Sir Cliff Richard

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

The problem with conspiracy theories about helping the guilty is that if the step taken could not achieve the effect intended it makes the supposedly cunning and devious conspiracy look a bit rubbish. If this is supposed to be high level string pulling you might think that they would be a bit better at it.

The problem with assuming everything is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that you'll likely throw the baby out with the bathwater every now and again. I think it fair to say that, five years ago, people making allegations about Saville might have been lumped into that 'conspiracy theory' lot and anyone with a bad word to say about Rolf Harris most definitely. Given the way the BBC harboured them or turned a blind eye (depends on your POV) I don't find it remotely unlikely that help might still be at hand for others.

[25NAD90TUL]

desolate said:

In very simple terms I wouldn't mind that helicopter and the X amount of policeman looking for the missing dossier rather than in Sir Cliff's knicker drawer.

Here, here!

The whole Cliff thing stinks of a means of diverting attention from that dossier business.

At the moment all I can say about Cliff is that he seems to have visited a 'gay friendly' guest house. This to me neither proves nor implies a link to child abuse, whether or not the guest house was allegedly linked to child abuse.

The fact that Leon Britten has been accused of being photographed in a maid's outfit with a naked 12 year old draped across him and he 'can't recollect' nor account for 114 official documents relating to this, and the fact that Theresa May appointed Butler-Sloss in a blatent attempt to bury the scandal, seems to have drifted off the spectrum.

Does the fact that Britten has been very quiet over the whole affair and doesn't seem to have got a team of lawyers to deal with the matter suggest anything?

Why is it that people who were allegedly 'known' child molesters were repeatedly put in positions of authority over childrens' homes and other institutions for vulnerable people, do they really think we're that thick? They must do.

Why in the great scheme of global politics, was it felt necessary by Edward Heath to take Richard Nixon to Haut de la Garenne?

WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON?

Is it high time for a complete clean slate as far as the parties we are given to choose from come the general election? I wonder what the effect will be come voting time, mind you it won't be much, nobody voted this lot in, but they still got put in power.

[audidoody]

There can't be a clean slate. The Establishment knows this goes MUCH higher than the Establishment.

D Notices all round.

[anonymous-user]

25NAD90TUL said:

Here, here!

The whole Cliff thing stinks of a means of diverting attention from that dossier business.

At the moment all I can say about Cliff is that he seems to have visited a 'gay friendly' guest house. This to me neither proves nor implies a link to child abuse, whether or not the guest house was allegedly linked to child abuse.

The fact that Leon Britten has been accused of being photographed in a maid's outfit with a naked 12 year old draped across him and he 'can't recollect' nor account for 114 official documents relating to this, and the fact that Theresa May appointed Butler-Sloss in a blatent attempt to bury the scandal, seems to have drifted off the spectrum.

Does the fact that Britten has been very quiet over the whole affair and doesn't seem to have got a team of lawyers to deal with the matter suggest anything?

Why is it that people who were allegedly 'known' child molesters were repeatedly put in positions of authority over childrens' homes and other institutions for vulnerable people, do they really think we're that thick? They must do.

Why in the great scheme of global politics, was it felt necessary by Edward Heath to take Richard Nixon to Haut de la Garenne?

WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON?

Is it high time for a complete clean slate as far as the parties we are given to choose from come the general election? I wonder what the effect will be come voting time, mind you it won't be much, nobody voted this lot in, but they still got put in power.

But to answer the most important question raised in this thread. We're you in The Lotus Eaters?

[longblackcoat]

25NAD90TUL said:

Does the fact that Britten has been very quiet over the whole affair and doesn't seem to have got a team of lawyers to deal with the matter suggest anything?

No, it doesn't, at least not to me. What do you infer?

[Digga]

longblackcoat said:

25NAD90TUL said:

Does the fact that Britten has been very quiet over the whole affair and doesn't seem to have got a team of lawyers to deal with the matter suggest anything?

No, it doesn't, at least not to me. What do you infer?

Might infer Britten believes himself to be safe. As far as we know though, it might only mean the press have not found out, or chosen (or been asked) not to publicise the fact. We know nothing.

As 25NAD90TUL says though, the bigger issue is currently out of the spotlight.

[anonymous-user]

25NAD90TUL said:

Is it high time for a complete clean slate as far as the parties we are given to choose from come the general election? I wonder what the effect will be come voting time, mind you it won't be much, nobody voted this lot in, but they still got put in power.

I'd vote for the party with the best policies for me. Not on the basis of what individuals from all persuasions did / didn't do 30 years ago...

[carinaman]

mybrainhurts said:

Impasse said:

After the explosion of news reports four or five days ago there now seems to be a complete absence of any, er, new news. I don't know whether to be disappointed, cynically amused or relieved.

Let's burn him, just to be sure....

You can't be too careful these days.

We're going to need a bigger Pitchfork:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUuCWNyvv8

[dudleybloke]

carinaman said:

We're going to need a bigger Pitchfork:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUuCWNyvv8

Load of warlocks.

[Super Slo Mo]

V8 Fettler said:

Super Slo Mo said:

V8 Fettler said:

More importantly, how much of my tax money did the BBC waste on that helicopter? I'll be writing to them to find out, will no doubt get the usual feeble excuses

If it's the BBC News branded one, it's part of a fixed price contract they have. I think it's a specified number of flying hours per year for an agreed fee. If they don't require the aircraft for all of the hours, they still have to pay.

I think it's safe to assume they have to pay an additional sum if they exceed the hours, but it'll be at a pre-agreed amount. As for the hourly rate, I've no idea what it is, although I believe it's pretty competitive.

The answer, basically, is that it depends. If they don't exceed the contract hours by the time the year's out, it's cost them basically nothing, if they do exceed them, then it'll be a cost of some amount.

The BBC pays for a helicopter to sit around doing nothing?

Don't mis interpret what I wrote.

They have a helicopter booked for a fixed number of flying hours per year. It's a lot cheaper than paying for it on an ad hoc basis by the hour, believe me. The actual cost of it is relatively small. SKY also have an identical model sitting next to it, on similar terms I believe, although the contracted hours may be different.

They would not be able to scramble a helicopter in time to get to breaking news events without having it on standby all the time. You can argue whether they need one at all, of course, but it's all somewhat off topic in the context of this thread I think.

If you want to get on your high horse about it, feel free, there's far greater waste elsewhere to worry about though.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Breadvan72 said:

The problem with conspiracy theories about helping the guilty is that if the step taken could not achieve the effect intended it makes the supposedly cunning and devious conspiracy look a bit rubbish. If this is supposed to be high level string pulling you might think that they would be a bit better at it.

The problem with assuming everything is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that you'll likely throw the baby out with the bathwater every now and again. I think it fair to say that, five years ago, people making allegations about Saville might have been lumped into that 'conspiracy theory' lot and anyone with a bad word to say about Rolf Harris most definitely. Given the way the BBC harboured them or turned a blind eye (depends on your POV) I don't find it remotely unlikely that help might still be at hand for others.

But look at how the X Files bunch build supposition on supposition, posit a vast over arching plot, and say things like oh this Cliff thing and all the celeb stuff is smoke and mirrors to distract us from the pols. We also have suggestions that this goes "higher than the Establishment", whatever that means. Being sceptical about Government and concerned about wrongdoing doesn't mean that we should throw away all other scepticism and logic and embrace every speculation that comes along.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

But look at how the X Files bunch build supposition on supposition, posit a vast over arching plot, and say things like oh this Cliff thing and all the celeb stuff is smoke and mirrors to distract us from the pols. We also have suggestions that this goes "higher than the Establishment", whatever that means. Being sceptical about Government and concerned about wrongdoing doesn't mean that we should throw away all other scepticism and logic and embrace every speculation that comes along.

Can't you agree, though, that it's a bit hard to accept that Kitty gets the full dawn raid treatment whilst Cameron's advisor Patrick Rock gets tipped off so he can exit stage left, without being pursued by a bear?

[V8 Fettler]

Super Slo Mo said:

V8 Fettler said:

Super Slo Mo said:

V8 Fettler said:

More importantly, how much of my tax money did the BBC waste on that helicopter? I'll be writing to them to find out, will no doubt get the usual feeble excuses

If it's the BBC News branded one, it's part of a fixed price contract they have. I think it's a specified number of flying hours per year for an agreed fee. If they don't require the aircraft for all of the hours, they still have to pay.

I think it's safe to assume they have to pay an additional sum if they exceed the hours, but it'll be at a pre-agreed amount. As for the hourly rate, I've no idea what it is, although I believe it's pretty competitive.

The answer, basically, is that it depends. If they don't exceed the contract hours by the time the year's out, it's cost them basically nothing, if they do exceed them, then it'll be a cost of some amount.

The BBC pays for a helicopter to sit around doing nothing?

Don't mis interpret what I wrote.

They have a helicopter booked for a fixed number of flying hours per year. It's a lot cheaper than paying for it on an ad hoc basis by the hour, believe me. The actual cost of it is relatively small. SKY also have an identical model sitting next to it, on similar terms I believe, although the contracted hours may be different.

They would not be able to scramble a helicopter in time to get to breaking news events without having it on standby all the time. You can argue whether they need one at all, of course, but it's all somewhat off topic in the context of this thread I think.

If you want to get on your high horse about it, feel free, there's far greater waste elsewhere to worry about though.

A bizarre contractual arrangement. Framework structure with a few contractors bidding for individual assignments would cut costs. Probably lead to a substantial reduction in income for the various contractors, but there we are.

High horse? Not particularly, I want the BBC to be accountable to the people who pay for it

[Digga]

desolate said:

Breadvan72 said:

But look at how the X Files bunch build supposition on supposition, posit a vast over arching plot, and say things like oh this Cliff thing and all the celeb stuff is smoke and mirrors to distract us from the pols. We also have suggestions that this goes "higher than the Establishment", whatever that means. Being sceptical about Government and concerned about wrongdoing doesn't mean that we should throw away all other scepticism and logic and embrace every speculation that comes along.

Can't you agree, though, that it's a bit hard to accept that Kitty gets the full dawn raid treatment whilst Cameron's advisor Patrick Rock gets tipped off so he can exit stage left, without being pursued by a bear?

I'm afraid that two-party politics has created a lot of (heavily dependent) conflicts of interest, not least within the media.

[GetCarter]

skeggysteve said:

25NAD90TUL said:

...
Beeb pays 89 quid a play...

Sorry for the late reply.

Are you saying that every time 'your' record gets played on the BBC they pay you £89?

I don't know much about the music business, but there is one person on PH (who has posted in this tread) that does and I hope he reads this and posts.

I thought you got paid by the PRS not directly from the BBC as you seem to be saying?

I assume that's me. 99% of my BBC money comes from TV, not radio, but just logged in and checked, and PRS pay pay £21.77 per minute for Radio 2 broadcasts. Just under £15 for Radio1. So if his tune is 4+ mins long on R2, that's the £89.00. That's assuming he owns 100% of the rights.

BBC will pay directly for performing on radio/TV, PRS pay the royalties (which they collect from BBC).

BBC of course sell stuff all over the world and make a shed load of money for the UK, so don't assume that is coming out of your licence fee.

HTH

[Super Slo Mo]

V8 Fettler said:

A bizarre contractual arrangement. Framework structure with a few contractors bidding for individual assignments would cut costs. Probably lead to a substantial reduction in income for the various contractors, but there we are.

High horse? Not particularly, I want the BBC to be accountable to the people who pay for it

Ok, it just seemed like that was where you were headed, apologies.

To be fair, SKY aren't particularly accountable either, although you could argue that you as an individual have a choice as to whether or not to subscribe to SKY whereas with the BBC you don't, unless you don't watch live TV.

Logsitically it's very difficult to operator a news helicopter in the way that you suggest, although for 'normal' TV filming you can, and that is, of course, exactly how it works.

The snag is that you can't just get a helicopter at short notice. If it's not booked out for the day, and there are pilots around with sufficient flying hours available for the day/week, and there's a camera and a camera operator available; then you have to get the camera and operator to the aircraft, rig it, and get airborne. As an absolute minimum you could realistically get in the air within 4 to 5 hours of the initial call, which is quite likely to be too late for some urgent news stuff.

Instead they (and SKY) have the whole caboodle on standby, and can be airborne within a few minutes. They go up and shoot stuff more often than you'd think actually, including non-news footage.

Also, the people who operate the helicopter are among the cheapest in the country; there is very little profit in operating an aircraft, and they don't charge for the machine when it's not running, although of course there's a charge for the staff etc who are looking after it.

I suspect it's a case of if you require a helicopter to be available at short notice, there's realistically only one way to do it.

[25NAD90TUL]

GetCarter said:

skeggysteve said:

25NAD90TUL said:

...
Beeb pays 89 quid a play...

Sorry for the late reply.

Are you saying that every time 'your' record gets played on the BBC they pay you £89?

I don't know much about the music business, but there is one person on PH (who has posted in this tread) that does and I hope he reads this and posts.

I thought you got paid by the PRS not directly from the BBC as you seem to be saying?

I assume that's me. 99% of my BBC money comes from TV, not radio, but just logged in and checked, and PRS pay pay £21.77 per minute for Radio 2 broadcasts. Just under £15 for Radio1. So if his tune is 4+ mins long on R2, that's the £89.00. That's assuming he owns 100% of the rights.

BBC will pay directly for performing on radio/TV, PRS pay the royalties (which they collect from BBC).

BBC of course sell stuff all over the world and make a shed load of money for the UK, so don't assume that is coming out of your licence fee.

HTH

Cheers, I got bored with the whole 'guess the popstar' game, I only mentioned it in passing when alluding to Cliff. I'm not ready to condemn him, or was I ready to condemn Rolf or Jimbob until the proof was there, in Cliff's case I'm not ready to condemn, it was something along the lines of 'don't judge us all the same'...

Anyway isn't it funny how people can easily doubt my statement about royalties, yet can't accept that the government could be hiding something from us?

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so damn macabre!

Cheers

[ATTAK Z]

25NAD90TUL said:

....................................... Anyway isn't it funny how people can easily doubt my statement about royalties, yet can't accept that the government could be hiding something from us?

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so damn macabre!

Cheers

Agreed Peter

[Oakey]

ATTAK Z said:

25NAD90TUL said:

....................................... Anyway isn't it funny how people can easily doubt my statement about royalties, yet can't accept that the government could be hiding something from us?

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so damn macabre!

Cheers

Agreed Peter

The only thing worse than him not telling us who he is, is you alluding to knowing and not saying who he is. This is worse than that time we figured out Tommy from Trainspotting is a PH'er

[longblackcoat]

25NAD90TUL said:

I'm not ready to condemn him, or was I ready to condemn Rolf or Jimbob until the proof was there, in Cliff's case I'm not ready to condemn, it was something along the lines of 'don't judge us all the same'...

Leave Carter USM out of this!