Sir Cliff Richard

[mybrainhurts]

Jockman said:

mybrainhurts said:

Lucas CAV said:

mybrainhurts said:

techiedave said:

mybrainhurts said:

Jimboka said:

A family member has known him since before he was even famous. She knew from the outset it was a load of rubbish, as are most of the other stories about him over the years . I guess anyone with his level of fame/wealth will attract leeches.

Stories such as him being gay, you mean?

What does your family member say about that?

A persons sexual orientation shouldnt be an issue.

No, did somebody say it was?

You did - when you talked about attracting leeches.

Keep the post count up....

I didn't talk about attracting leeches

I've entered the twilight zone here

Dark, innit...?

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

Bigends said:

Dorset police obviously didnt carry out a detailed and thorough investigation - if they had - they have seen the pool table - the scene of the rape - didnt actually exist until several years after the date of the alleged rape!!

I imagine, if I'm wrong I'm sure I will be corrected in rapid form, that the 'evidence' obtained by the police was passed to the CPS for a decision and the CPS would obviously perform no investigation of those 'facts'. So a huge injustice is down to the police. Could it be argued that evidence that could reasonably have been expected to be discovered was therefore either: withheld or: negligently overlooked by senior officers, and they should be held to disciplinary account?

It looks like Mr Day's medical records came to light when he submitted them during civil proceedings when he was trying to get an interim payment. That suggests this was the earliest time they had come to light - when he was making some BS up about being a boxer. Whether or not a 'victim' of crime has their medical records examined depends on the circumstances, and whether or not they should have here is unknown.

Either way, any miscarriage of justice is alarming and requires every aspect to be looked at and investigated. It may be appropriate for the force to self-refer to the IPCC.

I'd also raise questions with his defence. An apparently uncorroborated, historic allegation was presented in a manner which convinced a jury. Surely there's ample scope to introduce reasonable doubt there.

Well done to the QCs, and investigators for working for free (as well as his wife) to bring this to light.

[Thorodin]

There are so many ifs, buts, maybes with all these cases and the same, or at least similar, questions abound concerning allegation, charging, investigation of non-evidence, disclosure and non-disclosure, presentation or retention of 'evidence', anonymity - it just beggars belief how much this all must be costing, let alone the time that the services involved are taken away from other areas. So many cases thrown out and lives needlessly destroyed. All of it because of the original police declaration "we will believe you" which was entirely a result of the scandal of the Saville case and continues to drag out of the woodwork claims without supporting evidence, indeed the only evidence is 'he said-she said'.

The only benefit there has been is for the lawyers. People have gone to their graves, some innocent and unaware that charges were dropped and their names were, in the final analysis, unsullied. The same tired arguments get re-presented and the old circus rolls again, no closer, no wiser, no more accurate or decisive. An argument for basic, very radical, change in the legal system if ever there was one.

[Zoon]

There should be a law introduced which prevents historic allegations like this even being investigated.
If it wasn't life changing enough to report it at the time then it should carry no weight with the law at all.
I don't buy all this I was scared nobody would believe me nonsense, kids should be taught if someone does something wrong to report it to the police or a parent immediately. Same goes for adults.

[The Mad Monk]

Thorodin said:

People have gone to their graves, some innocent and unaware that charges were dropped and their names were, in the final analysis, unsullied.

Don't worry about it. They are no more or less dead, whether they were innocent or guilty.

[Thorodin]

The Mad Monk said:

Don't worry about it. They are no more or less dead, whether they were innocent or guilty.

Forgive me, but that is a most stupid and irrelevant thing to say. If 'twere your father in jail? Or son? And they were innocent (as some have been found to be)? I do worry about false accusations resulting in misery until dead. Why should we tolerate medieval so-called 'justice'? All Matthew Hopkins needed was to see a left-handed woman. We should have moved on.

[Oakey]

Zoon said:

There should be a law introduced which prevents historic allegations like this even being investigated.
If it wasn't life changing enough to report it at the time then it should carry no weight with the law at all.
I don't buy all this I was scared nobody would believe me nonsense, kids should be taught if someone does something wrong to report it to the police or a parent immediately. Same goes for adults.

Right, it's not like they have form for things like that:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3669352/Pa...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-ignore...

[Zoon]

Oakey said:

Right, it's not like they have form for things like that:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3669352/Pa...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-ignore...

But that's a failing on the part of the Police for a crime already reported.
Not one that someone has forgot about for 30 years.

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

There are so many ifs, buts, maybes with all these cases and the same, or at least similar, questions abound concerning allegation, charging, investigation of non-evidence, disclosure and non-disclosure, presentation or retention of 'evidence', anonymity - it just beggars belief how much this all must be costing, let alone the time that the services involved are taken away from other areas. So many cases thrown out and lives needlessly destroyed. All of it because of the original police declaration "we will believe you" which was entirely a result of the scandal of the Saville case and continues to drag out of the woodwork claims without supporting evidence, indeed the only evidence is 'he said-she said'.

The only benefit there has been is for the lawyers. People have gone to their graves, some innocent and unaware that charges were dropped and their names were, in the final analysis, unsullied. The same tired arguments get re-presented and the old circus rolls again, no closer, no wiser, no more accurate or decisive. An argument for basic, very radical, change in the legal system if ever there was one.

I think people put too much emphasis on the 'believe' thing. One of the major factors against reporting was that victims didn't think they'd be believed which is probably why the wording was used. It probably explains why victims wouldn't report historic matters at the time they occurred, too. The Op Yewtree work has a higher conviction rate than the overall pool of sexual offending crimes, which is all the more impressive given the historic nature of the allegations. There was no doubt a 'culture' of offending by celebrities during the relevant decades, and it's right to revisit those offences.

In reality, fewer than one in five rape allegations brought to the police result in a charge, with around one in three resulting in a conviction, so there's hardly an expectation that there'll be a lot of prosecutions amongst investigators and the CPS. The liars, those with MH issues and people whom have other motives are filtered out amongst the 4/5 where no further action is taken. It's fortunately rare one slips through the net with the Fire Officer example above.

Zoon said:

There should be a law introduced which prevents historic allegations like this even being investigated.
If it wasn't life changing enough to report it at the time then it should carry no weight with the law at all.
I don't buy all this I was scared nobody would believe me nonsense, kids should be taught if someone does something wrong to report it to the police or a parent immediately. Same goes for adults.

It's easy to dismiss when you think of it so simplistically. As if being knowing something is wrong magically supersedes the complex nature of being a victim of serious crime.

[julianm]

Time for a snigger as we`re on page 69.

[The Mad Monk]

Thorodin said:

Forgive me, but that is a most stupid and irrelevant thing to say.

That's rather hurtful.

[Thorodin]

The Mad Monk said:

That's rather hurtful.

I regret any hurt you might feel, and I apologise. You might consider the relatives of the deceased victims of false allegations.

[Thorodin]

La Liga said:

I think people put too much emphasis on the 'believe' thing. One of the major factors against reporting was that victims didn't think they'd be believed which is probably why the wording was used. It probably explains why victims wouldn't report historic matters at the time they occurred, too. The Op Yewtree work has a higher conviction rate than the overall pool of sexual offending crimes, which is all the more impressive given the historic nature of the allegations. There was no doubt a 'culture' of offending by celebrities during the relevant decades, and it's right to revisit those offences

You don't think these liars literally took the police at their words " come and tell us, we will believe you"?

What inference would you draw from that if you were of that mentality and had not had the benefit of your learning?

There is no doubt there was a 'culture' as you rightly say, but that's no excuse for the police to invite open season when they must have known that after many years there could be no corroborative evidence. The evidence descends from the low base of limited value of one accuser's allegation to exactly similar evidence from more of the same. It was a fishing expedition, a clumsy 'lance the boil' exercise and smacks of frantic desperation in the face of much criticism. I don't blame the lower ranks for obeying their orders, but the senior officers response to pressure from 'above'......

The raised conviction rate for Yewtree is unfortunately no barometer if the convictions came as a result of the extremely limited evidence that was available. It devalues the credibility of the strategy and the rush to bag as many cons as you can is like fishing in a very small bucket.

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

You don't think these liars literally took the police at their words " come and tell us, we will believe you"?

I have no evidence either way. I'd speculate it doesn't make too much difference to someone willing to pervert the course of justice.

Thorodin said:

There is no doubt there was a 'culture' as you rightly say, but that's no excuse for the police to invite open season when they must have known that after many years there could be no corroborative evidence. The evidence descends from the low base of limited value of one accuser's allegation to exactly similar evidence from more of the same. It was a fishing expedition, a clumsy 'lance the boil' exercise and smacks of frantic desperation in the face of much criticism. I don't blame the lower ranks for obeying their orders, but the senior officers response to pressure from 'above'......

Ultimately, there are different ways of looking at it. You could argue people had the confidence to come forward once the Savile scandal had come forth.

The issue is a fundamental one about sexual offences i.e. should the accused have anonymity like the victim? I think they should, but whilst the law means they do not then naturally high-profile people will be in the media and this will attract further victims, credible or otherwise.

Thorodin said:

The raised conviction rate for Yewtree is unfortunately no barometer if the convictions came as a result of the extremely limited evidence that was available. It devalues the credibility of the strategy and the rush to bag as many cons as you can is like fishing in a very small bucket.

They came as a result of having sufficient evidence to prove the matter/s beyond reasonable doubt, just as any other conviction. That's not limited evidence. These people had the best defence teams possible, so if the evidence were not up to standard, or there were no case to answer chances are it'd be found out.

[Thorodin]

[report]

[news]
20:27 quote quote all



"I have no evidence either way. I'd speculate it doesn't make too much difference to someone willing to pervert the course of justice".

Of course you don't! That's not the point. On the balance of probabilities and the likelihood of a large payday it's not difficult to see someone who is willing to pervert the course of justice would also be willing to chance his arm on the possibility of getting a payout.


"They came as a result of having sufficient evidence to prove the matter/s beyond reasonable doubt, just as any other conviction. That's not limited evidence. These people had the best defence teams possible, so if the evidence were not up to standard, or there were no case to answer chances are it'd be found out".

No, I think they did not. The only evidence they had was the testimony of the accuser, that being a lowered threshold to get a conviction. That's my point about this, it's a different standard of 'proof' to satisfy public alarm at the perceived reluctance originally to take seriously a complaint - leading to the real victims' silence.


"The best defence teams possible?" Again, not the point! The best defence teams in the world have tied hands trying to prove a negative!

I understand your point of view in such matters and believe the mind set is prevalent throughout the legal profession. That's why it won't change and why Justice is indeed blind - for different reasons.

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

Of course you don't! That's not the point. On the balance of probabilities and the likelihood of a large payday it's not difficult to see someone who is willing to pervert the course of justice would also be willing to chance his arm on the possibility of getting a payout.

I don't think the make or break for such people is a statement that victim's will be believed.

Thorodin said:

No, I think they did not. The only evidence they had was the testimony of the accuser, that being a lowered threshold to get a conviction. That's my point about this, it's a different standard of 'proof' to satisfy public alarm at the perceived reluctance originally to take seriously a complaint - leading to the real victims' silence.

The evidence was sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt - the threshold wasn't lowered. Why would you write that? How you judge the evidence (you've probably only heard superficial snippets) isn't relevant. It was admissible and had sufficient weight to satisfy the high burden of proof.

What do you mean by 'real victims'? Are those who were offended against by the likes of Clifford not real victims?

Thorodin said:

I understand your point of view in such matters and believe the mind set is prevalent throughout the legal profession. That's why it won't change and why Justice is indeed blind - for different reasons.

The 'they're in it for the money' mindset is prevalent amongst those who have no experience in the matters, in my experience.

[The Mad Monk]

Thorodin said:

The Mad Monk said:

That's rather hurtful.

I regret any hurt you might feel, and I apologise. You might consider the relatives of the deceased victims of false allegations.

Perhaps I should apologise to you if I seem rather callous.

I was thinking more of the deceased person. Once they are gone, they are gone.

[Thorodin]

The Mad Monk said:

Perhaps I should apologise to you if I seem rather callous.

I was thinking more of the deceased person. Once they are gone, they are gone.

I'm not offended at all, but thank you anyway. For some, their reputation endures as the culmination of a lifetime's honourable industry.

[FiF]

carinaman said:

He should sue both South Yorkshire Police and the BBC.

I can't believe nobody within either investigation thought 'Wait a minute is this the correct way to do this?'

So who pays his damages is it the police and the BBC or their insurers?

And Exaro that was funded by someone wealthy that was doing a lot of Celebrity, Establishment paedophile stories has just closed too hasn't it?

It's closed to avoid being sued, or it's closed as it has served its purpose?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 22 July 08:41

So both the BBC and SYP are defending the claims that they colluded.

High Court Papers filed earlier this month reveal a series of damaging text messages between SYP PR man and the BBC reporter.

Including "According to the court papers obtained by the newspaper, a press officer for South Yorkshire Police told a BBC reporter at the start of the raid: “Going in now, Dan”.

The reporter, Dan Johnson, reportedly replied: “Give me a shout before they take anything out, so we can get the chopper in place for a shot”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/reveale...

Of course there's a bit of hypocrisy in this post, as sight of the court papers by The Sun (spit) was no doubt obtained by another dodgy relationship.

[The Hypno-Toad]

Having gone through this thread, I would very strongly suggest that Sir Cliff has the BBC and SYP bang to rights.

Due to my computer being utterly shagged out I can't use the quote feature but from the links other posters have put up the SYP denied completely that they had tipped off the BBC but now it appears Cliffs lawyers have got pretty concrete evidence that they definitely did. If it was me I would be trying to get some money out of Dan Johnston as well as the BBC and the SYP. (There's is taxpayers money, which is why they don't give a fk.). In fact, I would be trying bankrupt the fker.

Unbelievable that the BBC thought it was justified to get a fking helicopter up in the air funded by licence payers money for this story, even he was going to be found guilty. Of course, this isn't the first time the BBC have been tipped off. I can remember them being remarkably onsite when the Inland Revenue and the BiB decided to raid Happy Harrys house using scaling ladders for tax evasion.

And of course this incident with Cliff had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation into the child abuse inquiry in Rotherham which published its report a few days later. Nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.

Its getting to the point where you expect this kind of st from any of the Yorkshire Police forces but a lot of people on here (including myself) have called for the BBC to properly investigated for its impartiality and links to other outside organisations which might have a common purpose with others. This would be the perfect reason to start that.
But no doubt all that will happen is Johnston will be thrown under the bus and it will be Wimbledon, Antiques Roadshow, Doctor Who, Sherlock, The Archers, Poldark, Children In Need, unique way the BBC is funded, look over there! Quick look over there!!!

Of course the reason why News International went with this story is that they're pissed SYP didn't bring to Sky News first.