh, if they didn't charge him then it was probably because he didn't do what he was accused of. The whole privacy thing might be more to do with the fact that he seems pretty closeted and isn't interested in coming out which he might have to do if it means clearing his name.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless there's charges and a case brought against him, it's all speculation and opinion.

[Vicky.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7089896.html

Some of the stories are swaying me back and forth on this now Though

He said in a statement: “Other than in *exceptional cases, people who are facing *allegations should not be named publicly until charged.

“I have always maintained my innocence. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point.”

Sir Cliff will face no further action over allegations after a South Yorkshire Police investigation this week found there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute".

I wonder what he would class as an 'exceptional case'.

So many seem to think insufficient evidence = guilty. And that insufficient evidence automatically means the accuser is lying too. Just been reading on another forum people going mad that some guy was accused of rape but got a not guilty verdict due to insufficient evidence, they are baying for the accusers blood as apparently this proves it was all made up and he is clearly innocent

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7089896.html

Some of the stories are swaying me back and forth on this now Though



I wonder what he would class as an 'exceptional case'.

So many seem to think insufficient evidence = guilty. And that insufficient evidence automatically means the accuser is lying too. Just been reading on another forum people going mad that some guy was accused of rape but got a not guilty verdict due to insufficient evidence, they are baying for the accusers blood as apparently this proves it was all made up and he is clearly innocent

Saville was an exceptional case too !

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

No smoke without fire basically translates to guilty until proven innocent, it's **** logic.

I don't really see why anyone would cover for Cliff Richard of all people tbh, if they didn't charge him then it was probably because he didn't do what he was accused of. The whole privacy thing might be more to do with the fact that he seems pretty closeted and isn't interested in coming out which he might have to do if it means clearing his name.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless there's charges and a case brought against him, it's all speculation and opinion.

Or that there is little/no evidence after such a long period of time.

The standard of evidence thats required in normal assault/rape trials is insane. And even DNA evidence, cctv and many injuries sometimes are not accepted. So..in a historical case it must be even harder to build a case. Its a bit silly to say that because enough evidence could not be gathered, he is probably innocent tbh. he might be innocent, but him not being charged means nothing really. Certainly does not prove innocence.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

It does sound simplistic, but apparently it happens, although the link is still under scrutiny.
e.g

there's more here: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-as...d-perpetrators

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

It depends on how you choose to deal with it I suppose, you may grow up thinking that's what normal sexual relations are or it could make you bitter and twisted and think now it's your turn to be the one with the power etc. It's not right of course but I can see how being abused could send someone down that path (wrongly of course)

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Or that there is little/no evidence after such a long period of time.

The standard of evidence thats required in normal assault/rape trials is insane. And even DNA evidence, cctv and many injuries sometimes are not accepted. So..in a historical case it must be even harder to build a case. Its a bit silly to say that because enough evidence could not be gathered, he is probably innocent tbh. he might be innocent, but him not being charged means nothing really. Certainly does not prove innocence.

Little evidence is not the same as no evidence,and while there is a tiny bit of evidence it should be investigated and if proven to be guilty then he should be charged and locked up

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I know its claimed a lot. Still just sounds like an excuse to me though. Like, if you went through it as a child, surely you would be LESS likely to do it to someone else, as you know how bad it feels.

What Niamh said.
Also, as there are data supporting a link, they need to try and come up with explanations.
from the same link I posted above

Several authors reviewed various studies assessing the rate of child sexual abuse reported by 1 717 male perpetrators of sexual assault who had admitted their crimes. Despite a high degree of variability across the samples (from 0% to 75% of the perpetrators reported being sexually victimized), the researchers were able to determine that, overall, 23% of the perpetrators had experienced sexual abuse with physical contact in childhood.1 The authors of this review, as well as other researchers who have examined this issue, concluded that the prevalence of sexual abuse in childhood among people who commit sexual assault later on in life is higher than the average prevalence rate of such abuse among adult males in the general population (10%).2,3

Of course even if this is true, it still is a minority of abusers (1 in 5) that can make that claim and it does not excuse their actions anyway.

[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?

[jaxie]

His lack of relationships has always seemed odd to me, most people in the public eye are photo'd with girlfriends or boyfriend's even if very private but his almost cold fish lack of romance of any sort just feels odd.

[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.