Sir Cliff Richard

Author
Discussion

Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Vipers said:
25NAD90TUL said:
Personally my own opinion is that Sir Harry has little to worry about, any one else thinking similarly?
Me for one.




smile
Given the number of celebrity prosecutions and investigations currently underway in the UK, is any celebrity safe? Is my position on this matter. From what I can see the case, if there s a case is weak at best. But the Police and authorities clearly find these headline grabbing cases worthwhile. Who knows?

Perhaps the most damning matter in this episode for me has been the disgraceful way that the media and
Police have conspired to create maximum publicity for a matter which may well prove to be without foundation. I do not think there are sufficient controls on interference by the press and conspiracy between the police and press. As various media trials have demonstrated recently. I personally think the man must be presumed innocent until successfully prosecuted. Which I do not think will happen.

Vipers

32,799 posts

227 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Steffan said:
As various media trials have demonstrated recently. I personally think the man must be presumed innocent until successfully prosecuted. Which I do not think will happen.
Vary irritating when a woman is involved, and this usual phrase "A woman who cannot be named for legal reasons", but a potentially innocent mans name is splashed all over the papers.




smile

25NAD90TUL

666 posts

130 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
I am not all that surprised that you don't get my point carinaman, as you appear long ago to have taken ship for Planet Zarg. My point is very simple: the chances that the Rotherham abuses were (a) staged, or (b) concealed in order to give pols an escape route if far earlier abuses in London came to light are remote. If a plan makes no sense, it is likely to be nonsense. You could at least do the Space Lizards the courtesy of not assuming that they are quite that daft.
Bread buddy, would you care to give us your opinion on why exactly the Rotherham abuse was concealed then?

I mean, if it were concealed to protect the interests of Labour councillors in high up jobs (fact) and the polis reluctance to be labelled racist/ineffectual (fact), and to avoid bringing shame on relatives of ethnic councillors (fact), then why is it so unbelievable that it could be used to divert media attention from earlier known abuses (also concealed), that were certain at some point to hit the fan, at the point when they eventually did?

'Let's shelve this and bring it out when the media starts on about high-level politicians again' doesn't seem remotely unbelievable to me.

Btw the idea that the Rotherham stuff was staged is nothing I have inferred, as I stated earlier.

Or are you back to saying that these things (stuff being shelved to bring out at a convenient time politically) can't happen? Well that isn't a question actually because you clearly are saying that!

Btw I have come to the conclusion that I like you very much and I enjoy the intercourse with you, but you are far too trusting of the establishment imo.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
I don't trust the establishment at all, but long experience of working with (as in for and against) central and local Government organisations has taught me that cock ups and arse covering rule. Why was Rotherham covered up? Many factors: weak ideas about political correctness, targets culture, sexism, blame avoidance, etc, etc. Read the report. The notion that the cover up was directed from Westminster to conceal a quite separate alleged scandal dating from decades earlier is just nonsensical. There are plenty of real (and shameful) reasons why Rotherham happened. Why concoct fantastical theories when there is a real, evidenced scandal there for us to see? Read the report!

The Hypno-Toad

12,249 posts

204 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Rotherham wasn't covered up in order to release it at a later date to hide the sexual crimes of 'them'.

In fact its the exact opposite. South Yorkshire Police, with possibly the co-operation of the BBC, clearly tried to throw Sir Cliff under the bus as pre-emptive strike against the Rotherham report. I guessed they hoped that it would open the floodgates, streams of people would ring their local plod to say Sir Cliff patted my bum in 1962 and the witch-hunt would begin.

It clearly hasn't worked and probably now won't. I would have thought that unless some pretty strong evidence turns up very soon (& I'll wager nothing was found in the flat.) Sir Cliffs lawyers will rip South Yorkshire Police a new one before it even comes to court and the good people of Yorkshire will end up paying his damages and costs.

Then imagine the publicity he would get if he gave a press conference linking the events to the Rotherham enquiry and then gave the damages straight back to Child Protection charities...

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
25NAD90TUL said:
...

Btw the idea that the Rotherham stuff was staged is nothing I have inferred, as I stated earlier.

...
That's not how you came across on the previous page.

25NAD90TUL said:
...


1400 teenage girls sexually exploited and terrorised over a 16 year period moves the spotlight away from anyone that may have frequented Elm House.

The sexual exploitation of minors is being normalised? It's less of a problem if the well connected Great and the Good are up to it if thousands of Plebs in the North are doing it too? It's just at the darker end of the Diversity grey scale?
Even if the allegation is that Rotherham was covered up to hold in reserve as a diversion from politician pervathons, that plan is just too screwy. What was the back up plan between the 70s and (at least) the late 90s?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd September 20:32

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
One man's arse covering is another man's conspiracy

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
After South Yorks. Police and the BBC getting grilled at Westminster yesterday when it was said that the BBC only had a name, went to South Yorks. Police with that name and they were then spoon fed how to cover the raid, it's to be discussed on the Media Show on Radio 4 at 16.30. It'll be on iplayer later.

I am not sure I am suggesting some huge conspiracy. If Jo Moore said 'Today would be a good day to hide bad news', what's the other side of that coin?

'This would be a good day to use this information as it may help dissipate or distract from the bad news that's about to come out'?

When did Prof. Alexis Jay start her report into what went on in Rotherham? Wouldn't someone have been told how her report was going and when it was to be printed, distributed around those that commissioned it and therefore to be in the public domain and in the media?

Don't some PHers time their car purchases, or admit to their car purchases when the other half may be more receptive to the idea, or have been massaged or buttered up to be more accepting or tolerant of the new car/toy? Surely managing the release of news is much the same?

No scheleb has ever carefully timed the release of their intimate home movies for public consumption?

Why would I suggest that the abuse was staged when Woman's Hour reported back in 2007 about the targeting of young girls in care by a certain ethnic group in Rochdale? It's been widely reported that Rotherham is the tip of the iceberg.

8 mins, 30 secs in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fz6lq

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 3rd September 20:20

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
The Hypno-Toad said:
Rotherham wasn't covered up in order to release it at a later date to hide the sexual crimes of 'them'.

In fact its the exact opposite. South Yorkshire Police, with possibly the co-operation of the BBC, clearly tried to throw Sir Cliff under the bus as pre-emptive strike against the Rotherham report. I guessed they hoped that it would open the floodgates, streams of people would ring their local plod to say Sir Cliff patted my bum in 1962 and the witch-hunt would begin.

It clearly hasn't worked and probably now won't. I would have thought that unless some pretty strong evidence turns up very soon (& I'll wager nothing was found in the flat.) Sir Cliffs lawyers will rip South Yorkshire Police a new one before it even comes to court and the good people of Yorkshire will end up paying his damages and costs.

Then imagine the publicity he would get if he gave a press conference linking the events to the Rotherham enquiry and then gave the damages straight back to Child Protection charities...
That seems more credible to me because the plan suggested is stupid but also simple. Also ineffective, as you observe. Suggested plans that are stupid but also convoluted and dependent on lots of contingencies are less credible.

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Thursday 4th September 2014
quotequote all
Nonsense like that may give some credence to the South Yorks. Top Cop saying he doubts about the BBC when he spoke to Keith Vaz MP on Tuesday:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/freelance-who-expose...

Andy Zarse

10,868 posts

246 months

Thursday 4th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
That Telegraph piece is very powerful. I don't often agree with Telegraph columnists, but I agree with that column.
We are slowly but surely turning you...

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th September 2014
quotequote all
Never! The spirit of Spart lives on!

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Saturday 20th September 2014
quotequote all
It wouldn't surprise me if this was a news management/spin operation.

Was the objective justice or something else? frown

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Sir Cliff Richard police raid inept say MPs BBC News Website 24 Oct 2014 said:
The committee's report looked into how the BBC obtained advanced knowledge of the raid in Berkshire on 14 August.

South Yorkshire Police said its actions were well intended but admitted they were "ultimately flawed".
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29742349

And Besides Rotherham what else have learnt about South Yorks. Police since then?

Abuse risk children let down by Sheffield police 22 Oct 2014 said:
Hundreds of young people at risk of child sexual exploitation in Sheffield were let down by police, a whistleblower has claimed.

Ann Lucas, who ran the city's sexual exploitation service, told BBC News she had regularly passed details about alleged abusers to senior officers.

They had repeatedly failed to act, she said, adding the force's priorities had been "burglary and car crime".
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29725855

And

Rotherham child abuse case police officers face inquiry 23 Oct 2014 said:
Fourteen South Yorkshire police officers face investigation after a report criticised the force for its handling of child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigations in Rotherham.
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...


It could seem that it was a lot easier to smear Sir Cliff Richard than bring PCC Shaun Wright and Joyce Thacker to account for their failures.

The sexual child abuse in Rotherham under Shaun Wright's tenure while at the Council was known about but Labour still backed him as a PCC?

And he was the PCC 'Expert' on Child Abuse on some panel reporting to Theresa May? And then they wonder why people are bit unimpressed with Theresa May selecting Fiona Wolff to Chair the investigation into how public sector institutions dealt with reports of child sexual abuse.


May 2015 may be the Paedofinder General General Election.

Soov535

35,829 posts

270 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
This Sheffield thing is going to explode.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
Soov535 said:
This Sheffield thing is going to explode.
I think the national picture may well do. The lack of action on CSE over the last 10 years needs national scrutiny. I find it highly improbable one area's police / LA and others were acting so differently to other ones.



I do like some parts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29742349

BBC said:
BBC director general Lord Hall confirmed to the committee that the broadcaster would act on such requests from chief constables, the report said.
Ahh, that's OK then. He confirmed (after the event). We'll take it as fact that would have occurred at the time!







mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 25th October 2014
quotequote all
Soov535 said:
This Sheffield thing is going to explode.
No, I'm not...irked

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Saturday 25th October 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Soov535 said:
This Sheffield thing is going to explode.
I think the national picture may well do. The lack of action on CSE over the last 10 years needs national scrutiny. I find it highly improbable one area's police / LA and others were acting so differently to other ones.



I do like some parts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29742349

BBC said:
BBC director general Lord Hall confirmed to the committee that the broadcaster would act on such requests from chief constables, the report said.
Ahh, that's OK then. He confirmed (after the event). We'll take it as fact that would have occurred at the time!
Given this:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/02/plebg...

Surely the authorities can find out where the leak came from?

I can't be the only one that thinks the call to tip off a BBC person is a bit suspect?

It's not impossible that the authorities and the BBC worked together to bring about this outcome.

Edited by carinaman on Saturday 25th October 13:11

Urban Sports

11,321 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th December 2014
quotequote all
What's happening with Cliff? It's coming up to Christmas and I'm not sure whether or not to put on my festive album incase I upset the family?

carinaman

21,222 posts

171 months

Thursday 4th December 2014
quotequote all
He said he's going to sue:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845650/Si...

That's the spirit!