Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
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.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.
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.
So much seems to come down to only 'OK, we got it wrong. This time. But it was all in the rules as we see them. We will learn lessons. In the meantime here is a lump of public money and nobody will be censured. Nobody will lose seniority or career prospects. Bye'.
What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
Vipers said:
The Surveyor said:
Thorodin said:
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.
But the damage is done, people's reputations are ruined.edit, not sure whats gone on with the quote there, sorry if ive quoted someone else>????
Edited by Cupramax on Friday 20th July 16:20
Thorodin said:
So much seems to come down to only 'OK, we got it wrong. This time. But it was all in the rules as we see them. We will learn lessons. In the meantime here is a lump of public money and nobody will be censured. Nobody will lose seniority or career prospects. Bye'.
What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
A doughy eyed PR professional will be wheeled out looking all forlorn telling us that lessons will be learned, etc. Rinse and repeat...What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
Thorodin said:
So much seems to come down to only 'OK, we got it wrong. This time. But it was all in the rules as we see them. We will learn lessons. In the meantime here is a lump of public money and nobody will be censured. Nobody will lose seniority or career prospects. Bye'.
What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
It's a point of view of course. What the hell does the money do in consideration for the damage to a blameless life? He is a multi millionaire, it's back pocket money to him. If his history is anything to go by, he'll give it all to charity. Then some more. Meanwhile those trendy reptiles at the BBC and leaky coppers and a mealy-mouthed CPS with serious failings continue to bleed the public purse with all of them bleating for yet more 'funding'.
The BBC seemed to be doing what journalists do; reporting stuff. The leak may or may not have come via the police. Indeed, the very nature of the 'leak' has been brought into question. The BBC would have been praised if the informations the police went by were substantiated.
However, they were not.
It seems you want to punish a particular police officer for responding to complaints from the public. OK, so what should they have done? Sat on their hands until further information became available? That's what the police have been criticised for, in court and in the media (not to mention on forums of course) for doing just that. However, in those cases it wasn't a famous person so that, I assume, made it all right.
There's a frequent poster of anti police police diatribes on here who always comes up with the criticism of the phrase 'lessons will be learned'. In this case it would appear that the police did indeed learn lessons from these earlier cases. Police officers were told, ordered in fact, to believe complainants. The police, it would appear, in this case did exactly as they were told. You want someone punished for that? Seems a wee bit harsh to me. After all, the police have an obligation in law to conform to a lawful order.
I'm expecting any moment for a HomSec to criticise the police for believing complainants. That will remain on file, right up until the HomSec, and no doubt forum contributors, point out that the complainant should have been believed and that heads should roll. Oh, and pensions should should be confiscated. Always with the pensions - is there something you'd like to talk about?
The police got it right, it would appear, according to their orders. Then orders of course, as they will, no doubt, be changed; probably have been changed.
By the way, many police officers criticised the directive to believe the complainants in such cases. They were ignored. Should they be promoted, and have their pensions increased?
I'm not sure there has been any evidence brought forward that the CPS were frightened of telling the truth, but then it is possible I missed that. Care to elucidate?
Vipers said:
But the damage is done, people's reputations are ruined.
Arent we getting to the point now where peoples home being raided and plastered across the press is so common place that it has minimal impact on reputations? Just need a few more and there'll be no impact. Some people might start complaining they havent been raided and havent received any press.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.
I am not sure I've missed the point... I realise the BBC were 'merely reporting', but that is where the damage is done.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.
The tabloids trashed him, went into overdrive - and yet he was entirely innocent. "Cliff In Child Sex Shock' - the most dreadful accusations. Surely it would be better to hold these breathless headlines until someone has been arrested and charged? That is the point.
Once the Police act in concert with news outlets releasing details of innocent individuals (they are innocent until found guilty), then the newspapers have a field day - amplifying innuendos in the most damaging way.
We have all seen men accused of rape being hauled through the media circus and subsequently found innocent. Christopher Jeffries was another example of someone pretty much found guilty by the tabloids.
Derek Smith said:
See above.
This?Derek Smith said:
It's a point of view of course.
The BBC seemed to be doing what journalists do; reporting stuff. The leak may or may not have come via the police. Indeed, the very nature of the 'leak' has been brought into question. The BBC would have been praised if the informations the police went by were substantiated.
However, they were not.
You also mention missing evidence, did you miss this?The BBC seemed to be doing what journalists do; reporting stuff. The leak may or may not have come via the police. Indeed, the very nature of the 'leak' has been brought into question. The BBC would have been praised if the informations the police went by were substantiated.
However, they were not.
https://news.sky.com/story/officer-reveals-why-he-...
One of the media articles covering this said:
A retired police officer who gave a BBC reporter information about a raid on Sir Cliff Richard's house has told a court that he felt "forced" to tell him about the search.
Has this chap committed perjury? Are you informing the authorities with your own evidence at hand?loose cannon said:
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 Report
And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
That's not a reason to subject someone to trial by television, for goodness' sake! "he's weird so who cares if we fAnd whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
k his life up?" REALLY?Pothole said:
loose cannon said:
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 Report
And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
That's not a reason to subject someone to trial by television, for goodness' sake! "he's weird so who cares if we fAnd whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
k his life up?" REALLY?
See also under 'Bristol landlord'.
turbobloke said:
Pothole said:
loose cannon said:
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 Report
And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
That's not a reason to subject someone to trial by television, for goodness' sake! "he's weird so who cares if we fAnd whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
k his life up?" REALLY?See also under 'Bristol landlord'.
Derek Smith said:
It's a point of view of course.
The BBC seemed to be doing what journalists do; reporting stuff. The leak may or may not have come via the police. Indeed, the very nature of the 'leak' has been brought into question. The BBC would have been praised if the informations the police went by were substantiated.
However, they were not.
It seems you want to punish a particular police officer for responding to complaints from the public. OK, so what should they have done? Sat on their hands until further information became available? That's what the police have been criticised for, in court and in the media (not to mention on forums of course) for doing just that. However, in those cases it wasn't a famous person so that, I assume, made it all right.
There's a frequent poster of anti police police diatribes on here who always comes up with the criticism of the phrase 'lessons will be learned'. In this case it would appear that the police did indeed learn lessons from these earlier cases. Police officers were told, ordered in fact, to believe complainants. The police, it would appear, in this case did exactly as they were told. You want someone punished for that? Seems a wee bit harsh to me. After all, the police have an obligation in law to conform to a lawful order.
I'm expecting any moment for a HomSec to criticise the police for believing complainants. That will remain on file, right up until the HomSec, and no doubt forum contributors, point out that the complainant should have been believed and that heads should roll. Oh, and pensions should should be confiscated. Always with the pensions - is there something you'd like to talk about?
The police got it right, it would appear, according to their orders. Then orders of course, as they will, no doubt, be changed; probably have been changed.
By the way, many police officers criticised the directive to believe the complainants in such cases. They were ignored. Should they be promoted, and have their pensions increased?
I'm not sure there has been any evidence brought forward that the CPS were frightened of telling the truth, but then it is possible I missed that. Care to elucidate?
Of course it's a point of view. Mine, for one. Earlier posts from me (have you bothered?) indicate my sorrow for "unconnected coppers" and support for "rank and file coppers" having to toe the line because of senior's instructions. I've been there, chummy. And there is no doubt a copper was in extra-ordinary collusion with the BBC journalist. (Full speech marks because they are the actual words I have used).The BBC seemed to be doing what journalists do; reporting stuff. The leak may or may not have come via the police. Indeed, the very nature of the 'leak' has been brought into question. The BBC would have been praised if the informations the police went by were substantiated.
However, they were not.
It seems you want to punish a particular police officer for responding to complaints from the public. OK, so what should they have done? Sat on their hands until further information became available? That's what the police have been criticised for, in court and in the media (not to mention on forums of course) for doing just that. However, in those cases it wasn't a famous person so that, I assume, made it all right.
There's a frequent poster of anti police police diatribes on here who always comes up with the criticism of the phrase 'lessons will be learned'. In this case it would appear that the police did indeed learn lessons from these earlier cases. Police officers were told, ordered in fact, to believe complainants. The police, it would appear, in this case did exactly as they were told. You want someone punished for that? Seems a wee bit harsh to me. After all, the police have an obligation in law to conform to a lawful order.
I'm expecting any moment for a HomSec to criticise the police for believing complainants. That will remain on file, right up until the HomSec, and no doubt forum contributors, point out that the complainant should have been believed and that heads should roll. Oh, and pensions should should be confiscated. Always with the pensions - is there something you'd like to talk about?
The police got it right, it would appear, according to their orders. Then orders of course, as they will, no doubt, be changed; probably have been changed.
By the way, many police officers criticised the directive to believe the complainants in such cases. They were ignored. Should they be promoted, and have their pensions increased?
I'm not sure there has been any evidence brought forward that the CPS were frightened of telling the truth, but then it is possible I missed that. Care to elucidate?
I don't guess or come from a fraternal base in my opinions, I study what facts I can mine from a variety of reputable sources. Your imputations are becoming a bore, take a breather DS. I'm not 'out to punish' anyone that is ethical, truthful or sincere. I'm not malicious, just disappointed. Just feel the need to criticise the liars and mealy-mouthed defendants of the status quo who blindly refuse to accept what is obvious and beyond contradiction - at least according to the courts. The what-iffery in your reply is another disappointment. Not in the official behaviour of the participants but in your attempt to divert the thrust of what everyone (or most) can see as plain as a blue lantern.
Pothole said:
turbobloke said:
Pothole said:
loose cannon said:
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 Report
And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
That's not a reason to subject someone to trial by television, for goodness' sake! "he's weird so who cares if we fAnd whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
k his life up?" REALLY?See also under 'Bristol landlord'.
I hope there are some parrots flying
He was just an ordinary guy caught up in something not of his making
he could easily have ended up in the prove your innocence thread
saaby93 said:
Pothole said:
turbobloke said:
Pothole said:
loose cannon said:
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 Report
And whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
That's not a reason to subject someone to trial by television, for goodness' sake! "he's weird so who cares if we fAnd whenever I see a him on telly wobbling his leg or lifting his lip I want to throw something at the tv
k his life up?" REALLY?See also under 'Bristol landlord'.
I hope there are some parrots flying
He was just an ordinary guy caught up in something not of his making
he could easily have ended up in the prove your innocence thread
So much so, he was able to sue no fewer than eight newspapers for substantial damages.
dandarez said:
Agree. He was, face it, a total innocent not a weirdo, he had a name after the event and before (Christopher Jefferies) and awful assumptions because of his looks meant he was caught up in a frenzy of press speculation and utterly dreadful accusations.
So much so, he was able to sue no fewer than eight newspapers for substantial damages.
-So much so, he was able to sue no fewer than eight newspapers for substantial damages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yea...
Jefferies has since given his account of what happened, and revealed to the press in 2014 the mental strain the investigation had on his life for over two months. Jefferies said: "At the time it felt as if the police were deliberately playing a game - promising the ordeal would soon be over and then finding it necessary to prolong the wait. It was a form of psychological torture. At such times the mind plays tricks, and one starts to believe that perhaps one is a criminal without knowing it and that, as in some Kafkaesque nightmare, guilt has been pre-ordained and the sentence is inescapable
Raygun said:
Does anybody know why the BBC decided Cliff was public enemy number 1? Back in the day Cliff seemed to always be on the BBC. I know they went all cool and trendy and decided they wasn't playing anymore of his records. They're so cool at the BBC,lol.
Because every pop star/ex dj over a certain age is guaranteed to be a kiddie fondler now. Once they’d found out what Savile has been up to in the name of the BBC they had to over compensate in the other direction, to make up for the immense coverup that had gone on previously, hence the slightest allegation of anything towards any male with a pulse over 60 or so was guaranteed to be a Paedo, tell me I’m wrong. 
Cupramax said:
Raygun said:
Does anybody know why the BBC decided Cliff was public enemy number 1? Back in the day Cliff seemed to always be on the BBC. I know they went all cool and trendy and decided they wasn't playing anymore of his records. They're so cool at the BBC,lol.
Because every pop star/ex dj over a certain age is guaranteed to be a kiddie fondler now. Once they’d found out what Savile has been up to in the name of the BBC they had to over compensate in the other direction, to make up for the immense coverup that had gone on previously, hence the slightest allegation of anything towards any male with a pulse over 60 or so was guaranteed to be a Paedo, tell me I’m wrong. I can see the Beeb getting a bit twitchy over that....
Raygun said:
I know they went all cool and trendy and decided they wasn't playing anymore of his records. They're so cool at the BBC,lol.
Tony Blackburn was playing Cliff last night on Radio 2. Given his own run in with the Beeb, I'm sort of surprised he didn't do an hour-long Cliff special
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff