Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Thorodin said:
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).
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.
I am deeply indebted to your condescension regarding "unconnected coppers" although I'm not sure it needed saying or what relevance it has to the points I raised. 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.
I'll ignore the personal attacks. They too are irrelevant, and not particularly inspiring.
You suggest you have facts; why did you state that CPS were afraid to say what really went on? Why are the defenders of the status quo, whoever they are, also afraid?
I'm not sure you totally understand what the court's decision amounts to. Indeed, it is obviously not beyond reversal.
I'm just pointing out that a/ the BBC went after what all news outlets search for, a scoop, b/ that the nature and source of the leak has not been established, c/ that the police were following orders, from the government and not 'senior officers' as you seem to suggest, with regards believing the complainant in such cases.
You have 'no doubt' as to the source of the leak, but suffer, like the rest of us, from lack of information and, despite your suggestion to the contrary, facts.
Shall we now keep the disagreement polite and impersonal?
dandarez said:
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.
I saw him later in an interview. He had a normal hair cut (died dark) and he came across as a perfectly normal, articulate person.
Just shows how the press can do terrible things to a person's image. Never forget the press are not in the business of finding the truth, they are in the business of selling stories to the public.
The exception is the BBC which doesn't have to sell anything. They should be reporting facts, not speculation.
XCP said:
I thought they were reporting facts, all be it in a dramatic fashion. The raid took place did it not?
This is at the nub of the issue. You are correct - but there are some big 'howevers' to add.Tipping off the BBC so that Richard's flat could be filmed, live on TV. Immoral?
Is it right that someone accused (not charged) of a crime should be named, blamed and shamed in the media. People are supposedly innocent until proven guilty.
Let's say that your son is accused of rape whilst he's at college - a completely spurious accusation, he's entirely innocent. However, the Police are, of course, obliged to investigate. But that investigation is reported in the local press, his picture is all over the papers and the internet.... is that useful for the investigation? Is it fair on the innocently accused young man? Will it change his life by irreparably damaging his reputation?
It is disingenuous for the BBC (or anyone) to hide behind the 'merely reporting' argument. It's a bit like a cruel child burning ants with a magnifying glass "I was only looking at them"....
These investigations definitely hang around after the victim has been found innocent or not been found guilty.
As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
El stovey said:
These investigations definitely hang around after the victim has been found innocent or not been found guilty.
As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
Thing is though, the establishment have been protecting perpetrators of very nasty crimes for decades; Cyril SMith, Thorpe, Savile. And the rest of the yewtree lot who were off limits before the climate changed, and a speck of sunlight was allowed.As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
I don't trust anyone. I feel like Mac at the end of the Thing
Halb said:
Thing is though, the establishment have been protecting perpetrators of very nasty crimes for decades; Cyril SMith, Thorpe, Savile.
It wasnt just 'the establishment' whoever they areOrdinary folk too saw that Savile was having late night visitors but if that's what they wanted, was there any harm in it.
One of the things that happened was that boundaries changed so that what seemed once sort of acceptable turned into definitely not acceptable.
No evidence of course that CR was in the same boat - he doesn't seem to have had any visitors!
ordinary folk usually get ignored, stepped on or told to shut up and forget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment#Un...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment#Un...
Derek Smith said:
1 I am deeply indebted to your condescension regarding "unconnected coppers" although I'm not sure it needed saying or what relevance it has to the points I raised.
2 I'll ignore the personal attacks. They too are irrelevant, and not particularly inspiring.
3 You suggest you have facts; why did you state that CPS were afraid to say what really went on? Why are the defenders of the status quo, whoever they are, also afraid?
4 I'm not sure you totally understand what the court's decision amounts to. Indeed, it is obviously not beyond reversal.
5 I'm just pointing out that a/ the BBC went after what all news outlets search for, a scoop, b/ that the nature and source of the leak has not been established, c/ that the police were following orders, from the government and not 'senior officers' as you seem to suggest, with regards believing the complainant in such cases.
6 You have 'no doubt' as to the source of the leak, but suffer, like the rest of us, from lack of information and, despite your suggestion to the contrary, facts.
7 Shall we now keep the disagreement polite and impersonal?
1. I wasn’t in the least ‘condescending’. I was indicating I had previously expressed sympathy for lower ranks being ordered to do things beyond duty and how some are less disciplined. A fact you had apparently missed in earlier posts. Again, you attempt to divert attention.2 I'll ignore the personal attacks. They too are irrelevant, and not particularly inspiring.
3 You suggest you have facts; why did you state that CPS were afraid to say what really went on? Why are the defenders of the status quo, whoever they are, also afraid?
4 I'm not sure you totally understand what the court's decision amounts to. Indeed, it is obviously not beyond reversal.
5 I'm just pointing out that a/ the BBC went after what all news outlets search for, a scoop, b/ that the nature and source of the leak has not been established, c/ that the police were following orders, from the government and not 'senior officers' as you seem to suggest, with regards believing the complainant in such cases.
6 You have 'no doubt' as to the source of the leak, but suffer, like the rest of us, from lack of information and, despite your suggestion to the contrary, facts.
7 Shall we now keep the disagreement polite and impersonal?
2. I was responding to your disparaging responses to my post, I was replying to your post – not attacking you. The victim mentality is evident.
3. I did not state the CPS was afraid of anything. I implied they were wrong so far as disclosure, and lack of it, was involved and failing in their duty. My reference to ‘defenders of the status quo’ concerned insiders who set great store by their standing in legislative power groups. In other words, Establishment.
4. You seem unsure about a lot of things. Have you actually read the judgement?
5. The nature and source has been established, well enough for the court to come to a judgement. I used the term ‘seniors’ in that sentence, not ‘officers’. Please refrain from misquoting or de-contextualising and adding extraneous matters to divert. For instance, the post to which you replied had no mention of a complainant’s veracity.
6. I regard court records and judgements as tantamount to an acceptance of the facts until subsequent appeal reverses. What do you do? If the court accepts witness statements as facts that’s good enough for me.
7. Happy to be polite and impersonal. And if I think a post is horribly misleading and unfair I retain the right to object. Once again, I was replying to the post, not attacking you personally. However, you do seem to search for underlying or hidden meaning in the written word. We are not trying to be clever or artistic, we are just commenting with no ulterior motive other than the obvious. HTH.
El stovey said:
These investigations definitely hang around after the victim has been found innocent or not been found guilty.
As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
But Mr Richard emerges without a stain on his character and completely vindicated. He wasn't even arrested. He is a totally innocent man.As much as I try to be open minded, there is still a small part of me that suspects the police and media and people who knew stuff, had something on Clifff Richard before doing all this.
It’s completely wrong of me to think this I know but it does show how mud sticks.
If what the court finds, as expressed in the judgement, is that which is to be taken as the facts of the case, personally I find it significant that Mr Justice Mann used such phrases concerning the police witnesses as " clear and reliable witness whose evidence was credible and, ultimately, very materially corroborated." and "she was a careful and reliable witness, and an honest one." and "He was a careful witness whose evidence can generally be accepted." plus "I consider him to have been a reliable witness on all relevant topics" also "She was a straightforward and credible witness."
For the BBC, well we get, "he was capable of letting his enthusiasm get the better of him in pursuit of what he thought was a good story so that he could twist matters in a way that could be described as dishonest in order to pursue his story. Thus in the present case, as will appear, he was happy for SYP to be under the false impression that he had a story to broadcast and was in a position to broadcast
it when that was not true; and he was also prepared to give another false impression to Miss Goodwin," with others being described as "I found various aspects of his evidence unsatisfactory, which is significant in this case....evidence of his post-search conversation was particularly unsatisfactory. The totality of his evidence needs to be approached with caution." or " unduly defensive, and to a degree evasive, in much of his
evidence, particularly in relation to post-search email traffic.... because some of that traffic was significantly inconsistent with the BBC’s case. I regret that I felt I could not always rely on him as a reliable witness." not to mention "overly guarded when the content of certain parts of the BBC’s Defence (on which he signed the statement of truth) were compared with his emails, almost wilfully failing to acknowledge inconsistencies and refusing to acknowledge the plain effect of some of
the emails in the case." The other two BBC witnesses were regarded as credible and reliable, albeit minor players.
No apologies for the selected quotes, rather telling though.
SYP were deceived, put in a difficult position. Still think they should have told the Beeb to sod off and not colluded with the timing of the raid. Hindsight makes it easy.
For the BBC, well we get, "he was capable of letting his enthusiasm get the better of him in pursuit of what he thought was a good story so that he could twist matters in a way that could be described as dishonest in order to pursue his story. Thus in the present case, as will appear, he was happy for SYP to be under the false impression that he had a story to broadcast and was in a position to broadcast
it when that was not true; and he was also prepared to give another false impression to Miss Goodwin," with others being described as "I found various aspects of his evidence unsatisfactory, which is significant in this case....evidence of his post-search conversation was particularly unsatisfactory. The totality of his evidence needs to be approached with caution." or " unduly defensive, and to a degree evasive, in much of his
evidence, particularly in relation to post-search email traffic.... because some of that traffic was significantly inconsistent with the BBC’s case. I regret that I felt I could not always rely on him as a reliable witness." not to mention "overly guarded when the content of certain parts of the BBC’s Defence (on which he signed the statement of truth) were compared with his emails, almost wilfully failing to acknowledge inconsistencies and refusing to acknowledge the plain effect of some of
the emails in the case." The other two BBC witnesses were regarded as credible and reliable, albeit minor players.
No apologies for the selected quotes, rather telling though.
SYP were deceived, put in a difficult position. Still think they should have told the Beeb to sod off and not colluded with the timing of the raid. Hindsight makes it easy.
FiF said:
SYP were deceived, put in a difficult position. Still think they should have told the Beeb to sod off and not colluded with the timing of the raid. Hindsight makes it easy.
My thought is that an experienced police officer should not have been taken in by what would appear to be a fishing expedition. The first thing any bobby should do is establish the level of knowledge of the opposition in such matters.As you say, though, it is easy in hindsight and we all make mistakes, but even so . . .
Would an experienced DS have been taken in?
dandarez said:
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.
Pothole said:
dandarez said:
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.
. I think your find it was the bbc and the police that put him through the coals not me, do you not think he’s a bit weird then ? He is certainly very strange compared to what I would call a normal lifestyle
Edited by loose cannon on Sunday 22 July 10:31
XCP said:
I thought they were reporting facts, all be it in a dramatic fashion. The raid took place did it not?
If any of the facts were untrue, he would have sued for libel, he didn't, he sued for invasion of privacy.To be an invasion of privacy the fact are by implication true.
The question should be what are the fact, now camouflaged by all this noise.
In the past celeb used libel laws to silence critics, but this had a flaw when the facts were true, they now have a new shield, privacy that can be used to suppress true things, despite courting publicity at every other turn.
loose cannon said:
Haha nice try did I say he deserved anything . I think your find it was the bbc and the police that put him through the coals not me, do you not think he’s a bit weird then ?
He is certainly very strange compared to what I would call a normal lifestyle
Why do you single out the BBC? I seem to recall it was the red tops that went to town on him. . I think your find it was the bbc and the police that put him through the coals not me, do you not think he’s a bit weird then ? He is certainly very strange compared to what I would call a normal lifestyle
4x4Tyke said:
XCP said:
I thought they were reporting facts, all be it in a dramatic fashion. The raid took place did it not?
If any of the facts were untrue, he would have sued for libel, he didn't, he sued for invasion of privacy.To be an invasion of privacy the fact are by implication true.
The question should be what are the fact, now camouflaged by all this noise.
In the past celeb used libel laws to silence critics, but this had a flaw when the facts were true, they now have a new shield, privacy that can be used to suppress true things, despite courting publicity at every other turn.
As I read it, accusation were made, no evidence found, case dropped but the damage to his reputation is still there as many will still say "no smoke without fire"
We need anonymity for accused until charged at very least and preferably until after any case, unless there is a huge reason decided by a judge as to why that should not be the case.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff