Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Cupramax said:
Well well well, no further action to be taken, another person whose reputation has been ruined but still, as long as the media get their story eh.
The spirit of Matthew Hopkins lives on sadly.Wouldn't it be great if Glastonbury stepped in and gave him top billing, he deserves it.
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
Bunch of scrag end lawyers who couldn't hack it in the commercial world.What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
"Insufficient evidence to prosecute" might mean that Cliff's done nothing wrong, but could equally mean that he has but (a) the witnesses aren't seen as particularly credible (b) the case is circumstantial and without, say, a Stuart Hall-like pattern of repeated behaviour the jury is unlikely to convict (c) they think there's no chance of a conviction because he's Sir Cliff Richard and people like him (d) although an offence was committed, judged by the standards of the day the offence was not as great as it might appear today.What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
Essentially, unless a case is pretty airtight, the CPS won't proceed.
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
I am not legally trained or savvy in any way, but I'm pretty sure that isn't correct.What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
Axionknight said:
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
I am not legally trained or savvy in any way, but I'm pretty sure that isn't correct.What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
For example, I could know for certain my friend did 160mph on the M1, because he showed me a video of him doing it.
However he subsequently deleted the video, and my testimony alone would be insufficient to prosecute.
longblackcoat said:
"Insufficient evidence to prosecute" might mean that Cliff's done nothing wrong, but could equally mean that he has but (a) the witnesses aren't seen as particularly credible (b) the case is circumstantial and without, say, a Stuart Hall-like pattern of repeated behaviour the jury is unlikely to convict (c) they think there's no chance of a conviction because he's Sir Cliff Richard and people like him (d) although an offence was committed, judged by the standards of the day the offence was not as great as it might appear today.
Essentially, unless a case is pretty airtight, the CPS won't proceed.
Essentially, unless a case is pretty airtight, the CPS won't proceed.
Your final senence is clearly untrue, they prosecute plenty of cases which aren't 'airtight'. I was subject to one of them, ruled 'no case to answer' at half time, following a clusterf
k of inefficiency and ineptitude that beggared belief. snuffy said:
They always say "insufficient evidence" because it's technically true, because even if there is not a single shred of evidence, technically, that can still be termed "insufficient". It's weasel words.
But it could also be that there was evidence, but it was insufficient. We will never know.But innocent until proven guilty, so in my book, he's done nothing wrong. (apart from his entire music career, but apparently that isn't illegal!)
REALIST123 said:
longblackcoat said:
"Insufficient evidence to prosecute" might mean that Cliff's done nothing wrong, but could equally mean that he has but (a) the witnesses aren't seen as particularly credible (b) the case is circumstantial and without, say, a Stuart Hall-like pattern of repeated behaviour the jury is unlikely to convict (c) they think there's no chance of a conviction because he's Sir Cliff Richard and people like him (d) although an offence was committed, judged by the standards of the day the offence was not as great as it might appear today.
Essentially, unless a case is pretty airtight, the CPS won't proceed.
Essentially, unless a case is pretty airtight, the CPS won't proceed.
Your final senence is clearly untrue, they prosecute plenty of cases which aren't 'airtight'. I was subject to one of them, ruled 'no case to answer' at half time, following a clusterf
k of inefficiency and ineptitude that beggared belief. What I should have said was that "unless, in their opinion, a case is pretty watertight..."
As in your case, they'll get things wrong, and they'll proceed on some even if it looks like a long shot because it's in the public interest to do so. But generally speaking, they'll only go forward if they think they've got a really good chance of convicting, which brings me back to the original point that just because the CPS decide not to prosecute does not mean that a crime wasn't committed.
We simply don't know either way.
For me as an ex criminal barrister, I have to say that the CPS statement is quite barbed.
"Insufficient evidence" sounds to me like "we have evidence but not enough to meet the required burden of proof".
If they'd said "there is no case to answer" or "there is no evidence" then matters would be rather different.
Nuance is a powerful thing.
"Insufficient evidence" sounds to me like "we have evidence but not enough to meet the required burden of proof".
If they'd said "there is no case to answer" or "there is no evidence" then matters would be rather different.
Nuance is a powerful thing.
Soov535 said:
For me as an ex criminal barrister, I have to say that the CPS statement is quite barbed.
"Insufficient evidence" sounds to me like "we have evidence but not enough to meet the required burden of proof".
If they'd said "there is no case to answer" or "there is no evidence" then matters would be rather different.
Nuance is a powerful thing.
Insinuation without the benefit of a court of law is, frankly, wrong."Insufficient evidence" sounds to me like "we have evidence but not enough to meet the required burden of proof".
If they'd said "there is no case to answer" or "there is no evidence" then matters would be rather different.
Nuance is a powerful thing.
Heads really should roll at the BBC over this.
They covered it as if they were Sky News, with all the 'gloss' of one of their 'breaking stories', I half expected them to roll out the odious Kay Burley.
Completely forgetting their place as a national broadcaster funded by us, the people, many of whom still hold some regard for 'innocent until proven guilty' - they absolutely hung him out to dry.
They covered it as if they were Sky News, with all the 'gloss' of one of their 'breaking stories', I half expected them to roll out the odious Kay Burley.
Completely forgetting their place as a national broadcaster funded by us, the people, many of whom still hold some regard for 'innocent until proven guilty' - they absolutely hung him out to dry.
Doesn't 'insufficient evidence' actually mean they can't prove anything at all, including the appropriateness of the charge, on the evidence presented to them and that they are unwilling to prejudice any future developments by commenting? It looks as though police activity in this area is protected from unwanted criticism.
insinuation is wrong? Without insinuation many things would never go uncovered. I'm glad Cliff has been found to face no case as it means I can still listen to his music without guilt. Unfortunately I had to bin my catalogue of Garry Glitter which was a shame as there were some good tunes. Maybe once he is dead further evidence may be found, just like Clement....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff