Sir Cliff Richard

[Ayahuasca]

Cliff Richard has committed some unspeakable crimes.

'Mistletoe and Wine' being one of the worst of them.

[cuprabob]

Ayahuasca said:

Cliff Richard has committed some unspeakable crimes.

'Mistletoe and Wine' being one of the worst of them.

"Lord's Prayer" was his worst crime, in my opinion

[Derek Smith]

moanthebairns said:

How did the footage of this they nominated for an award get on then?

There was nothing usual about it apart from who the target was. It was a scoop, and rather a big one. Other news companies were a wee bit jealous. If the BBC did indeed trick their way into gaining more information than they had, then that's an error, but not of theirs. It's fairly basic tactic to find out what the other side knows.

The case has, at the moment, more or less changed the law. It should be looked at. The BBC must challenge it.

My cousin was a pop singer in the 60s. People my age will remember his name. He was friendly with Richards but not particularly a friend. He once said that there were only two of the then current pop stars who'd last: him and Richards. One out of two ain't bad. I think it was Richards who said he wouldn't go his wedding in order to keep the crowds away. Nice, I thought. It was wrong as well. I struggled to get in, my mother having to push her way through the throng. We were stopped by two police officers at the door and were all but turned away. A local bobby recognised me as 'one of the Smiths' - we were a big family and well known - and let through. My picture was in the Daily Sketch. I became quite famous at my school.

I got some invites, went to places and saw some people. It was fabulous. I remember a girl at a party mentioning Long John Baldry, whom I'd met a couple of times. I said to her that I'd introduce her to him the next time he played at the Bromley Court. She didn't believe me. I'd say her loss, but as things didn't turn out the way I'd hoped, it was mine as well. He was overtly gay, unusual outside the pop scene then, and propositioned me. Once I told him I was straight he was great. Touched me up afterwards but he was high/drunk so couldn't blame him. I must have been attractive, but only to the wrong sort back then. He would later talk Elton John out of killing himself and was subject of the song 'Someone saved my life tonight'. He was a fabulous blues singer. Introduced me to the genre. Worth having your arse felt a couple of times. Certainly no, er, hard feelings. I liked the bloke. Did things his way.

To an impressionable young kid who'd never been exposed to the lifestyles of the famous I was rather bemused. I was 'touched up' quite a few times, but once they got the news you weren't interested they stopped, at least In the main. Sometimes you had to be a bit forceful. In general they were a pleasant bunch but they could be persistent. There was a gay presenter of an ITV music show who owned a pub/club on the Isle of Dogs. He bet with me that he'd be able to convince/convert, can't remember the actual word, a friend of mine who was a drummer in a group at his pub.

He lost his bet. He knew everyone. He knew Richards. He dropped his name almost as often as I dropped that of my cousin. Well, perhaps not nearly as often.

Strange things went on all the time in the little bit of high life I was privy to. It wasn't so much seen as normal, but was the norm. The number of girls, and boys, mostly underage, was remarkable, at least remarkable now.

I don't know if Richards indulged his own desires. If he didn't he would have been all but unique amongst his contemporaries. That doesn't mean he did though. There were not so much rumours as talk. His then tastes were not seen as anything to bother about. It was a quite open society but it was rather weird. It wasn't so much as talk against others as about them. Some things said in passing were quite actionable nowadays.

My cousin was straight and I heard nothing against him. It wasn't as if they'd have kept anything from me as they didn't see anything wrong with any tastes or ways of satisfying their tendencies. He married one of the dancers on a pop show, a lovely looking woman, when he was about 22 and is still with her. Everyone said it wouldn't last. I used to think he was unique. It's possible he wasn't; unique that is.

There was some weird behaviour in those days.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 19th July 16:36

[thebraketester]

saaby93 said:

thebraketester said:

What strikes me as odd it as why the compo figure is so low..... is he just doing it to prove a point?

It was said somwhere it's the highest for this type of case so far
What were you expecting?
Still less than half many salaries at the beeb so they could pass a hat around between them without affecting the licence

I don’t know.... it just seems like a token amount to me. Is 200k gonna change his life? It’s being done to prove a point imo

[saaby93]

Derek Smith said:

There was nothing usual about it apart from who the target was. It was a scoop, and rather a big one. Other news companies were a wee bit jealous. If the BBC did indeed trick their way into gaining more information than they had, then that's an error, but not of theirs. It's fairly basic tactic to find out what the other side knows.

The case has, at the moment, more or less changed the law. It should be looked at. The BBC must challenge it.

The Judge will have known he was dealing with a hot potato
If he'd have sided with the BBC it would have opened the doors for anyone in future to be subject to a helicoper coverage of a police raid.

By sending it this way it's back in the Beebs Court to sort out.

[eccles]

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.

The allegations were historic, and you have to wonder what they'd expect to find after all this time, especially after all the other celebs from that era getting their collar felt.

[The Surveyor]

eldar said:

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.

No, the point was that all this was created by the allegation, not by the Police or the BBC.

I don't want a press who are gagged into any investigative journalism, or who won't chase for a scoop for fear of being fined when somebody else's allegation proves to carry some doubt. We want to see mug-shots of suspects shown on Crimewatch and the News to help solve crimes without worry that the accused would seek to protect their privacy and silence the BBC.

[pavarotti1980]

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.

Well not all of his worldly possessions, as while they were searching his UK property he was sat in his Portugese property. So you could assume that he has a lot of worldly possession in there too as iot appears he spends a lot of time there.

[FiF]

Digga said:

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.

A close relative was in and out of Jimmy's in Leeds in the 70s and 80s. Her kids were very carefully instructed not to go near or have anything whatsoever to do with Savile, they, the nurses, doctors and admin staff knew he was, "not a nice man" being what they told the kids. Her hubby, a senior police officer, had worked with others who had been warned off pursuing investigations.

Something stank then and still does.

Nevertheless what happened to Cliff was not acceptable, the real original problem culprit was within Yewtree or somehow had access to that information. SYP were put between a rock and a hard place, but imo should not have cooperated with the BBC as they did, who should have been told to go screw themselves. The beeb behaved disgracefully and deserve to be made to pay for that.

[V8 Fettler]

The media could try reporting the news in a measured style, not with the current excessive dramatisation (Chris Morris!).

[NDA]

The Surveyor said:

No, the point was that all this was created by the allegation, not by the Police or the BBC.

I don't want a press who are gagged into any investigative journalism, or who won't chase for a scoop for fear of being fined when somebody else's allegation proves to carry some doubt. We want to see mug-shots of suspects shown on Crimewatch and the News to help solve crimes without worry that the accused would seek to protect their privacy and silence the BBC.

Whilst I agree, by and large, with your view, I cannot accept that fishing expeditions by the Police are disclosed to the press and then a man's reputation is subsequently ruined. This is not 'press freedom' it is an attempt to sell more papers or attract more viewers.

I could accuse you of touching my bottom in 1994 (we've never met) and then, following your logic, you'd be vilified in the press, whilst I remained anonymous. It would be far better to wait until someone is charged before tipping off the press.

[55palfers]

Looks like our esteemed Parliamentarians have ensured they won't get a mention in the event of an investigation into their conduct.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5972519/MP...

Nice one. Now make it apply to the whole country.

I'm not holding my breath, no wonder they're all mostly held in contempt!

[Derek Smith]

NDA said:

The Surveyor said:

No, the point was that all this was created by the allegation, not by the Police or the BBC.

I don't want a press who are gagged into any investigative journalism, or who won't chase for a scoop for fear of being fined when somebody else's allegation proves to carry some doubt. We want to see mug-shots of suspects shown on Crimewatch and the News to help solve crimes without worry that the accused would seek to protect their privacy and silence the BBC.

Whilst I agree, by and large, with your view, I cannot accept that fishing expeditions by the Police are disclosed to the press and then a man's reputation is subsequently ruined. This is not 'press freedom' it is an attempt to sell more papers or attract more viewers.

I could accuse you of touching my bottom in 1994 (we've never met) and then, following your logic, you'd be vilified in the press, whilst I remained anonymous. It would be far better to wait until someone is charged before tipping off the press.

We need a free press, the fourth estate. The media in this country is one of the most regulated in Europe. Part of the reason is the Murdoch//Dacre attitude to news but that is no excuse. We should be fighting to reduce the constraints rather than increase them.

There must be laws of course, and they should give a certain degree of protection to individuals but democracy doesn't come cheap. Richards has been given compensation.

I'm ex police but I'm sure in my mind that restrictions on reporting of what the police are doing is not the best way of going about ensuring that we are well policed. Policing needs oversight and the laws should ensure that information as to what they do is available to all.

My feeling is that in every police station there should be a journalist, with the ability to go into briefings and such. We had one in Brighton and I reckoned that it was a way of showing those we policed that we weren't afraid of indpendant oversight. Local papers can't afford to write off a member of staff to that extent nowadays, so it is down to ITN, BBC News and even Sky to take the role.

[NDA]

Derek Smith said:

I'm ex police but I'm sure in my mind that restrictions on reporting of what the police are doing is not the best way of going about ensuring that we are well policed. Policing needs oversight and the laws should ensure that information as to what they do is available to all.

I've worked in the media industry all my life... newspapers, news magazines.... The primary function is to sell more copies and then charge more for advertising. I am not convinced that newspapers offer the best impartial oversight - it's not what they're there for.

Is dragging an innocent man's reputation through the dirt a worthwhile byproduct of policing the Police?

[JuniorD]

NDA said:

Derek Smith said:

I'm ex police but I'm sure in my mind that restrictions on reporting of what the police are doing is not the best way of going about ensuring that we are well policed. Policing needs oversight and the laws should ensure that information as to what they do is available to all.

I've worked in the media industry all my life... newspapers, news magazines.... The primary function is to sell more copies and then charge more for advertising. I am not convinced that newspapers offer the best impartial oversight - it's not what they're there for.

Is dragging an innocent man's reputation through the dirt a worthwhile byproduct of policing the Police?

And like in any industry, there are some journalists/media outlets who are utter sts, with an agenda.

I don't know what the solution is, but I have little faith and trust in much of the popular media, so if we are to have full press freedom, there needs to be a very very heavy axe to fall on their heads for when they abuse their freedom

[Thorodin]

The thing about police, CPS, and the media comes basically down to a matter of trust.

Trust in the responsibilities, the duties, the unquestionable adherence to the law and knowledge that all relevant information is duly presented, whatever the perceived effect it may have in any prosecution. With details now revealed about the shocking number of failures to disclose relevant information by the CPS illustrates how much of a shortfall there is in the CPS.

The collusion between the police and the media (BBC) does the same for those two presumed august bodies. The police and the CPS have a lawful duty to the State and through that to the public.

The media is another thing. Nobody in their right mind trusts any section of it. It's not known as Grub Street for nothing.

The penalties for breaking the trustworthiness we are entitled to expect from the police and CPS are nowhere near strong enough. We are poorly served by these institutions and serious overhaul is needed.


When an accusation is made against an individual it should not be revealed under any circumstances by the police. Following arrest, questioning and charging is the time for public knowledge, but by the CPS - not the police. Their job is done.

[The Surveyor]

NDA said:

The Surveyor said:

No, the point was that all this was created by the allegation, not by the Police or the BBC.

I don't want a press who are gagged into any investigative journalism, or who won't chase for a scoop for fear of being fined when somebody else's allegation proves to carry some doubt. We want to see mug-shots of suspects shown on Crimewatch and the News to help solve crimes without worry that the accused would seek to protect their privacy and silence the BBC.

Whilst I agree, by and large, with your view, I cannot accept that fishing expeditions by the Police are disclosed to the press and then a man's reputation is subsequently ruined. This is not 'press freedom' it is an attempt to sell more papers or attract more viewers.

I could accuse you of touching my bottom in 1994 (we've never met) and then, following your logic, you'd be vilified in the press, whilst I remained anonymous. It would be far better to wait until someone is charged before tipping off the press.

You miss the point, it wasn't some random making an allegation against Sir Cliff that the BBC reported, it was an historic child abuse allegation that the Police were investigating, an allegation that the Police had given sufficient gravitas to follow-up and gain a search warrant, an allegation that justified a full search of Sir Cliffs house. The BBC were just reporting on that search and investigation, in the same way that they had reported the allegations against Jimmy Savile (who also was never charged, and who under these new rules would be considered 100% innocent !).

The BBC were not reporting on the equivalent of me touching you 24 years ago (which never happened BTW..) they were reporting on a live and on-going police investigation.

[Thorodin]

The Surveyor said:

You miss the point, it wasn't some random making an allegation against Sir Cliff that the BBC reported, it was an historic child abuse allegation that the Police were investigating, an allegation that the Police had given sufficient gravitas to follow-up and gain a search warrant, an allegation that justified a full search of Sir Cliffs house. The BBC were just reporting on that search and investigation, in the same way that they had reported the allegations against Jimmy Savile (who also was never charged, and who under these new rules would be considered 100% innocent !).

The BBC were not reporting on the equivalent of me touching you 24 years ago (which never happened BTW..) they were reporting on a live and on-going police investigation.

You seem to be saying the warrant was issued solely on the strength of the accusation.

The filmed search was the first. The only, apparent, 'witness' was the accuser and no investigation was made to back it up. Nothing in the police searches was discovered that supported the allegation. Even the mantra of 'enabling other victims to feel confident enough to come forward' failed to produce any further evidence. The whole thing was a travesty and underlines the mysterious hostility the BBC for some reason had towards CR for many years.

[The Surveyor]

Thorodin said:

You seem to be saying the warrant was issued solely on the strength of the accusation.

The filmed search was the first. The only, apparent, 'witness' was the accuser and no investigation was made to back it up. Nothing in the police searches was discovered that supported the allegation. Even the mantra of 'enabling other victims to feel confident enough to come forward' failed to produce any further evidence. The whole thing was a travesty and underlines the mysterious hostility the BBC for some reason had towards CR for many years.

The Police had enough evidence and reason to get a warrant for the search of the house. The BBC didn't issue the search warrant, they simply reported on what was happening.

I think we are all comfortable that Sir Cliff is innocent and there was no substance to the allegation, but the point was that the press should be free to report on events that are happening even if they have to report afterwards that nothing came of the search.

[Thorodin]

The Surveyor said:

The Police had enough evidence and reason to get a warrant for the search of the house. The BBC didn't issue the search warrant, they simply reported on what was happening.

I think we are all comfortable that Sir Cliff is innocent and there was no substance to the allegation, but the point was that the press should be free to report on events that are happening even if they have to report afterwards that nothing came of the search.

Thanks for that! I do get all the salient points. It's the business about having enough evidence (or not) for the warrant from the CPS on the basis of one unsupported historic allegation. Then, it's the point about the collusion (for whatever reason) between police and BBC. Then, it's the point about ferocious exposure before even questioning let alone arrest, with no supportive evidence or witness testimony whatsoever .

I wonder if the readiness to pay up by both the police and the BBC, with the threat of much greater sums to follow. is in the hope of limited examination of motives and future relations between the two. A most discreditable affair with only the one innocent party. He walks away a free man, his reputation scarred but restored and with damaged health. How will 'damages' cover that? Police and CPS and BBC slide away with the public paying huge sums for their inadequacies. Pension pots should be raided to zero.