Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
saaby93 said:
What was 'not quite right' about him 
Is there something 'not quite right' about all of us?
Especially being in PH
The 'not quite right' bit was his being an entertainer active in the 1960s/1970s. His carefully curated public image thus equated him in the mind of the noncefinder generals as another of the endemic paedos. Nothing more.Is there something 'not quite right' about all of us?
Especially being in PH
If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The BBC jumped on this bandwagon with great enthusiasm, believing they had a scoop. They'd found the next one, and were determined to lead the lynching party, live and in full HD.
Judgement, standards and common sense were ignored; the lure of the glory of exposing the latest big name overpowered reason.
Yet their arrogance still sees them as entirely right and the judiciary entirely wrong.
vikingaero said:
Who pays for the damages and legal costs? Oh yes, the chumps that are the British public.
Should damages and legal costs be deducted from Directors renumeration?
They will have insurance for that sort of thing, similar to NHS Protect?Should damages and legal costs be deducted from Directors renumeration?
La Liga said:
hose Professional Standard departments can be pretty ruthless. They get rid of a fair few each year.
I would agree. My mate was suspended for 18 months while PSD tried to find any excuse in the book to get rid of him. Started with a complaint against him for assault then basically snowballed into misuse of data, trying to fiddle overtime etc etc.It turned that the assualt allegation was just a spurious claim from a disgruntled customer but they were like a dog with a bone. He actually ended up with the police force in question owing him money as it appeared they in turn had not paid him correctly for the overtime he had done and not the other way around
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 19th July 10:52
Cupramax said:
eccles said:
Sadly I don't think anyone will lose their job over this, just watching newswatch at the weekends where editors have to justify their actions after multiple complaints over a story, their arrogance that they know best is staggering.
That program beggars belief, it’s purely a vehicle for the beeb news execs to tell us why they were right in what, and how, they reported, no matter how blatantly wrong it was. I’ve never once seen them admit that they may have got something wrong.It seems to be more about what the crazy presenter is doing to try to get the next rung up the beeb ladder than any in depth reporting on the subject. And how far up someones nose they can poke the mike or camera without them suitably responding
pavarotti1980 said:
La Liga said:
hose Professional Standard departments can be pretty ruthless. They get rid of a fair few each year.
I would agree. My mate was suspended for 18 months while PSD tried to find any excuse in the book to get rid of him. Started with a complaint against him for assault then basically snowballed into misuse of data, trying to fiddle overtime etc etc.It turned that the assualt allegation was just a spurious claim from a disgruntled customer but they were like a dog with a bone. He actually ended up with the police force in question owing him money as it appeared they in turn had not paid him correctly for the overtime he had done and not the other way around
I have a friend who was involved in surveillance for PSD and he spent a fair bit of time targeting suspected corrupt police officers e.g. bugging their cars etc.
La Liga said:
've seen both sides and they don't mess about.
I have a friend who was involved in surveillance for PSD and he spent a fair bit of time targeting suspected corrupt police officers e.g. bugging their cars etc.
Ruthless seems an understatement. Interesting career path though.. I have a friend who was involved in surveillance for PSD and he spent a fair bit of time targeting suspected corrupt police officers e.g. bugging their cars etc.
Biker 1 said:
& therein lies the problem: s
t sticks. He's innocent until proven otherwise, so totally unfair of the BEEB to report the raid like they did.
Well I agree with you but he’s always been the king of cringe to me, way before any of this came to the fore, I can’t think of anybody who comes across so fake as him, he’s just weird it’s not a recent view inlight of the bbc’s Reportt sticks. He's innocent until proven otherwise, so totally unfair of the BEEB to report the raid like they did.And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
Oh yeah cliff Richard, that weird old guy, bit secretive about his sexuality, had that thing with the police, no smoke without fire eh? They MUST have had something on him, there was helicopters over his house filming it an everything!
Unfortunately that’s what happens, this bloke who has done nothing wrong at all has all this happen, just because it was hunting season on old male celebrities and the bbc were chalking up kills.
Unfortunately that’s what happens, this bloke who has done nothing wrong at all has all this happen, just because it was hunting season on old male celebrities and the bbc were chalking up kills.
El stovey said:
Unfortunately that’s what happens, this bloke who has done nothing wrong at all has all this happen, just because it was hunting season on old male celebrities and the bbc were chalking up kills.
I think it worth remembering that people who suggested there was something off about Saville were, at one time, ridiculed and ciritcised in equal measure. I do not belive police should be leaking the names of suspects FWIW, but at the same time, historic abuse cases - Saville, Weinstein etc. etc. -are only now coming to light.There is no doubt there has been some very high-level covering-up going on for these sorts of cases to remain undisclosed and un-investigated for so long. For my part, the case of Elm Guest House and the Grafton children's home raises more questions than answers. Evidence has been conveniently misplaced and we will probably never know the truth.
El stovey said:
Oh yeah cliff Richard, that weird old guy, bit secretive about his sexuality, had that thing with the police, no smoke without fire eh? They MUST have had something on him, there was helicopters over his house filming it an everything!
Unfortunately that’s what happens, this bloke who has done nothing wrong at all has all this happen, just because it was hunting season on old male celebrities and the bbc were chalking up kills.
Keeping things in perspective though, the BBC were reporting the search on the house, they didn't initiate the search, nor did they create the allegation. Cliff Richard was a person of interest based upon allegations in the same way it works whenever there is a report made to the Police. The difference here is that because he is a famous person who has that air of weirdness which attracts 'public interest' those allegations become news worthy.Unfortunately that’s what happens, this bloke who has done nothing wrong at all has all this happen, just because it was hunting season on old male celebrities and the bbc were chalking up kills.
The BBC are not guilty of causing the search of his house, they just reported (badly) that it happened. The fact we all think his private life is very 'unconventional' is as much down the way Sir Cliff courts fame and publicity to further his career whilst concealing significant chunks of his private life.
I'm surprised that some in this thread are still being disingenuous towards SCR.
The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
Lord Marylebone said:
I'm surprised that some in this thread are still being disingenuous towards SCR.
The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
This sums up succinctly and exactly why it should never go to the media until charges are brought. There will always be idiots that assume guilt, regardless of what fruitcake or money seeker has made the allegations.The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
Cupramax said:
This sums up succinctly and exactly why it should never go to the media until charges are brought. There will always be idiots that assume guilt, regardless of what fruitcake or money seeker has made the allegations.
With this I am in total agreement. In that regard the BBC were wrong and Sir Cliff Richard was wronged.Beeb have just interviewed an editor on the lunchtime news, think he was from the Mirror desperately doing his best to justify the continuation of press freedom to ruin people’s lives, I think in desperation he saw the pound signs vanishing in front of his eyes. What will the press have left if they can’t print tittle tattle about the latest suspected peado?
Digga said:
Cupramax said:
This sums up succinctly and exactly why it should never go to the media until charges are brought. There will always be idiots that assume guilt, regardless of what fruitcake or money seeker has made the allegations.
With this I am in total agreement. In that regard the BBC were wrong and Sir Cliff Richard was wronged.Lord Marylebone said:
I'm surprised that some in this thread are still being disingenuous towards SCR.
The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
How do they decide what's relevant in coming t othe conclusion of zilch?The police went through all his worldly possessions with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely totally and utterly zilch.
You can guarantee that they made sure they were totally through in every respect after making such a big deal over the raid in the first place.
I don't think SCR should have anything left hanging over him.
Surely there must have been something that could have had some tenuous link if they tried hard enough?
vikingaero said:
Who pays for the damages and legal costs? Oh yes, the chumps that are the British public.
Should damages and legal costs be deducted from Directors renumeration?
The BBC is funded from the licence fees (the public). Therefore those responsible at the BBC should be made to pay the costs, damages, etc. They have to learn not to make mistakes or go glory hunting.Should damages and legal costs be deducted from Directors renumeration?
They made mistakes therefore they should pay.
The Surveyor said:
No, the person who made the original allegation was wrong, the Police believed that allegation sufficiently to get a search warrant and raid his house, the BBC simply reported what was happening, albeit badly.
Not quite that simple. The BBC managed to mislead the police into releasing the details of the proposed search exclusively to the BBC. Then cover it in a spectacular manner.Cost the Police in excess of £450,000 so far, and the BBC £150,000 so far.
THe person that invented the accusation instigating all this remains unchallenged.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff