Sir Cliff Richard

[MikeT66]

25NAD90TUL said:

And to bring all the music-biz talk back on topic...

Cliff Richard currently 500 record sales from this weeks top 40 as fans rally round and show support by buying his records!

Breaking news just on MSN!

http://t.music.uk.msn.com/news/sir-cliff-set-for-r...

OMG it's 'I still believe in you'

Remember he hasn't been found guilty of anything untoward!

I agree, 25NAD90TUL, and in a show of bizarre solidarity with the beleagured Sir Cliff I went a bought one of his old records - Miss You Nights. I had a bit of a sing-a-long until the lines...

"I've had many times, I can tell you,
Times when innocence I'd trade for company,
And children saw me crying,
I thought I'd had my share of that...."

Oh. Oh dear. Get the Marilyn Manson CD back on, I think.

[25NAD90TUL]

Mal001 said:

Mine is good and well recommend in the area and there's no pressure to book lessons as "it's up to you if you what to learn"

Music section is in the Pie and Piston, always willing to pick up a few tips!

Yes, quite, it was a rhetorical warning about 'some' unscrupulous teachers.

[vonuber]

I was running around t'park the other day listening to my ipod when suddenly 'The Young Ones' by Mr Webb came on. Certainly became disconcerting listening as I actually paid attention to what he was singing.. swiftly followed by a track skip.

[anonymous-user]

Here's a question for Guam about the DA Notices he was given (subject unknown). Guam, on your account, the Notices were not about national security. DA Notices are non mandatory. They have no legal force and operate only by convention. Even the convention applies only in national security cases. Did you seek legal advice about the Notices? If you chose to comply with them, why did you do this?

Is there a danger that conspiracy ideas become self fulfilling prophecies if people act in the way that according to the conspiracy idea they are supposed to act?

I am not having a pop at you, Guam. I am genuinely curious about this.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st August 13:38

[Vipers]

vonuber said:

I was running around t'park the other day listening to my ipod when suddenly 'The Young Ones' by Mr Webb came on. Certainly became disconcerting listening as I actually paid attention to what he was singing.. swiftly followed by a track skip.

Think your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, just enjoy the music, stop nit picking.

Cliff didn't even wrote it.

[ATTAK Z]

Vipers said:

vonuber said:

I was running around t'park the other day listening to my ipod when suddenly 'The Young Ones' by Mr Webb came on. Certainly became disconcerting listening as I actually paid attention to what he was singing.. swiftly followed by a track skip.

Think your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, just enjoy the music, stop nit picking.

Cliff didn't even wrote it.

Has Cliff wroted anything ?

[anonymous-user]

Guam, DA Notices came up because someone (not you) confidently asserted that DA Notices have been used to restrict reporting of paedophile allegations. The poster who made that inherently implausible assertion could provide no source for it save a reference to some random internet bloke with little credibility. You joined the discussion to say that you'd had some DA Notices that were not about national security, but now you tell us they were about military matters. I am not at all sure now why you mentioned them at all, as they appear to go nowhere towards supporting a suggestion that DA Notices have been used in relation to pervo stories.

If you want legal advice on the Notices, you should obtain it from someone pursuant to a retainer so that you have the benefit of insurance. IAAL but IANYL.

[MarshPhantom]

Vipers said:

vonuber said:

I was running around t'park the other day listening to my ipod when suddenly 'The Young Ones' by Mr Webb came on. Certainly became disconcerting listening as I actually paid attention to what he was singing.. swiftly followed by a track skip.

Think your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, just enjoy the music, stop nit picking.

Cliff didn't even wrote it.

Cliff chose to release it as a single.

[TonyRPH]

vonuber said:

I was running around t'park the other day listening to my ipod when suddenly 'The Young Ones' by Mr Webb came on. Certainly became disconcerting listening as I actually paid attention to what he was singing.. swiftly followed by a track skip.

Not defending Cliff or the songwriter, however... taken in the context of it's time* (1961) - there's is nothing 'pedo' about the song at all.

However, you are entitled to read into them whatever you wish.

Young ones lyrics said:

The young ones,
Darling we're the young ones,
And young ones shouldn't be afraid.

To live, love
While the flame is strong,
For we won't be the young ones very long.

Tomorrow,
Why wait till tomorrow,
Tomorrow sometimes never comes.
Love, me,
There's a song to be sung
And the best time is to sing while we're young.

Once in every lifetime
Comes a love like this.
I need you and you need me.
Oh my darling can't you see.
Young dreams
Should be dreamed together,
Young hearts shouldn't be afraid.
And some day when the years have flown
Darling, this will teach the young ones of our own.
The young ones
Darling, we're the young ones
The young ones
Darling, we're the young ones.

• even today - the lyrics don't have any 'pedo' connotations IMHO.

[Qwert1e]

Guam said:

Classic you asked me a question and I offer you a route to its answer and yet you would rather play games.Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, I can talk about it just not publish, you can feel free to choose to do so if you are so certain of your position.

What a strange position to take.

The clue is in the A of DA - "Advisory"

[redtwin]

I have always found the idea of D notices intriguing. The concept of a government effectively silencing the media on certain subjects.

What I don't understand is this. D notices are a UK government restriction, presumably on UK media. What effect/power/authority would it have over non-UK media?. If the likes of RT or Al Jazeera (even CNN etc) were to get a hold of the story, would the D notice mean anything to them?.

If not, what is there to stop a UK citizen/journo secretly passing the story onto one of their foreign counterparts?. There must be a queue of foreign media outlets (not suggesting the ones mentioned above) that would love a juicy and embarrassing story on the UK government or establishment.

Just so it's out there. Any replies suggesting MI5/6 00 types would "disappear" foreign journalists who broke a UK D notice will be laughed at.

[Vaud]

redtwin said:

I have always found the idea of D notices intriguing. The concept of a government effectively silencing the media on certain subjects.

It's a voluntary code. Entirely voluntary.

Frustrating and irresponsible they might be, but it also helps the papers understand when they are going to put national security at risk, even inadvertently.

[DJRC]

D's are fun. You get given a spiel and then told to sign something. No wait sorry, by fun I meant dull as hell.

The Yanks are much more interesting. They largely give you the same spiel but at least they send a bloke in full Colonel uniform with a sidearm strapped to him so you can ooo and aaahh that they are serious. Its nice to know that they respect you enough to at least pretend that they want you to think that you think they might shoot you if you are naughty. The Brits send Bob in a rumpled suit from the arse end of the MOD or some Whitehall dept. You know he is bored. He knows you are bored and you all know nobody is going to say anything because you really can't be bothered and nobody would actually believe the incompetence anyway. A D served about paedo stuff would just have an entire room falling over themselves pissing about laughing.

[anonymous-user]

So why did you comply with the Notices, Guam? I am not playing games. I read your earlier post in response to my question as to whether you had taken legal advice as a request for such advice. I invite you to tell us the big secret, failing which I shall file your post in the BS file.

Meanwhile, none of this bears on the suggestion that D or DA Notices have been used to suppress paedo stories. That suggestion remains unsupported by any credible evidence.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 August 08:44

[V8 Fettler]

Super Slo Mo said:

V8 Fettler said:

Super Slo Mo said:

V8 Fettler said:

I can't think of a recent instance in the UK where the news item was so urgent and important that it needed a news helicopter on standby

In the days before either broadcaster had one, we used to get asked reasonably frequently to try and get one on station somewhere (that train crash where the land rover went onto the tracks springs to mind, probably around 2001).

We provided the camera and operator for this kind of thing, the trouble is, there are only a limited number of each available in the country, and generally they're all working, in transit somewhere or in for maintenance (or the operator is on a day off).

Realistically you can't get a camera and helicopter airborne on the same day as you request it, unless you're very lucky. So your choice is either you don't have an aerial news facility or you have one on standby. Unless it's a long, drawn out affair, but breaking news tends not to be like that.

I'm not particularly offering an opinion, just trying to explain the options as I see them. Aerial filming is expensive, which ever way you look at it.

No helicopter within - say - 1 hour then liquidated damages would apply under the framework agreement. Unfortunately, most aerial news footage = medjia fest, eg police raid on a has-been artiste's residence

I'm not disagreeing with the last statement.

You'd never get anyone to agree to the first part though, unless the aircraft is pre-rigged with a camera (then it's no use for anything else), 1 hour is simply impossible (I know it was an example, I would suggest 4 - 6 hours is more realistic, plus transit time). It takes a good couple of hours to rig a helicopter, assuming no problems, longer if you need to have a live downlink.

That's with a camera, brackets, and camera operator on site waiting. No one would do that for free, not when both could be out earning money elsewhere.

The hourly rate would need to include the necessity to have both a camera and camera operator on hand all the time, and the helicopter pre-rigged, which would make the cost prohibitive. Or it puts us back into the same situation as we are currently.

Actually, if you can genuinely come up with a more cost effective way to do it, let me know, I'll suggest it to the guys that own the aircraft. They would probably make more money if the aircraft were available for other duties, rather than sitting on the apron waiting for a call.

You're looking at this from the viewpoint of the contractor, I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of the person who pays for it all. The current contract arrangements appear to be very cosy for the contractor and the BBC, which is not unusual when spending public money.
If the overall value of the contract is big enough then the contractors will provide the required service. If the contractor can earn more money elsewhere then let the market prevail. Do eastern European helicopter contractors offer their services in the UK?

[redtwin]

So there was nothing stopping you from passing on the story or information to another journalist. I understand not wanting to do that out of personal fear, but that would be the power the D notice held over you, not what it held over foreign media.

Is it possible in the case of the second story that the "big players" thought it wasn't worthy of reporting?. I mean it may have been a good story, but it just wasn't worth the possible backlash or hassle.

I still have to imagine (OK, hope) there are journalists who will still leak stories, regardless of what their editor or even the government says. It wouldn't be a front page headline, but the proliferation of online and social media should make it pretty easy to disseminate it.

[anonymous-user]

Guam, sadly perhaps, we are not friends and I don't choose to engage in correspondence with you. I don't come here to get business, and when I give legal advice here I do it for free. You have made public assertions, I say back those assertions up in public. To be blunt: put up or shut up. Of course, some might say that someone who says "I know a big secret but I can't tell you what it is" might be trying to make himself look like Johnny Big Spuds in the eyes of the credulous, but as to that I couldn't possibly comment.

[anonymous-user]

PS: under what legal power were your notes "seized" from you? You whole story reeks of BS.

[Super Slo Mo]

V8 Fettler said:

You're looking at this from the viewpoint of the contractor, I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of the person who pays for it all. The current contract arrangements appear to be very cosy for the contractor and the BBC, which is not unusual when spending public money.
If the overall value of the contract is big enough then the contractors will provide the required service. If the contractor can earn more money elsewhere then let the market prevail. Do eastern European helicopter contractors offer their services in the UK?

Cutting the number of quotes down a bit to save space.

I was trying to be objective, but perhaps it's not that simple, since I've had a bit more involvement with the operational side than the customer's side of things.

I don't really see how Eastern European operators could save any money, other than cutting legal corners. The hardware costs the same wherever you buy it from, fuel costs the same, and helicopter pilots don't earn a massive amount as it is. They'd also have to be based in the UK, otherwise there'd be no way of competing, and then they're on the same playing field.

I'd be happy to discuss on a separate thread or by PM rather than take up space on this one if you like.

I think ultimately, to not have a contract in place and to go back to the old days of ad hoc bookings of aircraft will result in a reduction of the service available, without a significant reduction in cost, except that there will be no cost at all if there's no aircraft available.

Edited by Super Slo Mo on Friday 22 August 14:44

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

Guam, sadly perhaps, we are not friends and I don't choose to engage in correspondence with you. I don't come here to get business, and when I give legal advice here I do it for free. You have made public assertions, I say back those assertions up in public. To be blunt: put up or shut up. Of course, some might say that someone who says "I know a big secret but I can't tell you what it is" might be trying to make himself look like Johnny Big Spuds in the eyes of the credulous, but as to that I couldn't possibly comment.

He has offered you his phone number, it's time for you to accept the offer....

Or are you scared you'll be wrong?