Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
What Fay says should be viewed as evidence, to be checked and checked again. A pre-con for fraud should be taken into consideration but I do not think it necessarily negates what the chap says. Some of what he says checks out. After all, some 40% of the male population have a criminal record. Do we ignore all of those?
Valid point Derek. I am not sure what to make of Fay's past from what I've read here, but a couple of thoughts that crossed my mind was MPs using dodgy receipts to scam the Expenses system and learning on the back of Mrs Danczuk's baps about a firm Simon Danczuk was involved in with some other prominent Labour politician went belly up owing over £200,000 inc. was it over £100,000 to the taxman? When Simon Danczuk MP was on Today a few months ago Humphrys asked him if he was pushing it for political gain that made me swear at the radio at such a suggestion and then last week I learn of this failed company left owing debts that Danczuk was involved in setting up.Look at the way that BBC chap in head of their digital archive was stitched up by office politics? Is there much difference between bullying people in the work place for personal advantage and gain and fraud?
My little police problem involves a personal angle. There's someone in the back story that did porridge. Between that person and me there's a police officer that decided they'd interfere in my life. So the convicted offender did time, paid their dues, kept their ill gotten gains, meanwhile some police officer thinks they can leave some Andrew Mitchell like smear in my life until my last breath. But I wasn't charged or convicted of any crime, just railroaded with three allegations that disappeared when I stood my ground and turned the tables on them. As Red 4 said, some people shouldn't be police officers. What's the difference between that police officer and their colleagues that know what went on and what Chris Fay has done? Red 4 suggested I should let it go as if the Chief Constable was made aware of it by MP something should have been done. The officer has been promoted.
NoNeed said:
Why do people believe any old cobblers so long as it's on a website? There was no ban on reporting the Ore investigation. It was all over the media at the time. There's a splendid irony in people going abut saying that we have to be on our guard against our lying overlords and then falling for any pile of tosh that appears on the net.
Breadvan72 said:
NoNeed said:
Why do people believe any old cobblers so long as it's on a website? There was no ban on reporting the Ore investigation. It was all over the media at the time. There's a splendid irony in people going abut saying that we have to be on our guard against our lying overlords and then falling for any pile of tosh that appears on the net.
k about D notices. What I am asking is how did so many very high profile people evade a massive operation such as operation ore?Derek Smith said:
There was a case I was involved in as identification officer where the victim had convictions for assault and ABH, these in a domestic situation. The defence wanted to have these offences brought up in the trial to demonstrate that the victim's testimony should be treated with care. There was a pre-trial hearing where the discussions went on for some time and eventually the pre-cons were disallowed.
The irony of the situation was that the prosecution could not bring in the previous conduct of the offenders, which included multiple sexual offences, one of which he served time for.
What Fay says should be viewed as evidence, to be checked and checked again. A pre-con for fraud should be taken into consideration but I do not think it necessarily negates what the chap says. Some of what he says checks out. After all, some 40% of the male population have a criminal record. Do we ignore all of those?
The one thing that concerns me is the video, but then a few years ago I would dismissed everything he said as fantasy but now we know such things do go on.
There's a lot online about the specific homsec, much of it from people who haven't done time for fraud.
The issue with previous convictions and bad character is relevance. When considering relevance, someone with previous convictions for dishonesty will obviously stand more chance of those being considered relevant than, say dangerous driving or assault in the distant past.The irony of the situation was that the prosecution could not bring in the previous conduct of the offenders, which included multiple sexual offences, one of which he served time for.
What Fay says should be viewed as evidence, to be checked and checked again. A pre-con for fraud should be taken into consideration but I do not think it necessarily negates what the chap says. Some of what he says checks out. After all, some 40% of the male population have a criminal record. Do we ignore all of those?
The one thing that concerns me is the video, but then a few years ago I would dismissed everything he said as fantasy but now we know such things do go on.
There's a lot online about the specific homsec, much of it from people who haven't done time for fraud.
Bearing that in mind, asking "should we ignore 40% of the population", because they have criminal convictions, is an irrelevant question.
Breadvan72 said:
Why do people believe any old cobblers so long as it's on a website? There was no ban on reporting the Ore investigation. It was all over the media at the time.
There's a splendid irony in people going abut saying that we have to be on our guard against our lying overlords and then falling for any pile of tosh that appears on the net.
Valid point, but we had that thread in SP&L about what information the police may have on someone if one of their mates was done for dealing with a BiB saying 'You should choose your friends more carefully'. It's a little different from saying anyone that may have been involved with Ore or the Jillings Inquiry must be guilty of something via 'association'. It would be lazy to wonder how a BiB saying 'You should choose your friends more carefully' with the Mitchell scam, another case of where BiB worked with the Press.There's a splendid irony in people going abut saying that we have to be on our guard against our lying overlords and then falling for any pile of tosh that appears on the net.
'There are Pitchforks, and there are NPIA approved Pitchforks...
NoNeed said:
That was not why the link was posted, I don't give a fk about D notices. What I am asking is how did so many very high profile people evade a massive operation such as operation ore?
Hey, maybe because whatever you read on a tinfoil website might, just might, be bk about D notices. What I am asking is how did so many very high profile people evade a massive operation such as operation ore?ks, and there wasn't any evidence against them? Ore was about data collected as to use of websites, credit cards and so on. Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th August 13:21
Breadvan72 said:
Hey, maybe because whatever you read on a tinfoil website might, just might, be bks, and there wasn't any evidence against them?
Over 7000 suspects leading to 1450 convictions in the biggest operation of its kind. Yet several well know high profile people that those at the top may even have had knowledge of didn't even get a mention.ks, and there wasn't any evidence against them? Actually on this d notice thing
Was a d notice used here? I don't know but if it was your national security would be gone. How do we find out if one was used? or where others have been?
A good example of how internet pitch forkery works. Someone mentions (based on the say so of a highly dubious source on a loony website) that a D Notice was used. There is zero evidence of this, and a D Notice (DA Notice as now called) would not be apt in such a case, but now the assertion (for that is all it is) starts to gather credit from repetition.
As for Ore, again, where's the evidence that Lord/Sir/Mr Big was on the list but wasn't potted?
As for Ore, again, where's the evidence that Lord/Sir/Mr Big was on the list but wasn't potted?
Breadvan72 said:
Hey, maybe because whatever you read on a tinfoil website might, just might, be bks, and there wasn't any evidence against them?
It's hard work how some of the webistes take a "fact" and end up in outer space somewhere.ks, and there wasn't any evidence against them? Do you agree, though, that there seems to have been a unusually high proportion of generally bad eggs associated with the establishment (political and otherwise)?
And that considering mere mortals need to be squeaky clean to get their MBE after cleaning in a school for 50 years - how did Jimmy et al get so close to those in the hot seats?
Breadvan72 said:
A good example of how internet pitch forkery works. Someone mentions (based on the say so of a highly dubious source on a loony website) that a D Notice was used. There is zero evidence of this, and a D Notice (DA Notice as now called) would not be apt in such a case, but now the assertion (for that is all it is) starts to gather credit from repetition.
As for Ore, again, where's the evidence that Lord/Sir/Mr Big was on the list but wasn't potted?
I have not said they were on the list and not potted, but them not being on the list at all must be a cause for concern given the size nature and cost of such an operation as it would show a massive incompetence by our authorities. Or of course a cover up.As for Ore, again, where's the evidence that Lord/Sir/Mr Big was on the list but wasn't potted?
I also didn't say d notices were used I asked if we can find out if they were.
The BBC were still on about operation ore in 2012 such is the magnitude of the investigation which was the largest ever undertaken.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20237564
Edited by NoNeed on Monday 18th August 13:45
Ore was about online child porn. Not every kiddy fiddler uses the net. Someone wouldn't show up in an investigation about net porn if that person was involved in other forms of abuse. The fact that Ore did not lead to prosecution of anyone high profile doesn't seem to me inherently suggestive of a cover up, especially in relation to alleged abuse at care homes or guest houses or schools or wherever as that is not what Ore was investigating.
desolate said:
It's hard work how some of the webistes take a "fact" and end up in outer space somewhere.
Do you agree, though, that there seems to have been a unusually high proportion of generally bad eggs associated with the establishment (political and otherwise)?
And that considering mere mortals need to be squeaky clean to get their MBE after cleaning in a school for 50 years - how did Jimmy et al get so close to those in the hot seats?
It is hard to say what the numbers might be. There looks to have been weak or corrupt policing, and undue deference to those occupying some positions. How Savile got away with it still seems remarkable. He seems to have got quite far on threat, bluster, do you know who I am etc.Do you agree, though, that there seems to have been a unusually high proportion of generally bad eggs associated with the establishment (political and otherwise)?
And that considering mere mortals need to be squeaky clean to get their MBE after cleaning in a school for 50 years - how did Jimmy et al get so close to those in the hot seats?
Breadvan72 said:
Ore was about online child porn. Not every kiddy fiddler uses the net. Someone wouldn't show up in an investigation about net porn if that person was involved in other forms of abuse. The fact that Ore did not lead to prosecution of anyone high profile doesn't seem to me inherently suggestive of a cover up, especially in relation to alleged abuse at care homes or guest houses or schools or wherever as that is not what Ore was investigating.
No but the suggestion that 1700 people didn't try and slip out a name or two to save their own skin is laughable. These circles really can't be that big that the main players go unknown.Breadvan72 said:
It is hard to say what the numbers might be. There looks to have been weak or corrupt policing, and undue deference to those occupying some positions. How Savile got away with it still seems remarkable. He seems to have got quite far on threat, bluster, do you know who I am etc.
Even disallowing some of the more heavy duty stuff about Savile, I do find it astonishing the way he managed to get what looks like unfettered access to Politicians at the very highest level. And Royalty, even before the current Prince of Wales.If there was ONE organised "cover up" the big boss would have hung a few specially selected people out to dry in a much more clear cut manner by now.
But it stinks to high heaven.
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive. Ore targeted people who used their credit cards to buy access to porn sites. Many of those will have been solo characters, some may have known a few fellow offenders, but it is unlikely that they were all or mostly a member of some "circle". Also, people that watch films of children being abused won't always be the same people as those who do the abusing themselves. Just watching is bad enough, but some may just watch, some may just do, some may do both.
desolate said:
Even disallowing some of the more heavy duty stuff about Savile, I do find it astonishing the way he managed to get what looks like unfettered access to Politicians at the very highest level. And Royalty, even before the current Prince of Wales.
If there was ONE organised "cover up" the big boss would have hung a few specially selected people out to dry in a much more clear cut manner by now.
But it stinks to high heaven.
I agree with all that you say. Thread crossing for a moment, those who say that the persistence of Monarchy does our society no harm might reflect on the fact that someone like Savile gained credibility by hanging out with Royals, and it is just possible (possible, not definite) that soft prosecution decisions were influenced by a wish not to embarrass Royals. Not the fault of the Royals as individuals, but our fault for bending the knee, if (I say if) such things occurred.If there was ONE organised "cover up" the big boss would have hung a few specially selected people out to dry in a much more clear cut manner by now.
But it stinks to high heaven.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff