PDA

View Full Version : Cliff Richard


BWSBoy6
25th Feb 2015, 20:17
What the hecks going on????

Sir Cliff Richard police inquiry 'significantly expanded' - BBC News (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793)

Innocent til proven guilty but this stuff doesn't seem to be going away. I always think he's whiter than white.

SpringHeeledJack
25th Feb 2015, 20:41
Whether he's innocent or guilty, the way the police and media have gone about things, I'd say there's a fair chance of him having charges dropped. If not, we are again in the realms of he said, she said from 30, 40, 50yrs ago which for the most part cannot be substantiated either way.


SHJ

BWSBoy6
25th Feb 2015, 20:46
That's so true. It's almost as though the media want to destroy him. I know when I was a teenager 30 years ago there were always mutterings about Saville. I had friends who used to go to the TOTP recordings in London and always said he was a bit 'handy' and not to be alone with him but Cliff! Never heard anything about him. Never a whiff of scandal or scorned lovers. Very strange.:hmm:

Trinity 09L
25th Feb 2015, 20:54
Is it common South Yorkshire Police to write letters to Parliament in respect of all persons arrested, bailed & not charged disclosing that further offences are under investigation. :mad:
Looks like they are after more media to disguise there incompetent and intrusive start to the investigation.

Innocence before guilt, clearly not the original Police principle
"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts by police must be directed."

gingernut
25th Feb 2015, 21:13
We were cocooned at school by a fab teacher, everyone seemed to like him.

He later went on to read the weather on telly.

Checkboard
25th Feb 2015, 22:56
Police who raided Cliff might have broken law: Warning from lawyer... As Cilla backs star in sex claim battle | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729290/Police-raided-Cliff-broken-law-Warning-lawyer-As-Cilla-backs-star-sex-claim-battle.html)

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 07:23
Here we go again! Dig out the Jimmy Savile thread and read the first few pages after his death. Sir Cliff will disappear to some island without an extradition treaty,mark my words.

I heard plausible rumours nearly fifty years ago from a guy on the Norfolk Broads who hired out a cruiser to take "disadvantaged " boys up the river. You can guess who the "benefactor" was.

ian16th
26th Feb 2015, 08:28
You can guess who the "benefactor" was.

Allan Smethurst? 'Hev Yew Gotta Loight, Boy?'

Sallyann1234
26th Feb 2015, 08:58
Is it common South Yorkshire Police to write letters to Parliament in respect of all persons arrested, bailed & not charged disclosing that further offences are under investigation.
No, but he was summoned by a committee to explain the conspiracy with the BBC.

cockney steve
26th Feb 2015, 12:40
Seems like a deliberate smear campaign, to me.
Police have demonstrated they are riddled with corruption which they show little interest in eliminating.
BBC, a self-serving bunch of empire-builders.

One would have hoped these "authoritarian" figureheads of decorum and impartiality would hold their own council until there is a definite case to answer.....As it is, Mr Richard, whatever his sexual or social orientation, has acted with the greatest of public restraint. he deserves our respect for that.

The "leakers" in a fair and just society, should be censured....I doubt they will be identified or become answerable.
a total disgrace.

Blacksheep
26th Feb 2015, 12:45
...has acted with the greatest of public restraint.Hmm. Yes. Restraint by Superinjunction.

If there's nothing to hide, why hide behind a superinjunction?

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 13:05
Exactement, The very same people who were hoodwinked by Sir James will be fooled again. The initial publicity will have been to bring out further allegations. It's a relatively simple process wherein the allegations are scrutinised carefully for commonality of MO,dates and places while the accusers are not party to information given by their fellow accusers.

If it all matches then they have him.

alwayzinit
26th Feb 2015, 14:07
"Innocent til proven guilty"


Not anymore in good old Blighty. The gradual erosion of UK Common Law by European legislation, which is based on The Napoleonic Code ( one has to prove one's innocence) is in full swing.


We now have secret Family Courts that are closed and presided and ruled on solely by a judge.


I am not a "swivel eyed loon" however, the basic assumption of innocence is under threat like never before. IMHO.


As for Sir Cliff, some of his past songs titles won't help his cause..................

Capot
26th Feb 2015, 14:15
Seems like a deliberate smear campaign, to me.
Police have demonstrated they are riddled with corruption which they show little interest in eliminating.To me, too. The South Yorkshire police have demonstrated that they are so bad, so badly led, so corrupt and so incompetent that the only possible cure is disbandment, with a Home Office-run stand-in force drawn from other parts of Britain, until their area can be divided among adjacent forces. Officers who can positively show that they were neither corrupt not incompetent could be taken on by those forces on probation.

So far as Cliff Richard is concerned, I don't believe for one moment that SYP have a shred of credible evidence against him. I do believe that they have spent months trawling for someone, anyone, to make some kind of unsubstantiated allegation against Cliff Richard, so that they can do what they have just done, ie give that single allegation huge publicity in a ridiculous attempt to show a "justification" for their outrageous behaviour in sending a large posse of armed thugs, in a fleet of cars, halfway across England to raid his home on the flimsiest pretext possible, having taken great care to alert all the media beforehand.

Why everyone who was involved in this sick farce has not been sacked without a pension is a mystery to me.

Well, actually, it isn't; policemen are never sacked without a pension, are they, no matter how criminal they are? (Well, perhaps, if they are banged up for vice/corruption/burglary/murder/etc, but even then I'm not sure.)

PS.....I heard plausible rumours nearly fifty years ago from a guy on the Norfolk Broads who hired out a cruiser to take "disadvantaged " boys up the river. You can guess who the "benefactor" wasNo you didn't, you heard scurrilous pub gossip from morons who just love peddling that kind of stuff. In any event; groups of children, disadvantaged and otherwise, are taken on trips every day of the week by genuine caring people who believe that the kids deserve more than they would otherwise get, and lead the trips without remuneration. But now they do that only by accepting the risk that some prurient small-minded peddler of untrue tittle-tattle will start up and repeat what you choose to call "plausible rumours" about them. What the hell do you mean by "plausible"? In whose judgement were the rumours "plausible"? Yours, maybe? Did you seek out and establish any substantiation for these "plausible rumours" that you were told, nudge, nudge,wink, wink? No, I thought not. People like you, whispering your sick innuendos, are responsible for the breakdown of the voluntary sector, with your "plausible rumours" and your gossip about anyone who chooses to work with children, especially voluntarily. Which I don't, by the way; I admire those who do.

Rant Mode: OFF

keyboard flier
26th Feb 2015, 14:38
No smoke without fire?

radeng
26th Feb 2015, 15:00
The smoke I see is a screen trying to cover the incompetence of the Hillsborough disaster and the subsequent cover up, followed by the Rotherham child sex scandal and the failure to act, and the failure so far to pick up anything on Cliff Richard. Anyone remembering the Sheffield 'rhino whip' affair can see a continuing saga of incompetence and cover up in the area's police forces going back 50 years or more.....

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 15:12
I think this is the problem where a name is so big that people are just taken aback by the enormity of it. As I pointed out the procedures for weeding out false accusers are so watertight that the CPS won't possibly go for prosecution unless the evidence is overwhelming.

Logically if this story was all hot air then the obvious thing to do would be to just let it slip and die away. It certainly would have done without the latest action. Time will tell. There will either be a fulsome apology and eating of humble pie by S Yorks Police or he will be charged. If it's the latter I don't think he will be seen in the UK again.

Expect a big dose of "I told you so" as in the Savile case.

Just because people do charitable works is absolutely no guarantee of their bona fides. Why work with kids rather than say the elderly? And in the case of the Norfolk Broads holiday why go with them rather than just paying the bill?

Capot
26th Feb 2015, 15:17
No smoke without fire?The whole point of stamping on the false/malicious gossip-peddlars is that when they do that, some deep thinker will always follow up with remarks like "No smoke without fire". The nudge-nudge-wink-wink can always be inferred.

For the record, there is frequently smoke without the slightest trace of a flame, at least in the world of innuendo and gossip.

South Yorkshire Police are particularly adept at creating smoke without fire.

As I pointed out the procedures for weeding out false accusers are so watertight No they aren't; no-one dares to cast doubt on a false accuser for fear of being savaged later by the mob, unless and until the evidence that the accusation is false is so over-whelming that even the mob believe it. And that takes some doing. South Yorkshire Police have had many months to produce even a small scrap of evidence against Cliff Richard; if they had anything credible they would have charged him by now. What they will now do is carry on drip-feeding the media with vague but untrue assertions that there is some evidence, somewhere, until a Court forces them to stop it or the senior officers concerned get their pensions safely stashed away.

dazdaz1
26th Feb 2015, 15:17
Without prejudice, Would it be considered in the course of this further enquiry that past members of the Shadows (no connection to the alleged) be questioned as to dates in the past pertaining to the investigation?

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 15:24
I don't think there is any suggestion that any of them are involved. Of course they may be called as witnesses for either defence or prosecution. I doubt that they know anything.

dazdaz1
26th Feb 2015, 15:27
EffMan..."I don't think there is any suggestion that any of them are involved" Nor do I, just suggesting the band were around after gigs and post party.

thing
26th Feb 2015, 15:32
I don't think he did much work with the Shads did he? Compared to all of the work he's done, I think they were only together late 50's early 60's. Might be wrong.

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 15:42
The primary allegation related to a Billy Graham rally in 1995. I agree that this effectively amounted to a "fishing expedition" but the point of it is that if there are no other complainants then the original one can most likely be put aside as malicious. If however it produces a whole raft of other allegations which,under close examination,tally with the original then it is very unlikely that they can be false.

Capot
26th Feb 2015, 16:22
Without prejudice, Would it be considered in the course of this further enquiry that past members of the Shadows (no connection to the alleged) be questioned as to dates in the past pertaining to the investigation?Of course; and why stop there?

What about interviewing the London Symphony Orchestra? Or Riverdance? Or the Band of the Grenadier Guards? They've all got form, haven't they, narwotimean, narwotimean, haha, bit bent, some of 'em, and they also have no connection to the alleged. (Alleged what?)

And then there's all those people in Wimbledon, you know, the Tennis Club, thick as thieves with ole Rich, weren't they?

I don't think putting "without prejudice" at the front (more often used in the context of an offer to settle, but perhaps appropriate) somehow improves the comment.

dazdaz1
26th Feb 2015, 16:36
Capot..."I don't think putting "without prejudice" at the front (more often used in the context of an offer to settle, but perhaps appropriate) somehow improves the comment"

It's known as covering ones ass on the www.

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 16:37
I do think that a lot of the responders completely miss the point. The Savile victims were unsuccessful in getting any notice taken of their (Now acknowledged as quite legitimate) complaints simply because of the status and reputation of the abuser.

After all he was a frequent and feted visitor to Chequers where Maggie evidently found him to be a charming gentleman and insisted in knighting him against all the advice given not to. The current subject is of a similar standing. A friend this afternoon told me that his wife will be devastated if this comes to court and he is found guilty. She has been to six of his concerts.

But this seems to be the way serial abusers get away with it,through their very perceived status and decency being sufficient to make people believe it just can't be true. In courts up and down the land teachers,clergymen and scout leaders are being found to have used their positions to cover for nefarious activities.

thing
26th Feb 2015, 17:10
In courts up and down the land teachers,clergymen and scout leaders are being found to have used their positions to cover for nefarious activities.

Peter Sutcliffe was a lorry driver, therefore all lorry drivers are mass murderers.

Sir George Cayley
26th Feb 2015, 17:11
Can't recall the last time a newspaper reporter was up for the type of crime they seem so interested in.

Funny that:hmm:

SGC

ATNotts
26th Feb 2015, 17:18
If however it produces a whole raft of other allegations which,under close examination,tally with the original then it is very unlikely that they can be false.

I suppose that rather depends on how wishy-washy the original allegations are.

Capot
26th Feb 2015, 17:32
It's known as covering ones ass on the wwwJust a word of advice..........the phrase "without prejudice" has a fairly specific legal meaning in a certain context, which has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting you against a legal action for slander or libel.

If you do libel someone, neither "sorry" after the event, or "without prejudice" before it will save you.

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 17:35
No,you mis-understand the way it works. The original complainant will be asked to give a detailed account of the assault. Without going into too much detail offenders do their offending in very specific ways. It's a bit like a serial killer will have a very personalised MO enabling identification of his crimes to be made from the things that he does.

If further corroboration from other victims matches the first allegation it's likely to be true. I know this because a close friend is a retired police officer who dealt with such crimes. The suggestion from many seems to be that certain people should not be investigated because of who they are.

thing
26th Feb 2015, 17:48
it's likely to be true

Probably better to leave it to a court of law to decide that. Police provide evidence, not verdicts.

Effluent Man
26th Feb 2015, 18:51
Should the original allegations have been ignored? If so on what basis? The status of the alleged miscreant?

Rosevidney1
26th Feb 2015, 19:15
Smear and innuendo are effective. Now virtually everyone and his brother believe Jimmy Saville was guilty of all the charges that have been made against him. The solicitors have profited mightily over the proceedings 'tis true but I have yet to see one shred of cast iron evidence against the alleged grand molester. I never liked the man when he was alive but the current witch hunt is totally beyond reason.

vulcanised
26th Feb 2015, 19:38
I am more than a little coming round to that pov.

BWSBoy6
26th Feb 2015, 20:02
Jet Harris' son alleges Cliff Richard is his real father | Showbiz | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/447642/Jet-Harris-son-alleges-Cliff-Richard-is-his-real-father)

This old article won't actually do him any harm, it might even help his credibility and of course, it must be true as it's written by the Sexpress. What I find so shocking about this factual piece of writing is somehow the Express haven't managed to mention anything in it about the extreme weather that is coming or Princess Di. :8

Flying Lawyer
26th Feb 2015, 22:14
BlacksheepRestraint by Superinjunction.
If there's nothing to hide, why hide behind a superinjunction?
What super injunction?
Please explain.

Effluent ManAs I pointed out the procedures for weeding out false accusers are so watertight that the CPS won't possibly go for prosecution unless the evidence is overwhelming.
Upon what basis do you feel you are in a position to 'point out the procedures'?
Your bold assertion is utter nonsense.


keyboard flierNo smoke without fire? So anyone accused of doing something wrong must be guilty?
Just out of passing curiosity, does your work require objective rational analysis of data/evidence?


Effluent ManI know this because a close friend is a retired police officer who dealt with such crimes.
You are, of course, free to regard a retired police officer as a reliable and objective source of information if you wish to do so. The suggestion from many seems to be that certain people should not be investigated because of who they are.Who has suggested that? :confused:


Capot
Good posts. :ok:

cockney steve
26th Feb 2015, 23:47
@ effluent man I don't think any of us are for one moment suggesting that a proper and thorough investigation of any complaint should not be carried out.

On the contrary, Irrespective of the "status" of the accused, the Police are expected to make a thorough and discreet investigation.

This lot have a track -record of dereliction of duty and contempt for the highest levels of morality, execution of their duties and conduct.

They have smeared and carried out a concerted campaign of character assassination.

Other high-profile offenders, in the past, have been properly investigated and only when they are finally prosecuted, does the "scandal" hit the headlines.


Was the same treatment handed out to Rolf Harris, for instance? NO !

I personally always felt there was something odd that a wealthy, handsome, world -acclaimed entertainer, other than a brief dalliance with a Tennis -player, remained, apparently, a celibate Batchelor.
The fact he became very religious did nothing to alter this view. That does NOT mean he's guilty by association. Just as all Catholic priests are not Paedos. all nuns are not sadistic child -abusers andall police forces are not corrupt.
C. R. has been publicly lynched. this is against natural justice....If there are credible allegations, they should be answerable in a properly convened Court. not through the dregs of "law enforcement", Press and Broadcasting.

Mr Chips
27th Feb 2015, 00:43
All this praise of the CPS and watertight evidence etc etc from Effluent Man - maybe he could remind us of the earlier celeb witch hunts and how those turned out. Start off with Coronation Street actors, then maybe a bit of Jim Davidson....

Stanwell
27th Feb 2015, 00:50
Only mentioning this because his name came up in the previous post...
In news from OZ last night, Rolf Harris has been stripped of his Order of Australia. :ok:

bcgallacher
27th Feb 2015, 06:55
The guilt or innocence of Cliff Richard is irrelevant (although I am inclined towards the latter.) What is important is that between them the BBC and the police turned a criminal investigation into a reality TV event - if this is acceptable heaven help us all. The police have now painted themselves into a corner as the results of no prosecution will be a massive financial settlement and I suspect a few heads rolling. This case will drag on for years as the police will be flailing around on a huge fishing expedition hoping to come up with something. I doubt if a case like this would be possible in Scotland as corroboration of evidence is required making he said,she said,statements worthless. The Scottish government attempted to get rid of the corroboration requirement last year but dropped the legislation due to massive opposition. The Scottish police force would love to get rid of it so they will find it easier to fit people up as the police in England have been doing for years.

MagnusP
27th Feb 2015, 07:31
bcg, the legislation has been put on hold, rather than dropped, pending a review of safeguards post-abolition being undertaken by Lord Bonomy. The outcome of that review is expected in April. In addition, in Scotland, although there is a general requirement for corroboration of a specific incident, there is something called the Moorov Doctrine where "similar fact" evidence in separate incidents can be taken to corroborate the lesser offence. There's lots of reasonably accurate stuff about it on Wiki.

Effluent Man
27th Feb 2015, 07:34
OK sticking my neck out here. My predictions: Charges brought, CR disappears to some desert island. Let's see how wrong I am. And yes I am of the "No smoke without fire" school.

Why would someone suddenly come up with an accusation now,twenty years after the event? Surely it should have surfaced earlier,say in the wake of the Savile exposures.

Blacksheep
27th Feb 2015, 08:20
Flying Lawyer: Did I mention anyone in particular?

I am commenting in a general way on the fact that for those who earn large fortunes from small contributions by huge numbers of people - popular entertainers, footballers and the like - trial by media is a risk that goes with the job.

News media say they often cannot report anything about specific unproven allegations because an injunction has been taken out. A "Super injunction" is an injunction that seeks to prevent reporting that an injunction is even in place. In these circumstances some people might be tempted to give reports from alternative sources more credance than would otherwise be the case.

It seems to me that for famous people, using injunctions to silence the very news media they rely upon to build their fame and fortune may actually have the opposite effect to that which they intend. Once the news media turn against them, there is no way to prevent innuendo and rumour destroying their reputation, and eventually, their careers.

Pinky the pilot
27th Feb 2015, 08:28
My sincere hopes: That Sir Cliff is completely exonerated at an eventual enquiry and then proceeds to successfully sue every single one of his accusers for everything they have!:mad:

Right down to the fillings in their teeth!:*

Flying Lawyer
27th Feb 2015, 08:42
Effluent Man

Your predictions are of the same value as flipping a coin, 'predicting' that it will land head up and then saying 'I told you so' if it does.
Your predictions don't concern me. My sole concern is that no-one should be misled by the ill-informed nonsense you have posted about police and CPS processes - whilst claiming that others "mis-understand the way it works."

And yes I am of the "No smoke without fire" school.
If you are ever called for jury service and then selected to serve on a jury, please make it clear to the Judge that you are unfit to serve because of your prejudices.


BlacksheepDid I mention anyone in particular?
cockney steve said (Post 11): 'Mr Richard ..... has acted with the greatest of public restraint.'
You responded (Post 12):

...has acted with the greatest of public restraint.
Hmm. Yes. Restraint by Superinjunction.

If there's nothing to hide, why hide behind a superinjunction?

Blacksheep
27th Feb 2015, 09:01
I say again. Did I mention anyone in particular? That is I, me, not anybody else.

The person mentioned by cockney steve and whose name is at the head of this topic is only one of a multitude of "celebrities" who have fallen foul of sections of the media recently. It appears there are those in the media who are out to destroy these people.
Why?
Is it advisable for this situation to continue?
How could it be stopped?
Would this be in the "public interest"?
"The public interest" - what is it?

The questions are endless. I don't suppose most or even any will ever be answered. This is not really about one person: it is about the use of the news media for building and destroying careers and reputations in general - as against the possible use of the legal system for silencing a free press.

If only we didn't live in a free democratic society these problems would never arise and we could all live in peaceful silence.

Or would that be contrary to human nature?

Questions, questions, always another question... :)

Evanelpus
27th Feb 2015, 09:08
I dunno, the lengths some people will go to to stop him singing again at Wimbledon:ouch:

parabellum
27th Feb 2015, 09:30
And in the case of the Norfolk Broads holiday why go with them rather than just paying the bill?

For an entertainer that would be too bigger publicity opportunity to miss, I would have thought?

Lon More
27th Feb 2015, 10:18
it is about the use of the news media for building and destroying careers and reputations in general - as against the possible use of the legal system for silencing a free press.


a subject dear to the heart of many lawyers. Sir Nicholas Fairburn comes to mind

Flying Lawyer
27th Feb 2015, 12:02
Lawyers in Scotland possibly.

(Assuming you mean Sir Nicholas Fairbairn.)

panda-k-bear
27th Feb 2015, 13:43
Oh come now. Someone bandies about an allegation on the turf of South Yorks Police at just the same time that South Yorks Police are facing an absolute kicking over their utter failure to act on the Rotherham child molestation and rape cases. this must have been an answer to all their prayers!

"Quick... look over there"

Oldest trick in the book.

bcgallacher
27th Feb 2015, 14:14
Magnus P - I think the postponement was a face saver for Kenny as the legislation was deeply unpopular. Thanks for the info regarding Moorov doctrine - never heard of it before.

MagnusP
27th Feb 2015, 14:30
Iain Bonomy's review of the need for safeguards carries on, however, so the abolition of the requirement for corroboration must still be in the pretendy parliament's sights. It has, as you rightly say, divided the legal profession in Scotland at all levels.

Lon More
27th Feb 2015, 16:26
Lawyers in Scotland possibly.
as his remark was made in respect of the British Parliament, his nationality or domicile is irrelevant, and according to the Mail, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, the other paedophile at Margaret Thatcher's side | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2732234/Revealed-The-Full-horrifying-truth-Sir-Nicholas-Fairbairn-paedophile-Margaret-Thatcher-s-side.html) he seemed to have had a lot to cover up. Groping Thatcher euch!!!

Trinity 09L
1st Mar 2015, 13:14
CR Lawyers now asking who, how & why was the letter published.:ouch:

joy ride
1st Mar 2015, 13:28
I trust the Daily Fail no further than I can kick it, but that article about NF is pretty shocking.

Lon More
1st Mar 2015, 13:44
Neither do I Joy Ride. It surfaced elsewhere but many here would scream "Foul" if a left-wing source was quoted. Better that it comes from a source they trust implicitly.

fitliker
1st Mar 2015, 14:36
Thanks Pal,
For giving us another way of avoiding the unpleasant duties in the sometimes gory and nasty duties of being in a Jury.
Any other suggestions other than telling the defence lawyers that you are a teacher would be appreciated. As they put me on the Jury poll again and any hints as to avoid the unpleasant experience of looking at crime scene photos would be greatly appreciated.

BWSBoy6
5th Nov 2015, 22:25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34742005

Ancient Observer
6th Nov 2015, 13:50
If they are talking about allegations about events 50 years ago, I have to say that my memory of which lady I successfully chatted up and when before I married in 1980 is nearly non-existent, unless they were especially memorable.

"What were you doing on the evening of 3rd June 1971, Mr Ancient?"

Er, pass. You tell me.

Effluent Man
7th Nov 2015, 03:40
Interesting that this hit the headlines strongly and then disappeared virtually immediately. That speaks of a Super Injunction. Interesting also that we have this very up front statement about cooperating with police enquiries combined with the aggressive legal strategy. I'm with the no smokers on this one.

Mr Chips
7th Nov 2015, 12:45
It's equally possible that it vanished from the news because there is no story. No new evidence, no smoking gun, just more questioning. I wonder if the papers are finally realising that so many celeb cases are turning out to be a load of old bo11ocks and therefore are keeping clear...

funfly
7th Nov 2015, 16:05
If some woman said that I touched her tits in 1956 when I was 18 years old, I would probably have to say she was correct although my chances of remembering would be nil.

It does give me the opportunity to relate an anecdote about a girl I was very serious about in 1956. I tried for month after month to get my grubby fingers into her various and very attractive bits without any success. She was obviously a very shy young lady.

Within 6 months after we parted she was pregnant by another local lad so maybe (of course) it was me that was naive :{

FF

Tankertrashnav
7th Nov 2015, 16:43
Research is constantly proving how fallible memories are even a short time after the events being recalled, never mind 30,40 or 50 years later. I think it is outrageous that men's lives are being ruined on the say-so of someone's imperfect memories of what may or may not have happened all those years ago. Time for a statute of limitations on this sort of offence.

I should add that I can't stand Cliff Richard, from his warbling vibrato to his unctious Christianity, but that doesn't stop me from being sickened by the way the allegations against him have been dealt with by the police.

Planemike
7th Nov 2015, 16:58
Good to see that he proclaims his Christian faith...........

onetrack
8th Nov 2015, 11:27
Unfortunately, time after time, we see people who are outspoken about their Christianity, being unveiled as deviants.
Belting out "in-your-face" religion, and decrying immoral behaviour, is often an excellent way of hiding extreme sexual perversions.

Perth, W.A. - Pastor jailed for 10 yrs for defiling 13 yr old girl as part of pedophile ring (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perth-pastor-dawid-volmer-jailed-over-pedophile-ring-sex-abuse-of-teen-girl-13/news-story/65fdc785f6ea57444ecfd974f6020fff)

Dennis McKenna - "Christian" school warden was "untouchable" pedophile - jailed multiple times for hundreds of offences. (http://www.mako.org.au/dennis_mckenna.html)

Mr Chips
8th Nov 2015, 12:18
I'm pretty sure you can level that accusation at most areas of life and then back it up with a whole two examples...

What has Cliff Richard's Christianity got to do with allegations from decades ago being rather over zealously investigated?

sadhatmo
8th Nov 2015, 12:35
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Chips on this. His faith or otherwise is completely irrelevant - those who try to make an argument otherwise are more than likely to have their own agenda.

funfly
8th Nov 2015, 12:51
Although I personally think that Cliff Richard's faith is a lot of mumbo jumbo, I agree that it is irrelevant to the question as to did he do naughty things to a junior years ago.

I happen to think that deeds like this carried out that many years ago warrant a lot less investigation than some of the massive injustices being carried out today.

Does the fact that Ralph Harris touched up a junior some years ago (for which he is serving time) make his paintings less good, his songs less good?

I am very interested in Art History and I promise you that if the personal lives of m,any of the 'Great Masters' were used as judgment then there would be a lot less paintings hanging in our art galleries.

Think of the Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, does his interest in photographing undressed and underage girls make Alice in Wonderland a less good book?

The list goes on and on and must indicate strongly that there has to be a cut-off point.

Toadstool
8th Nov 2015, 13:35
The list goes on and on and must indicate strongly that there has to be a cut-off point.

Absolutely...what do you reckon, 1, 2, 5,10 20 or 30 years? How about if it was your son or daughter? "Nope, sorry darling, it happened ages ago..so the paedo gets a free pass. Pass the sauce please".

My cut off point is when the alleged perpetrator is dead. It seems others are much more lenient.

onetrack
8th Nov 2015, 14:16
The two examples I posted are merely local and recent examples. I could easily fill this thread with thousands of examples of people who have been "upstanding citizens" - and who then, have eventually been exposed as perpetrators of hideous sexual deviance and abhorrent sexual behaviour.

The mainstream churches, as well as numerous smaller churches, have been exposed in recent years, as places where pedophiles existed and operated - and did so under the cover of expressing great holiness.
The church hierarchies have been exposed as people who were supposed to provide fine leadership, and attend to wrongdoing within their ranks - but who did nothing - and in some cases, helped pedophiles escape investigation and punishment.

The sad part is, there are many thousands more who have never been exposed, because they were "untouchable" and in positions of power and fame.
The investigation into Cliff Richards possible deviant behaviour is an expanding one. There is more than one allegation.
I believe in the old proverb, that "where there's smoke, there's fire".

Sir Cliff Richard investigation increasing in size says police chief (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/25/sir-cliff-richard-investigation-increasing-in-size-says-police-chief)

sadhatmo
8th Nov 2015, 15:34
The two examples I posted are merely local and recent examples. I could easily fill this thread with thousands of examples of people who have been "upstanding citizens" - and who then, have eventually been exposed as perpetrators of hideous sexual deviance and abhorrent sexual behaviour.

[/URL]

Given that nobody is born a "perpetrator of hideous sexual deviance and abhorrent sexual behaviour" then what you describe above is a self fulfilling prophecy.

The protection of their own and uneasiness with going public to disclose such perpetrators as you describe is not the preserve of the church/churches. You will find that reaction in all walks of life particularly in the establishment - from political, police, media to local government and beyond. Singling out one group is a diversion tactic that conveniently ignores the plain truth that deviants are found in all walks of life. Perhaps you could reflect on the order of magnitude of number that separates those members of faith/churches that do not behave as such. That statistic will throw a different light, maybe one not to your liking.

Mr Chips
8th Nov 2015, 15:39
Absolutely...what do you reckon, 1, 2, 5,10 20 or 30 years? How about if it was your son or daughter? "Nope, sorry darling, it happened ages ago..so the paedo gets a free pass. Pass the sauce please".

My cut off point is when the alleged perpetrator is dead. It seems others are much more lenient.

How about "it happened so long ago that there is no hope of a fair trial or even a reasonable investigation."

The only defence after so long is "I didn't do it" which doesn't seem very strong.

Why is so much effort, so much expense allowed for these cases? Because the alleged perpetrator is a celebrity?

Toadstool
8th Nov 2015, 16:14
Got it.

Not only should we give a cut off time for paedophiles, but if its TFD to investigate and prosecute, then we should give up on that also.

Mr Chips
8th Nov 2015, 16:19
We should have a cut off time if the crime wasn't reported in a reasonable time and if the time elapsed will unfairly prejudice a defence

Also, isn't there a "not in the public interest" consideration?

Tankertrashnav
8th Nov 2015, 16:55
Surely the point is that there are crimes of this sort being committed as we speak.

Rather than have teams of police digging around events of 30 and 40 years ago, in order to give some sort of "closure" to alleged victims, wouldnt they be better employed in trying to get to grips with the current situation and preventing the serious abuse of young people now? They tell us they are so short staffed they can no longer investigate shoplifting, minor thefts etc - how about adding groping that took place in the 60s and 70s to the list?

Effluent Man
8th Nov 2015, 20:56
If I analyse the arrests in my area they seem have common threads. A chap who ran a boxing club for boys, another involved with a cricket club. A Scoutmaster, the leader of a boy's choir, teachers of course. What all these had in common was that they used supposedly laudable work to enable them to commit their crimes. I have absolutely no doubt that this one will follow the course of the JS thread.

If you want to know look it up and read my posts from the first few pages and the anger of the response to them.

Tankertrashnav
10th Jul 2016, 22:37
Well Sir Cliff has decided to sue both the BBC and the South Yorkshire Police, and good for him, a lot of people are saying.

Except that nobody in either of these organisations is going to be a penny poorer if he wins substantial damages. The DG of the BBC isn't going to have to dig into his generous salary, nor is there any danger that the Chief Constable's pension fund is going to be raided. The only loser will of course be the poor taxpayer. The BBC and the police will say "lessons have been learned". But will anybody be sacked? Don't be silly!

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 23:18
Hasn't Cliff Richard already made enough money out of the BBC over the past 50 years?

Without public exposure on the BBC radio in the 1950's and telly in the '60s, he'd have been a nobody. Mebbe picking up a few one night stands in transport caffs and the odd working man's club, but otherwise an unknown. Just another Elvis "pretender".

How many more tv licence payers have to cough up their all to make him even richer?

Sallyann1234
11th Jul 2016, 07:54
Much of the above discussion misses the point. You're talking about whether or not he committed criminal offences.

He's not suing because he was investigated. Whether he likes it or not there were accusations made against him and the police decided they were sufficiently strong for an investigation. It was necessary in their view for an unannounced search of his premises to check for evidence. That's something any of us might have to tolerate at any time, whether we are innocent or guilty. Tough.

He's suing because the BBC were informed about the police search of his home so that they could have a crew outside the gate and a helicopter overhead. That action was entirely unacceptable. Such a high profile public event has caused many people (including some on here) to infer that he was guilty, even though he was not charged with any offence. Again, that is not acceptable.

Neither the BBC nor the police have made a proper apology, presumably because they did not want to admit corruption. I don't blame the guy one bit for having his day in court to wring it out of them.

As for the cost to tax and licence payers, that's unfortunate. But do we want to give public bodies a remit to carry out corrupt acts on the basis that the costs of bringing them to justice are too high? There have been many millions spent on cases of serious of serious financial fraud that have failed for one reason or another. That was taxpayers' money too.

As said, he doesn't need the money. He may be fairly criticised if he doesn't donate it to charity.

Smeagol
11th Jul 2016, 08:11
Sallyann - you beat me to it. Concur with all you said. No lover of Sir Cliff's musical career but the way the search of his property was covered was obviously arranged and he is right to expect some compensation.

Maybe a £million is a bit rich, a grovelling apology might have been more suitable but the Beeb don't seem to do grovelling.

Pace
11th Jul 2016, 08:21
This isn't the point ! Sex attacks are the most horrendous crimes to be accused of Innocent men can have their character destroyed with months of headline media coverage
When they are found to be innocent or the charges are found to be false they get a tiny piece in the media
That is totally wrong they should enjoy the same protection and anonymity as women
There are far too many false accusations where the man is severely damaged regardless of his innocence and can go through years of hell
This is wrong and has to be stopped. It goes against every principal of human rights
Recently two drunk Barristers were caught on CCTV having sex in public. The female Barrister having admitted it and being locked in the cell then claimed it was an attack by her colleague and claimed anonymity to protect her name and career
I don't blame Sir Cliff Richard for feeling abused himself and wanting some sort of justice. I am sure its nothing to do with the money but public vilification in the media coverage of the BBC having to make a pay out

Sallyann1234
11th Jul 2016, 09:12
Maybe a £million is a bit rich, a grovelling apology might have been more suitable but the Beeb don't seem to do grovelling.
If I had CR's money, the grovelling apology would be worth much more to me that another million.
I expect he feels the same way.

bingofuel
11th Jul 2016, 09:25
I suspect it is not an apology he wants, but to have those, who released the information about the intended search of his property to the media, to be identified and made to answer for their actions.
I imagine the search was legally authorised by obtaining a search warrant from a Magistrate or such person, so it was justified, having the information released to the BBC so that there was media coverage was wrong.

Planemike
11th Jul 2016, 09:41
I will quite often defend the BBC but certainly NOT on this occasion. I really don't know what they were thinking of.....

G0ULI
11th Jul 2016, 09:55
So the leaking of the application for a search warrant wasn't really corruption, but a breach of confidential information. The BBC as a journalistic organisation is obliged to investigate matters in the public interest and especially high profile cases of this nature in light of all the other public figures who have been investigated and convicted of various offences.

Would the initial leak have been regarded as seriously if a charge and conviction had been the end result?

Anyone living in the public eye may become the subject of allegations of behaviour outside societal norms. That is part of the price that has to be paid for fame and fortune. If there is a case brought for compensation, it will probably only be of benefit to the legal teams involved. Cliff Richard surely doesn't need the money and the BBC is funded by the taxpayer.

Pace
11th Jul 2016, 10:11
Gouli

But you are missing the point I don't believe it's anything to do with money
Cliff Richard attracted huge publicity during those accusations
He was always someone who appeared way below his years and it's obvious with the dramatic change in his appearance that he has suffered a lot
There is no smoke without fire in the public eye and even when proved innocent people not just rich and famous never get the same publicity with the innocent verdict
The damage is done
The only way he can get more media attention and further clear his name is to create media attention
Suing the BBC for a large sum and winning will further publicise that innocence

G0ULI
11th Jul 2016, 10:25
The bar for obtaining a successful criminal conviction in the UK is set very high. A person must be found guilty beyond all probable doubt. After the passage of many years, the prospect of conducting a successful prosecution against any accused person is remote, without firm new evidence such as DNA.

Civil cases tend to be based on the balance of probability.

The O.J. Simpson case is probably the most famous example of a high profile personality being found innocent in a criminal court, but effectively convicted by a civil court. Obviously US law follows different processes to the UK system.

Unfortunately whenever someone famous becomes the subject of serious allegations of misconduct, their career and reputation inevitably becomes tarnished. A permanent shadow is cast over their life and I'm not sure that any level of compensation can compensate for that.

Pace
11th Jul 2016, 10:50
Gouli
I agree with a lot of what your saying but sex crimes against children or adults must be a horrendous charge to face if you are innocent
Females are given anonymity in law and there have been very wicked women who have used that for various reasons
Because of the damage such a charge can do men should have the same protection in law
Ok there are exceptional circumstances such as suspected multiple attacks where the police should be able to apply in a court to have that lifted but a broad brush of exposure is not right and is against every human right imaginable

Sallyann1234
11th Jul 2016, 11:04
A permanent shadow is cast over their life and I'm not sure that any level of compensation can compensate for that. Of course it wouldn't. But it seems pretty clear that CR is wanting a court judgment of the wrongdoing, rather than a slightly different number in his bank account.
I say again that if he wins, the honourable thing would be to donate the money to charity, perhaps something to do with abused children.

Pace
11th Jul 2016, 11:15
Or abused men which he has now experienced

Cazalet33
11th Jul 2016, 12:00
He should seek a private prosecution against the corrupt police who tipped off the grubbier members of the media about the raid.

Instead, he's going after the deep pockets, no doubt on the advice of greedy scumbag lawyers.

Lonewolf_50
11th Jul 2016, 12:34
From how things have turned out, it appears that CR did not Rock 'n' Roll {a} Juvenile and his old friend Cilla Black is more of a guardian angel than a Devil Woman.

It took a while to dig through memory. I'd heard that musician's name before, and I finally figured it out: Devil Woman was all over the radio some decades ago on this side of the pond. When people told me it was by Cliff Richard I always wondered "who is he?" The lyrics I recall are something like
"She's just a devil woman, with evil on her mind, she's just a devil woman ... she's gonna get you from behind." Pretty good song "hook" if I can remember that 30+ years later.

Based on his current age and "well preserved looks," CR appears to be a successful singer whose face doctor probably is the same one who kept Dick Clarke "looking youthful." (American Bandstand DJ and Top 40 countdown shill).
PS: Nice house, Cliff. :ok:

G0ULI
11th Jul 2016, 14:14
As far as I am aware, the initial leak may not necessarily have come from the police. There are lots of people drifting around court buildings during various hearings. There is no doubt that the police cooperated to some extent with the press when the raids were carried out. No doubt there will be a rather long and drawn out enquiry to establish the facts. Cliff Richard is no longer a young man and clearly the allegations have taken a considerable toll on his health, judging by recent press photographs. One would hope that matters could be settled sooner rather than later.

Pace
12th Jul 2016, 08:26
Cliff Richard is no longer a young man and clearly the allegations have taken a considerable toll on his health,

I completely agree with this statement and have to ask why the law failed to protect an innocent man from being put under so much pain and stress ?
The law is wrong! Too much emphasis has been placed on the rights of women their right to anonymity and no consideration given to people like Sir Cliff Richards
Yes he is a wealthy celebrity but that itself also attracts the gold digger sexual abuse claims
It is not just the wealthy but ordinary men who for numerous reasons can face false accusations and have their health and lives ruined in the process
I hope CR campaigns to making the law fairer

Ancient Observer
12th Jul 2016, 11:13
I would make the BBC pay him £1 million. As that is taxpayers' money, it should be deducted from the salaries of the top 30 managers in the BBC.
They need to learn to be much more careful when they start throwing mud.

Tankertrashnav
12th Jul 2016, 17:04
Wouldn't that be brilliant, A-O? Never going to happen, of course

ShyTorque
12th Jul 2016, 20:36
Point is, this could happen to any man, not just a celebrity.

his old friend Cilla Black is more of a guardian angel than a Devil Woman.

Lonewolf 50,

You're slightly out of date. It would more accurate to say "was".

Pace
13th Jul 2016, 11:17
The point is the law is very biased towards the fairer sex. My opinion is women can be more ruthless than men

You only have to look at the high profile divorces where women are handed £ millions which on their own they would not stand a chance of making even a fraction of that

Men should be protected in these sex claims until there is solid evidence to show otherwise. In multiple sex attack suspicions then the police should go to a judge to have that anonymity lifted if the police want publicity to bring other victims forward

57mm
13th Jul 2016, 13:55
Can't put my finger on it but there is something about this man that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.....

Pace
13th Jul 2016, 14:08
57mm

His religious devotion or his sexuality ?
Surely his sexuality between consenting adults is his business ?
Maybe portraying yourself as whiter than white means that any tiny mark stands out ?
Can't say I am a fan of his music but he is one of a chain of celebrity historic sex abuse targets and judging by his dramatic change in appearance has obviously suffered a lot through this unjust ordeal

Surely if there was some truth in there he would slip quietly out of the limelight and not potentially open himself to a further spotlight taking the BBC to court
That smacks of a man deeply hurt trying to achieve justice in the public face which maybe he feels he still has not achieved

Lonewolf_50
13th Jul 2016, 14:12
Can't put my finger on it but there is something about this man that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end..... His teeth are too good (perfect?) to be a Brit? :E

fitliker
13th Jul 2016, 14:55
How many of these celebs are being blackmailed ?
It is more likely that some gang is working a nice little earner .

Tankertrashnav
13th Jul 2016, 15:31
His teeth are too good (perfect?) to be a Brit?

Apparently not, Lonewolf ;)

British teeth no worse than American, says study - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/health/british-american-bad-teeth-study/)

KelvinD
13th Jul 2016, 15:42
He isn't a Brit; born in Lucknow.
One common theme running unspoken throughout this saga is that world renowned bastion of integrity; South Yorkshire Police. The force that seems to have been unable to tell the truth for at least the last 30 years!
Oh, also going under the radar is a recent article in the Liverpool Echo reporting another "celeb" is being spoken to/interviewed by police is Chris Evans.
Mainstream media seem to have kept that quiet, don't they?

G-CPTN
13th Jul 2016, 16:20
Chris Evans (http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cops-chris-evans-sex-abuse-8387087).

Kitbag
13th Jul 2016, 17:59
KD, he's British Harry Rodger Webb was born in India at King George's Hospital, Victoria Street, in Lucknow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow), which was then part of British India (or the British Raj (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj)). His parents were Rodger Oscar Webb, a manager for a catering contractor that serviced the Indian Railways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways), and the former Dorothy Marie Dazely. Richard is primarily of English heritage

cdtaylor_nats
14th Jul 2016, 21:48
I don't really see where the BBC was at fault unless someone paid the police. If the BBC were told that Cliffs house was to be raided then had done nothing then they would have been accused of covering up for another of their stars.

Flying Lawyer
14th Jul 2016, 23:41
If the BBC were told that Cliffs house was to be raided then had done nothing then they would have been accused of covering up for another of their stars.

If the BBC had reported that he was under investigation and that the police raided his apartment then no such accusation could have been made.

Do you think it was reasonable, for example, for the BBC to hire a helicopter so that a photographer and a cameraman could peer into his apartment whilst it was being searched?


South Yorkshire Police has not, as far as I'm aware, explained why it was considered necessary to raid his home while investigating an offence alleged to have taken place almost 30 years ago. That is certainly not SOP.

G0ULI
15th Jul 2016, 00:37
Flying Lawyer

I beg to differ. It is SOP to attend premises in order to establish the layout and identify certain objects that have been described in a victim statement. This can go a long way to establishing the veracity of the victim. If the victim describes a particular book or item in the drawer of a cabinet in a particular location, an unusual vase on a pedestal, a painting, a wallpaper pattern, bedding, etc.

Such visits are almost invariably conducted under the power of a search warrant and without notifying the property owner, to ensure that the scene is left as undisturbed as possible before the raid.

It is unlikely after the passage of many years that things will be exactly as described, but where a property is only used occasionally, the decoration and other features may remain fixed for many years. With allegations as serious as this, the police cannot afford to leave an important avenue of investigation unexplored.

Of course it was unreasonable to hire a helicopter. A drone would have done the job for a fraction of the cost!

Flying Lawyer
15th Jul 2016, 07:36
It is SOP to attend premises in order to establish the layout and identify certain objects that have been described in a victim statement. I agree it is standard procedure in such circumstances as you describe.
It is commonly done by a couple of police officers, sometimes accompanied by a police photographer.
It is not SOP for all investigations into allegations of a historic nature.

South Yorkshire Police were investigating an allegation that CR had committed an offence at Sheffield football stadium in 1985.
CR did not buy his flat in Sunningdale Berkshire until 23 years later, in 2008.
A large team of police officers raided his flat in 2014 - which he didn't own at the relevant time and which is about 180 miles from where it was alleged he had committed an offence while visiting Sheffield 29 years earlier.

---

I'm not sure how to take your final comment.
Do you regard such press intrusion as reasonable, or fair, regardless of whether it is by helicopter or drone?

ShyTorque
15th Jul 2016, 08:14
As I wrote earlier, this could happen to any of us. One accuser precipitated this sorry episode. I wonder how Gouli would react if it had been himself who received this treatment.

The police, the media and all of us need to accept that some accusations are fabricated. Although there are sexual abusers out there, there are also any number of fruit loops, too.

PDR1
15th Jul 2016, 08:46
Of course it doesn't actually matter if you are acquitted these days - you can still be named, shamed and sentenced for crimes that a court has determined that you didn't do (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36794430).

PDR

Pace
15th Jul 2016, 08:59
With allegations as serious as this, the police cannot afford to leave an important avenue of investigation unexplored.

Gouli

If someone is raped attacked or abused and days later the suspect home is searched I can understand that
I have a big problem with so called historic sex attacks
Firstly if the victim was so traumatised why did they not report it ? I know my own daughter would tell me anything and celebrity or not I would have been there to sort them out with the police in tow
You have to be suspicious of claims 30 to 40 years later where celebrity and large amounts of money can attract dubious claims for financial gain
That doesn't mean there are not genuine molested people as the Saville case showed but it surely shows how the police must be suspicious of claims and protect these suspects from malicious claims until solid evidence is available
You have to be very careful that the suspected abuser doesn't become the abused as has happened to CR
I was a young guy in the mid late 70s a different era of free sex! All the celebrity venues had hoards of groupies only too happy to throw knickers at these super gods (
I was always surprised that they needed to abuse to get what they wanted which was so readily available on the plate to them!

So while there were sex perverts like JS who used their power in very wicked ways equally there are many who are targeted for the wrong reasons

Tankertrashnav
15th Jul 2016, 09:03
Re PDR1's link - he was acquitted by a unanimous verdict as well. I'd be interested to hear F-L's comments on this one. On the face of it it seems to be a totally oppressive and unjustifiable law - if indeed it is legal.

Sallyann1234
15th Jul 2016, 09:16
That may be true Pace, but we are not (or should not be) talking about the likelihood of whether he might be guilty, based on personal feelings or experience.

Only evidence is acceptable for a prosecution to succeed, and as FL says above there was little chance of finding relevant information about the alleged offence in CR's home. It was a fishing expedition, pure and simple. There was certainly no excuse for the invasion of his privacy - and that of the other residents in those dwellings - by the BBC helicopter.

PDR1
15th Jul 2016, 09:18
I gather it's a variation of the ASBO, but its application looks rather overzealous to me (of course we don't know the full circumstances). IANAL, but to me there are rather fundamental issues around articles 4 and 5 of the HRA here. Indeed, to be melodramatic, one of the three remaining valid clauses of Magna Carta would seem to prohibit this where it says:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Not to mention discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation etc etc. Is this not a classic case of ultra vires?

PDR

Pace
15th Jul 2016, 10:05
Sally Ann

I agree with what you are saying but you only have to see how from the tennis playing ever youthful CR he has aged into an old man
He has been abused by the system
Women are protected by anonymity men are not

There was the recent disgusting case where two drunken barristers were caught on camera having consensual sex

Both were locked in the cells both pleaded guilty
The female then changed her plea claiming the other Barrister assaulted her to protect her name and career

Men equally should be protected by anonymity until at least formally charged or dare I say convicted as such claimed offences can ruin the persons life even when proved innocent as in the case of CL
The police will claim they need the exposure so others can come forward
Ok valid point but then the police should go to a judge to get that anonymity removed and give a good case why ?

These men are equally abused by the system and that should not be tolerated in our society

G-CPTN
4th Aug 2016, 21:51
I did consider the UK Politics Hamsterwheel thread, but this is about 'abuse'.

Child sex abuse inquiry: Judge Lowell Goddard quits - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36982049)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/543975/Dame_Lowell_Goddard_letter.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/543976/Home_Secretary_response_letter.pdf

From:- Dame Lowell Goddard resignation letter and Home Secretary’s response (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dame-lowell-goddard-resignation-letter-and-home-secretarys-response).

Sallyann1234
4th Aug 2016, 22:21
Why relate this to Cliff Richard? He has never been charged with any offence.

G-CPTN
4th Aug 2016, 22:23
Why relate this to Cliff Richard? He has never been charged with any offence.
I agree - but the Goddard inquiry is into historic accusations, I believe.

Also this thread seems to have wavered around the subject.

If you can suggest a more appropriate thread I will willingly move to it.

Lantern10
5th Aug 2016, 06:09
This guy just got released after five years.


US Man Cleared of Rape After 5 Years in Philippine Jail (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-man-cleared-of-rape-after-5-years-in-philippine-jail/3445289.html)

bcgallacher
5th Aug 2016, 07:04
I know of a case where a Filipino was held in the same prison for 11 years before coming to trial. Do not ever get involved with the Filipino justice system unless you are financially capable of paying the bribes - a few payments in the right places would have seen him released. 5 years in the prison mentioned would have been appalling - the place is an absolute disgrace. The justice system is totally corrupt,from police to judges,on a scale that is beyond your imagination.

Fareastdriver
18th Jul 2018, 15:34
The BBC are starting to throw their toys out of their prams.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

The Nip
18th Jul 2018, 16:40
The BBC are starting to throw their toys out of their prams.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

The only problem is it is not the BBC who get fined, it is the license fee payers. The person responsible for this story walks away scott free.

As far as the fine given to Yorkshire police, well that is the tax payers.

It would appear again that when it comes to public institutions, in these 2 examples, no one is held responsible for their actions.

Effluent Man
18th Jul 2018, 16:49
Usually in situations like this at least the damages are donated to charity. In this case I have my doubts. Personally I think Harry has dodged a bullet.

Sallyann1234
18th Jul 2018, 17:06
Usually in situations like this at least the damages are donated to charity. In this case I have my doubts. Personally I think Harry has dodged a bullet.
Interesting. Why do you think he won't donate the damages to charity? And why has he dodged a bullet?

flash8
18th Jul 2018, 17:43
Once met Cliff in my youth in a Dorking Indian restaurant (or should I say "the" at the time, 1980's) , was with my Sister and parents... wonderful man, spent twenty minutes chatting to us, completely without arrogance, this was the time "living doll with the young ones" was in the charts so he was pretty famous even amongst us kids. Of course doesn't mean he's not into anything distasteful, but my impressions were favourable, came across as very decent... of my parents era they were floored.

South Yorkshire Police.
​​​​​​​A law upon themselves.

VP959
18th Jul 2018, 17:48
I've always been of the view that publicly identifying anyone that has not been charged with any crime is just bloody wrong. I'm not even happy that identifying someone who has been charged, but not yet been found guilty or innocent is right and proper. Look at the people whose lives have been completely turned upside down by being publicly investigated by the bloody media. Look at the murder of Joanna Yeates and the hell that her wholly innocent landlord went through at the hands of the police and media working hand-in-hand.

As for Cliff Richard, a good friend of my late mother knew him well; they were close friends with Sue Barker at the time, years ago. From all I've heard he just has virtually no interest in sex at all, and never has had, he's just one of those individuals who are, to all intents and purposes, asexual. That seems to raise a lot of unwarranted suspicion in some minds, but I can easily believe it. I have an acquaintance that I thought was gay for many years, but it turns out that he too just has never had the slightest interest in sex, with anyone of any gender, so I can well believe that Cliff Richard falls into the same, or similar, category.

Thaihawk
18th Jul 2018, 18:00
It is good the courts have ruled in Sir Cliff's favour. There was always something of a show-trial atmosphere about the whole thing.

It is a great pity it will be the taxpayer and not those responsible who be paying for this affair. There are many in the BBC and the corrupt South Yorkshire Police who should be out of a job and penalised financially over this. Then criminal action against these people considered.

Fareastdriver
18th Jul 2018, 18:05
If the BBC appeals; whose money are they using?

El Grifo
18th Jul 2018, 18:14
So are we saying that people in the public eye should have their suspected wrong-doings investigated in a different way than those of joe normal ?

El G.

flash8
18th Jul 2018, 18:15
It is a great pity it will be the taxpayer and not those responsible who be paying for this affair. There are many in the BBC and the corrupt South Yorkshire Police who should be out of a job and penalised financially over this. Then criminal action against these people considered.
No, all we will get is the standard "lessons will be learned" spiel that is used as a template in public life to avoid individual accountability. That is modern Britain for you.

If the BBC appeals; whose money are they using?
The great British public will have to cough up I assume?

Effluent Man
18th Jul 2018, 18:42
My knowledge of this goes back fifty years. The brother of a friend had a cruiser hire business on the Norfolk Broads and a well known pop star hired a boat to take a group of young lads on a boating holiday. Suffice it to say his stories of shenanigans that took place were informative. I thought no more about it for forty five years. It fits the "No smoke without fire" category.

RedhillPhil
18th Jul 2018, 18:53
He isn't a Brit; born in Lucknow.
One common theme running unspoken throughout this saga is that world renowned bastion of integrity; South Yorkshire Police. The force that seems to have been unable to tell the truth for at least the last 30 years!
Oh, also going under the radar is a recent article in the Liverpool Echo reporting another "celeb" is being spoken to/interviewed by police is Chris Evans.
Mainstream media seem to have kept that quiet, don't they?

"He isn't a Brit..."

My sister Yvonne was born in Nicosia but she's definitely British.

Chronus
18th Jul 2018, 18:55
I believe the price of £610,000, plus Special Damages, plus Appeal costs, from our hard earned public purse, may be cheap at the price... if it succeeds in putting an end to sensationalism, spin, slur and smear and pave the way to true and factual news reporting.

VP959
18th Jul 2018, 19:08
He isn't a Brit; born in Lucknow.


And, pray tell, who ruled Lucknow, India, at the time of his birth?

To save the effort of looking it up, I'll tell you. The British. On 14th October 1940 Lucknow was still a part of the British Empire. India did not achieve independence until 1947. That indisputably makes him a British citizen, born within the British Empire.

Pontius Navigator
18th Jul 2018, 19:10
Once met Cliff in my youth in a Dorking Indian restaurant (or should I say "the" at the time, 1980's) ,s.
Crikey, I remember the glasses jumping to that song on the Formica tables in the NAAFI at Manby in 1959.

Loose rivets
18th Jul 2018, 22:41
The Rivertess was born just down the road from Sir Cliff - prior to 1947 - and had a truly British passport before heading 'home'.

Come to think of it, both were born not far from Spike Milligan, which could explain a lot.

pineridge
18th Jul 2018, 22:57
I was at R.A.F. Manby in 1959. Went to King Edward Sixth School, Louth.. .

KelvinD
19th Jul 2018, 06:59
RedHillPhil: True. I realise that and have absolutely no idea why I posted that re not being a Brit. I know it wasn't due to the evil brew, I haven't had a drink for months. It was perhaps because of his mother's Anglo-Indian heritage. Worse; I should know better as my youngest lad was born in the Philippines and he is quite definitely British! So, I suppose I should withdraw that remark!
VP959: I need and shall take no lessons from you on history or geography. I know well enough where Lucknow is. I also know well enough the story of India's independence.

VP959
19th Jul 2018, 07:37
VP959: I need and shall take no lessons from you on history or geography. I know well enough where Lucknow is. I also know well enough the story of India's independence.

So why state that Cliff Richard "isn't a Brit", then?

If I'm wrong, and being born in 1940, of British parents, in a part of the former British Empire, doesn't automatically make you a British citizen by birth, then I'm happy to be corrected.

ORAC
19th Jul 2018, 08:29
Being born in India before 1940 to a British mother or parents makes you “British by Descent” (children of unmarried British men don’t qualify). There is no category of British by birth - only British “other than by descent”.

Even that does not apply in all cases. e.g.

https://wiki.fibis.org/w/British_nationality_(born_in_India)

VP959
19th Jul 2018, 09:26
Being born in India before 1940 to a British mother or parents makes you “British by Descent” (children of unmarried British men don’t qualify). There is no category of British by birth - only British “other than by descent”.

Even that does not apply in all cases. e.g.

https://wiki.fibis.org/w/British_nationality_(born_in_India)

Thanks for the correction, but being "British by descent" is still British, From what I have read there has never been any question of Cliff Richard (or Harry Webb) holding any other nationality other than British, so can't see how he could possible be described as otherwise.

ORAC
19th Jul 2018, 09:52
You would have said the same thing about Spike Milligan........

Tankertrashnav
19th Jul 2018, 10:15
I believe the price of £610,000, plus Special Damages, plus Appeal costs, from our hard earned public purse,

Exactly. What gets me is that not one penny of this sum will come out of the fat licence payer funded salaries of BBC executives, nor will any of the police, at least one of whom acted illegally in tipping off the BBC, lose out financially.

We'll be paying as usual :*

radeng
19th Jul 2018, 13:23
One common theme running unspoken throughout this saga is that world renowned bastion of integrity; South Yorkshire Police. The force that seems to have been unable to tell the truth for at least the last 30 years!

If you take into account one of their predecessors, the Sheffield City Police, nearer 60 years. See the Sheffield Rhino Whip Affair of the early 1960s.

Chronus
19th Jul 2018, 18:51
In that awful tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster South Yorkshire Police fed false stories to the press suggesting hoolinganism and drinking by Liverpool supporters were the root causes of the disaster. Was that true.

Here is the full judgement on Sir Cliff`s case:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

You may note SYP had already admitted liability and agreed to pay £400,000 in damages.
The judge made a contribution order : " The damages for which both the BBC and SYP are liable shall be apportioned 65:35 as between the BBC and SYP "
The interesting part is " 34. On 9th June Mr Johnson spoke to a confidential source and received a tip-off about the police investigation into Sir Cliff. The source has not been identified, but Mr Johnson’s case is that the source was associated with (but was not part of) Operation Yewtree, though Mr Johnson said he did not know that at the time. About a month later, on about 9th July, he spoke to Miss Goodwin (to whom he was already known) on the telephone and they discussed various matters. She had already been briefed about the Cliff Richard investigation by Supt Fenwick, because she was briefed about all high profile, or potentially high profile, cases within SYP, although at the time she was briefed it was still uncertain whether the investigation would pass to SYP.
Does it not make one wonder as to the identity of the confidential source.

ShyTorque
20th Jul 2018, 09:11
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where a phone call or a few clicks on a keyboard can result in a person's reputation being trashed at public expense, while the person responsible can remain completely anonymous.

Sallyann1234
20th Jul 2018, 09:23
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where a phone call or a few clicks on a keyboard can result in a person's reputation being trashed at public expense, while the person responsible can remain completely anonymous.
And some can come on pprune to say "No smoke without fire"

ShyTorque
20th Jul 2018, 09:53
And some can come on pprune to say "No smoke without fire"

CR was never charged or even arrested, let alone found guilty.
Some should remember that the PPRuNe website owners will (and have) disclose personal details where required, such as by a criminal or civil court.
We're not completely anonymous, as some obviously might like to think.

Sallyann1234
20th Jul 2018, 10:38
CR was never charged or even arrested, let alone found guilty.
Some should remember that the PPRuNe website owners will (and have) disclose personal details where required, such as by a criminal or civil court.
We're not completely anonymous, as some obviously might like to think.
Exactly. Which is why comments like the one I quoted from a recent post seem to be rather foolish.

Effluent Man
20th Jul 2018, 10:54
If that is aimed at my post I would be interested to hear how you feel it to be in any way libellous. It is open to interpretation in more than one way. I would be more than happy to defend it in a court of law.

Pontius Navigator
20th Jul 2018, 10:58
CR was never charged or even arrested, let alone found guilty.
Some should remember that the PPRuNe website owners will (and have) disclose personal details where required, such as by a criminal or civil court.
We're not completely anonymous, as some obviously might like to think.
EFFLUENT MAN said as much back in a post 3 years ago too. Dangerous if consisted lible.

Nige321
20th Jul 2018, 12:13
OK sticking my neck out here. My predictions: Charges brought, CR disappears to some desert island. Let's see how wrong I am. And yes I am of the "No smoke without fire" school.

Why would someone suddenly come up with an accusation now,twenty years after the event? Surely it should have surfaced earlier,say in the wake of the Savile exposures.
EffluentMan.
Your comments please...

Blacksheep
20th Jul 2018, 12:44
So are we saying that people in the public eye should have their suspected wrong-doings investigated in a different way than those of joe normal ?No. The BBC are welcome to send a helicopter round to film the inside of our flat any time they like..

For goodness sake, what on earth were they thinking? It has already been pointed out that the South Yorkshire Police were not likely to find anything relating to the alleged offence in CR's flat and the helicopter was pure dramatics. A single reporter at the gate would have sufficed to report on a police raid. My own opinion is that someone in the BBC hierarchy bore a massive grudge against Sir Cliff. As for donating the damages to charity, he probably will, but after the trauma of seeing his reputation destroyed for no discernible reason, I'd personally be quite happy to see him keep it.

Fareastdriver
20th Jul 2018, 14:26
I don't think the small matter about recompensing him for the approx. £4,000,000 legal costs have been finalised.

DaveReidUK
20th Jul 2018, 14:56
I don't think the small matter about recompensing him for the approx. £4,000,000 legal costs have been finalised.

As far as I can see, there is no award for costs made as part of the judgement, only damages. That appears to be final.

Heathrow Harry
20th Jul 2018, 15:03
Cliff Richard (https://www.theguardian.com/music/cliff-richard) has won his privacy case against the BBC and will be awarded an initial payment of £ 210,000 in damages, over the broadcaster’s report that the singer was being investigated about historical child sexual assault claims. In a decision that the BBC (https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc) warned represented a serious blow to press freedom, Mr Justice Mann awarded Richard £190,000 damages. The singer was awarded a further £20,000 in aggravated damages for the corporation’s decision to nominate its story for the Royal Television Society’s scoop of the year award It is possible the figure could substantially increase as the judge has yet to assess how much the singer has been left out of pocket as a result of the BBC coverage.

Richard has said he spent £3.4m bringing the privacy case.The singer had already settled out of court with South Yorkshire police for £400,000 before the start of the trial, though the judge ruled that the police could be responsible for 35% of any further damages.

M'learned friends normally don't mislay their invoices..................

tescoapp
20th Jul 2018, 15:05
or the damages for him not being able to work for the last 2 years. Usually he would have done at least 2 tours in that time and released an album.

The top of the iceberg comes to mind.

And BTW my granny met him once at a church do and co-opted him into carrying bags without a clue who he was. Didn't bat an eye lid by all accounts just grabbed the bags and did what was asked. Later on she did something similar with the McCartney's as well including daughter didn't have a clue about him either.

Quiet why A listers were at church do's in the middle of Lancashire I have zero clue.

Both of them managed to be considered nice young boys by a WII cotton mill worker, I haven't yet seen her wrong about people. She wouldn't have gary glitter on the box in her presence and she was dead right about that one.

tescoapp
20th Jul 2018, 15:12
There is another date for damages and costs I believe.

Pontius Navigator
20th Jul 2018, 15:16
As far as I can see, there is no award for costs made as part of the judgement, only damages. That appears to be final.

Read the judgement. So far only general damages have been awarded. Special damages are to be assessed. Also SYP has already paid £300k towards costs and is trying to recover some from the BBC.

The award was on a basis of 65:35 but it is not clear that costs will be so apportioned especially given the defence by the BBC.

Sallyann1234
20th Jul 2018, 16:06
And then there was

Here we go again! Dig out the Jimmy Savile thread and read the first few pages after his death. Sir Cliff will disappear to some island without an extradition treaty,mark my words.

I heard plausible rumours nearly fifty years ago from a guy on the Norfolk Broads who hired out a cruiser to take "disadvantaged " boys up the river. You can guess who the "benefactor" was.
Very unwise to make statements like that, naming an innocent man.

M.Mouse
20th Jul 2018, 17:04
And then there wasQuote:Originally Posted by Effluent Man https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/557192-cliff-richard-post8880890.html#post8880890)Here we go again! Dig out the Jimmy Savile thread and read the first few pages after his death. Sir Cliff will disappear to some island without an extradition treaty,mark my words.

I heard plausible rumours nearly fifty years ago from a guy on the Norfolk Broads who hired out a cruiser to take "disadvantaged " boys up the river. You can guess who the "benefactor" was.
Very unwise to make statements like that, naming an innocent man.

I am glad it was not just me who found that post bordering on libellous but certainly offensive.

Mr Optimistic
20th Jul 2018, 17:55
What an idiot.

Lascaille
20th Jul 2018, 18:51
What an idiot.

For? Winning the case? Having a music career? Having the temerity to even bring a case?

Pontius Navigator
20th Jul 2018, 19:33
For? Winning the case? Having a music career? Having the temerity to even bring a case?
And today's winner of obtuse understanding is .
. .

OK, I know you had to be joking

Nervous SLF
21st Jul 2018, 00:17
I suspect that Mr Optimistic was talking about the post by Effluent Man rather than the one by M.Mouse, well at least I hope so.

off watch
21st Jul 2018, 06:27
Having warned them that they were under oath, Sir Cliff's QC should have asked Fran Unsworth & her reporter colleague "if the subject of you investigation was the Head of the BBC, would your actions have been the same?"

DaveReidUK
21st Jul 2018, 06:56
Having warned them that they were under oath, Sir Cliff's QC should have asked Fran Unsworth & her reporter colleague "if the subject of you investigation was the Head of the BBC, would your actions have been the same?"

Presumably one doesn't get to be a QC without knowing that you don't ask hypothetical questions of a witness. :O

Heathrow Harry
21st Jul 2018, 10:20
I understand that several of that fine body of men & women, the British Press, were desperate to try and get some dirt on Cliff Richards ever since the mid-50's and to their astonishment all they have is innuendo and rumour and tales of the "my mate's brother was told by a copper in his local club" sort of urban myth.... M 'learned friends have pointed out that publishing such tosh would lead, inevitably, to monster damages and disastrous reputational damage

Note it was the Beeb , not the Sun or the Mail, who were behind this particular event...................... the press stayed well clear until they could use the story ABOUT THE BBC - but nothing about Sir Cliff himself.....

off watch
21st Jul 2018, 10:43
DaveReid - why not - ? It worked for Rumpole ;)

Pontius Navigator
21st Jul 2018, 10:58
Wasn't Rumpole's point to ASK the question knowing full well that the judge would not allow it. Once posed it would lodge in the minds of the jury.

off watch
21st Jul 2018, 18:00
Correct PN. The next question could be "Ms.Unsworth - have you at any time received or issued guidelines to BBC staff on how to proceed with a matter such as this ?". ..Anyway, it's all irrelevant - our learned friends will sort it out :-)

DaveReidUK
21st Jul 2018, 23:21
DaveReid - why not - ? It worked for Rumpole ;)

A good barrister never asks a witness a question to which he/she doesn't already know the answer. :O

Pontius Navigator
22nd Jul 2018, 07:36
A good barrister never asks a witness a question to which he/she doesn't already know the answer. :O
Isn't it the case that the whole trial is pre-scripted? All the witness scripts have been read by both sides and object is to decide true or false? The only potentially unscripted evidence is from the accused.

radeng
22nd Jul 2018, 12:56
Dave Reid wrote:

[QUOTE]Presumably one doesn't get to be a QC without knowing that you don't ask hypothetical questions of a witness.[QUOTE]

When Quintin Hogg - later Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor - was defending, in 1964, William Brittle, for the murder of Peter Thomas, he asked a hypothetical question to which he didn't know the answer. He was cross examining an entomologist, Professor McKenny-Hughes, and suggested that "the bluebottle lays its eggs on the dead body at midnight on...." to be interrupted " Oh, dear me, no! No self respecting bluebottle lays eggs at midnight. At midday perhaps, but not at midnight"

Brittle was convicted and given a sentence of life imprisonment..

Told by Professor Keith Simpson in his autobiography 'Forty Years of Murder'

BehindBlueEyes
22nd Jul 2018, 16:07
Thread drift but on the subject of courts and judges, I remember reading a book by the first female detective inspector in which she described an incident during her very first rape case that came to trial.

The victim, understandably, was very nervous and the judge, taking pity on her anxiety, suggested she might like to write down on a piece of paper what the accused had said to her. She wrote down, “I’d really like to f*** you.”

The note was handed to the jury to enable the members read it and pass it to their neighbour.

The bloke in the far end seat had unfortunately fallen asleep so the woman next to him nudged him awake and handed him the piece of paper. He read it, smiled, winked at her and put it in his top pocket. The judge demanded that the note was handed back to him but the bloke in question said, “No, your honour. It’s between myself and this lady.”

There was absolute hysterical uproar and the court had to be adjourned to allow order to be restored.

M.Mouse
22nd Jul 2018, 17:54
If that is true, BBE, then that is a great story!

BehindBlueEyes
22nd Jul 2018, 18:25
If that is true, BBE, then that is a great story!

I think it was Jackie Melton on whom the Jane Tennyson, Prime Suspect character, was based.

Lascaille
23rd Jul 2018, 12:08
And today's winner of obtuse understanding is .
. .
OK, I know you had to be joking

See, you know how to use the reply-to/quote feature. You also know why to use it. Isn't that splendid?

Blacksheep
23rd Jul 2018, 12:49
Isn't it the case that the whole trial is pre-scripted? All the witness scripts have been read by both sides and object is to decide true or false? The only potentially unscripted evidence is from the accused.On of our daughters is a Judge's Clerk and she tells me that the judge goes into the court having read the entire case notes before hand. The judge therefore generally knows before the proceedings begin whether, based on the evidence collected, the accused is guilty or not. The unknowable factor is how a jury will respond to that part of the evidence which is admissible in court under the formal "Judges Rules". The prosecution and defence teams know only what the other side have exchanged from their admissible evidence, the judge will have seen the whole bundle.

G-CPTN
26th Jul 2018, 17:39
BBC agrees to pay £850,000 towards legal costs. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548)
and the BBC has been refused the right to appeal against the CR privacy ruling (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/26/bbc-agrees-to-pay-sir-cliff-richard-legal-bills-privacy-case).

Tankertrashnav
26th Jul 2018, 18:00
The TV licence payer agrees to pay £850,000 towards legal costs

Just corrected that for you G-CPTN :*

DaveReidUK
26th Jul 2018, 19:43
The TV licence payer agrees to pay £850,000 towards legal costs

This TV licence payer doesn't recall being asked whether he agrees !

Old and Horrified
26th Jul 2018, 19:54
Wouldn't it be nice if it actually came out the Director's bonuses?

Tankertrashnav
26th Jul 2018, 22:12
Fat chance - as I've said before I'll wager that nobody at the BBC or in the upper echelons of the South Yorkshire Police will lose a penny over this farce.

radeng
27th Jul 2018, 09:22
Had the decision to call in the BBC been a Minister's, he (or she) would be expected to resign. You can bet your bottom dollar that NOBODY at either the BBC or SYP will lose their jobs, although in my opinion, they should......

pulse1
27th Jul 2018, 10:12
You can bet your bottom dollar that NOBODY at either the BBC or SYP will lose their jobs, although in my opinion, they should......

And yet the BBC still wanted to spend even more licence fee payers' cash to appeal the judge's decision "in the interest of press freedom". Just on that alone their heads should roll as they have demonstrated that they are not fit to be custodians of public funds and that they have lost sight of the purpose of a publicly funded broadcasting service. I almost wish I paid the licence fee as I would have great pleasure in withdrawing it and doing what some of my kids do, using internet services for all the functions the BBC should be providing.

Mr Optimistic
28th Jul 2018, 08:40
We never make mistakes is the BBCs motto. They will debate this, along the lines of why you are making a mistake saying we are wrong. Probably conclude that you are a latent racist requiring re-education, and your sexual history is available to publicize.

Tankertrashnav
28th Jul 2018, 09:40
The Times yesterday had a leader in which they were encouraging the BBC to appeal the decision. The usual "freedom of the press" stuff was being trotted out, along with that old cliche "the public's right to know", which of course really means "our right to flog newspapers and sell advertising" :*

BigEndBob
28th Jul 2018, 20:24
Cliff won't be getting a penny of my money, but good luck to him.

Danny42C
29th Jul 2018, 12:21
The poet Milton said it all centuries ago:

"Licence they mean when they cry Liberty"

off watch
30th Jul 2018, 09:49
Danny, I think the previous two lines of Milton's poem are quit apt for the BBC too :
"That bawl for freedom in their senseless mood,
And still revolt when truth would set them free.."

Fareastdriver
15th Aug 2018, 15:06
It looks as if the BBC has comes to it's senses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45183421

Andy_S
15th Aug 2018, 15:40
Quite right. Enough licence fee payers cash thrown away on this escapade already.

tescoapp
15th Aug 2018, 15:48
There is more to come. They haven't awarded damages yet for his loss of income while this has all been playing out. 2 albums worth and 2 tours.

Planemike
15th Aug 2018, 22:38
Normally a supporter of the BBC but not on this one. They got it wrong but are not big enough to admit their error/mistake. They have used up enough license payers cash to date. Enough is enough.