Sir Cliff Richard

[V8 Fettler]

Super Slo Mo said:

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

I can see that you have the contractor's viewpoint. I think we'll leave it there, cool morning air, RV8 to be tested etc.

[Westy Pre-Lit]

25NAD90TUL said:

I worry about the establishment thing though greatly, I forget the guys' name but an MP was asked on Newsnight about the posibility of things being hushed up and he replied something like 'there would have been a need to protect the establishment' can't recall his name, but I found his statement very worrying, and he was deadly serious like he thought that was perfectly valid.

I think your thinking or Norman Tebbit on the Andrew Marr Show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQSHcpPk38



The last few words from Ken Livingston says it all, people need to wake up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc



It's a shame some people feel the need to ridicule, when others who have chosen to tackle the problem head on to help those that have been abused, are reduced to tears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TITipeOnA

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Sunday 24th August 09:18

[Super Slo Mo]

V8 Fettler said:

I can see that you have the contractor's viewpoint. I think we'll leave it there, cool morning air, RV8 to be tested etc.

I don't think you have a realistic solution but that's fine.
Enjoy your morning. I will admit to being a little envious, I have nothing interesting to drive at the moment.

Edited by Super Slo Mo on Sunday 24th August 08:19

[25NAD90TUL]

Westy Pre-Lit said:

I think your thinking or Norman Tebbit on the Andrew Marr Show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQSHcpPk38



The last few words from Ken Livingston says it all, people need to wake up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc



It's a shame some people feel the need to ridicule, when others who have chosen to tackle the problem head on to help those that have been abused, are reduced to tears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TITipeOnA

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Sunday 24th August 09:18

Many thanks for those links, the Ken Livingstone one was very telling. The Norman Tebbitt one was correct that was the statement I was referring to, he said the same thing on Newsnight.

It seems I'm not alone in believing in cover-ups.

[carinaman]

25NAD90TUL said:

It seems I'm not alone in believing in cover-ups.

You're not.

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Now......what was that again about Space Lizards.

[anonymous-user]

Space Lizards don't work on Bank Holidays. Everyone knows that.

[hidetheelephants]

Steffan said:

I do think a time bar is worth considering and there are undoubtedly accusations which have been made through jealousy and the love of the gravy train that such accusations currently offer, with no risk of identity discovery and apparently no downside since nothing can be written about the accusers. I do wonder if the criminal injuries payment made to the witnesses in the Roach and Le Veil cases have been recovered. I rather doubt it. No idea what will happen in this case but it certainly looks to have brought out a number of accusers.

How do you set the length of the time bar? There are people still being tried for war crimes in the second world war, some get convicted and some not; should their accusers be denied an opportunity to testify because it was a long time ago, they're old and their memory not so good?

[Derek Smith]

hidetheelephants said:

How do you set the length of the time bar? There are people still being tried for war crimes in the second world war, some get convicted and some not; should their accusers be denied an opportunity to testify because it was a long time ago, they're old and their memory not so good?

You can't set some arbitrary limit of course. That much is obvious.

If he's guilty then the passage of time doesn't make him less so.

My force got some DNA from an historic, something like 15 years, rape and did a 'hail mary' check on it. They got a positive. The victim said that at last she could put it all behind her. It had affected her for all those years. She wasn't worried about punishment, just wanted an acknowledgement and a conviction. I have to say, when I read about it my thought was 'got you'.

If Richard is found guilty then I hope the same thought will occur.

Shame we didn't do it to all those catholic vicars that were just moved around.

[anonymous-user]

There is a discussion in SPL about time bars and other aspects of old complaints of criminal conduct. I agree with Derek that any time bar would be arbitrary, and it could support injustice, especially in cases where the victim of a crime has been reluctant to come forward before because of the trauma inflicted on him or her by the offence and/or by the perceived untouchabiity of a high profile suspect. There are safeguards available for defendants in respect of old allegations, and in the recent crop of celeb cases there have been acquittals as well as a guilty plea and a conviction.

SPL thread here:


http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Breadvan72 said:

Space Lizards don't work on Bank Holidays. Everyone knows that.

Enjoy your day off then.

[anonymous-user]

I wish! I got up at 5am to do some work that I should have done last week but failed to do on the grounds of being rubbish. I had always hoped that I might be a Space Lizard, but alas I find I'm not. Darn.

[Qwert1e]

Derek Smith said:

If he's guilty then the passage of time doesn't make him less so.

So why not put Jimmy Savile on trial? I'm sure it would make all his victims feel better and enable the hand-wringers to cleans their consciences.

Even if CR did misbehave back in the day (which is vigorously denied) he's no more of a threat today than the corpse of Savile.

I feel sure that not very far in future people will look back and consider it madness that Britain was jailing more people than almost any country in the world, including pathetic old men like Stuart Hall and Max Clifford.

[anonymous-user]

By the same argument, if you catch a 96 year old SS man who took part in Holocaust atrocities, do you let him go? There is some societal value, perhaps, in holding living people to account for past misdeeds. There might be, say, an 80 year old who saw the 96 year old murdering the 80 year old's parents in 1945 and can still remember that moment. Death is the limitation period. I wouldn't go as far as Charles II, who had Oliver Cromwell dug up in order to be hanged and quartered (the drawing was no longer an option there).

[Dr Jekyll]

Westy Pre-Lit said:

25NAD90TUL said:

I worry about the establishment thing though greatly, I forget the guys' name but an MP was asked on Newsnight about the posibility of things being hushed up and he replied something like 'there would have been a need to protect the establishment' can't recall his name, but I found his statement very worrying, and he was deadly serious like he thought that was perfectly valid.

I think your thinking or Norman Tebbit on the Andrew Marr Show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQSHcpPk38

He seems to me to be saying it was the culture of the time to cover things up to protect the establishment, and that this was in his words 'spectacularly wrong'. He wasn't saying it was valid at all.

[carinaman]

Westy Pre-Lit said:

Breadvan72 said:

Space Lizards don't work on Bank Holidays. Everyone knows that.

Enjoy your day off then.

And they work Labour Day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj5sZPSbq8g

[Derek Smith]

Qwert1e said:

So why not put Jimmy Savile on trial? I'm sure it would make all his victims feel better and enable the hand-wringers to cleans their consciences.

Even if CR did misbehave back in the day (which is vigorously denied) he's no more of a threat today than the corpse of Savile.

I feel sure that not very far in future people will look back and consider it madness that Britain was jailing more people than almost any country in the world, including pathetic old men like Stuart Hall and Max Clifford.

There are two aspects to this: 1/ whether incarceration is an appropriate punishment for those no longer a threat and, 2/ whether making victims feel better is a worthwhile endeavour.

On the first point, I feel that our jails are cluttered with those whose term there is pointless and I'd be supportive of sensible alternatives.

As for 2/, I think there is only one sensible answer. Little enough is done for the victim in our system and if a person did commit crimes in the past then suggesting, as many have, that everyone was at it is no defence.

If a number of complaints have been made about Richard then there should be an investigation. The fact that he's old is no reason to wipe the slate clean.

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

By the same argument, if you catch a 96 year old SS man who took part in Holocaust atrocities, do you let him go? There is some societal value, perhaps, in holding living people to account for past misdeeds. There might be, say, an 80 year old who saw the 96 year old murdering the 80 year old's parents in 1945 and can still remember that moment. Death is the limitation period.

This I agree with - the first line was my own reasoning when considering the timelines of these cases as Yew Tree first swung into action. You cannot put any such timeline restrictions on justice.

Breadvan72 said:

I wouldn't go as far as Charles II, who had Oliver Cromwell dug up in order to be hanged and quartered (the drawing was no longer an option there).

But reality TV viewers might well pay to see Saville's corpse being bummed by a dog.

[Qwert1e]

Derek Smith said:

The fact that he's old is no reason to wipe the slate clean.

Yet the Lockerbie bomber, convicted of murdering 270 people, was released from jail on "compassionate" grounds and then lived for another three years.

[Transmitter Man]

Qwert1e said:

Yet the Lockerbie bomber, convicted of murdering 270 people, was released from jail on "compassionate" grounds and then lived for another three years.

...in exchange for a good future price on 99 RON.