Cliff Richard Going for it

Good for him, go after the gutter press next.
 
no skellies in his cupbord.......
much..............

lives with his friend the gay priest has done for donkies years in seperate rooms like/

...hummmmmm.....
 
You have to ask at what level did somebody in South Yorkshire Police think it was a good idea to inform the BBC. You also have to question the amount of money the BBC spent on covering this (hiring of helicopter etc)
 
Good luck to him!

With a lot of these historic cases there's a bit element of guilty before proven innocent which is in complete contradiction to the way the law should work.

IMO until these types of allegations have been substantiated the accused should remain anonymous (as far as it is practical to do so).

There was a case locally where a woman accused a guy of rape, his name got splashed all over the papers. He was harassed/attacked in his own home and was forced to move on.

Later the woman admitted she'd made the whole thing up to try and get closer to her estranged Mum :jawdrop:

Even when completely exonerated, the accused was forced to live in a tent in some local woodland and people still harass and even defecate in his tent :eek:

It's a difficult balance but in these situation but IMO it's not being balanced correctly at the moment
 
munch said:
You have to ask at what level did somebody in South Yorkshire Police think it was a good idea to inform the BBC. You also have to question the amount of money the BBC spent on covering this (hiring of helicopter etc)
Click to expand...
The story I heard is that the Beeb got wind of the investigation and threatened to publish early if they weren't invited to participate in the raid.
 
Whilst I agree with him to a point, sadly they only people who will be affected by this are the public of South Yorkshire. The moron(s) in the force who leaked it won't suffer. He'll get however many £100k or £m's and this will come from the budget of one of the 'poorest' forces nationally. I'm sure when some old dear can't get a cop at 0300 as someone is breaking in will be heartened by the news at least Sir Cliff was vindicated.
 
Llamaman said:
The story I heard is that the Beeb got wind of the investigation and threatened to publish early if they weren't invited to participate in the raid.
Click to expand...

Thats' right. Someone leaked it, and the SYP's hand was forced by the BBC as they said if they weren't invited they'd run the story prior to the raid. For once it isn't an organisational failing by SYP - more one individual and then the BBC.
 
Llamaman said:
The story I heard is that the Beeb got wind of the investigation and threatened to publish early if they weren't invited to participate in the raid.
Click to expand...

More like if they wern't invited to cause trouble for the poor man, hope he wins and sue's their nasty pants off these bullie's for behaving in such a vile manner.
 
Am I the only one who thinks it very possible that someone, probably at the BBC, wants to meet him in court?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I hope he wins a defamation case, and is awarded very little punitive damages.
 
viv1969 said:
I hope he wins a defamation case, and is awarded very little punitive damages.
Click to expand...
To be fair, in British law that'd be correct.

I'm guessing that he hasn't lost a single day of work due to this, his fans still think he's celibate and the rest of us still believe there's more to his lifestyle than his obviously closeted sexuality.
 
Phil V said:
To be fair, in British law that'd be correct.

I'm guessing that he hasn't lost a single day of work due to this, his fans still think he's celibate and the rest of us still believe there's more to his lifestyle than his obviously closeted sexuality.
Click to expand...

So what if he's gay? Who's business is it, except his and any partner he may have?
 
Dave1 said:
So what if he's gay? Who's business is it, except his and any partner he may have?
Click to expand...
Get a grip!

I don't care one way or another, however many of his fans refuse to see that it's true and he refuses to admit it.

Clearly him refusing to admit his sexuality because it'd hurt his reputation amongst his fan base (who are largely conservative) is a bit hypocritical.
 
viv1969 said:
I hope he wins a defamation case, and is awarded very little punitive damages.
Click to expand...
Agreed

It is not about money but principle. I doubt he is short of money but, sadly, if/when he wins, there will still be many who will ignore the result.
 
Jimmy Saville wasn't taken to court for sex offences and i think we know he was guilty don't we? I don't know whether Cliff Richard is or isn't guilty but isn't it amazing how rich and powerful people can go after the coppers and BBC because they can afford to when i bet the man mentioned above who was accused of rape is left in bits with nobody to help him because he's not rich. As for the BBC going after sex offenders after what they've covered up, jeez you couldn't make it up. Did Prince Andrew sue for defamation after he was accused of unlawful sex with a minor? That's a genuine question. I would assume the Palace wouldn't take too kindly to accusations like these IF they are false.
 
I feel he's a wrong'un but of course innocent until proven guilty and all that.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Get a grip!

I don't care one way or another, however many of his fans refuse to see that it's true and he refuses to admit it.

Clearly him refusing to admit his sexuality because it'd hurt his reputation amongst his fan base (who are largely conservative) is a bit hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Your post would seem to show you care one way or the other...

Are you one of his conservative fans who are a bit hypocritical? ;)
 
scottduffy said:
Jimmy Saville wasn't taken to court for sex offences and i think we know he was guilty don't we? I don't know whether Cliff Richard is or isn't guilty but isn't it amazing how rich and powerful people can go after the coppers and BBC because they can afford to when i bet the man mentioned above who was accused of rape is left in bits with nobody to help him because he's not rich. As for the BBC going after sex offenders after what they've covered up, jeez you couldn't make it up. Did Prince Andrew sue for defamation after he was accused of unlawful sex with a minor? That's a genuine question. I would assume the Palace wouldn't take too kindly to accusations like these IF they are false.
Click to expand...
Interesting process you detail. The high court of supposition reigns supreme. Unlike you I have no idea whether JS was or was not guilty. still let's just do away with the whole of the judiciary and the process that all who face charges are INNOCENT until proven guilty. Due process - not needed - let's just go with mob justice?

As a balance, I I met the man a couple of times and no, I did not get any kind of affinity with him. I felt there was an 'edge' to him. That said, I do not want an end to the justice system. The alternative was practiced in our civilised country for centuries.

The need for outrage morphed into a witch hunt mentality, is very dangerous.

rjbell thinks Cliff Richard is a wrong'un..... based on what exactly? That's the same mindset that the knuckledraggers have about people with long lenses on bi cameras being 'paedos'.

Centuries of developing a fair and balanced system of justice flushed away on gut feeling? You really couldn't make it up?

OR COULD YOU?
 
So we have had a fair and balanced system of justice have we? Is that why all these victims of sexual abuse have had to wait decades for justice? You nearly made sense there. Ridiculous statement.
 
Dave1 said:
Your post would seem to show you care one way or the other...

Are you one of his conservative fans who are a bit hypocritical? ;)
Click to expand...
That's how you chose to read it.
 
scottduffy said:
So we have had a fair and balanced system of justice have we? Is that why all these victims of sexual abuse have had to wait decades for justice? You nearly made sense there. Ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget, however distasteful you may find it, that many are alleged victims.
 
Completely agree. Some will be innocent and some will be guilty. We cannot assume though that because they're not charged they're innocent as let's not forget powerful people have gotten away with a lot despite our seemingly fair system.
 
scottduffy said:
So we have had a fair and balanced system of justice have we? Is that why all these victims of sexual abuse have had to wait decades for justice? You nearly made sense there. Ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...

Evidence to suggest their cases were before the courts for decades waiting for justice would help substantiate your claim.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
rjbell thinks Cliff Richard is a wrong'un..... based on what exactly? That's the same mindset that the knuckledraggers have about people with long lenses on bi cameras being 'paedos'.

Centuries of developing a fair and balanced system of justice flushed away on gut feeling? You really couldn't make it up?

OR COULD YOU?
Click to expand...

As I said innocent until proven guilty I'm not calling for a lynch mob let a court decide. It's nothing like accusing someone being a peodo just for having a long lens. There is evidence enough to justify a warrant but insufficient to build a case. I think he should count his lucky stars. I certainly wouldn't be on here congratulating and wishing him luck taking legal action.
 
Last edited:
scottduffy said:
So we have had a fair and balanced system of justice have we? Is that why all these victims of sexual abuse have had to wait decades for justice? You nearly made sense there. Ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous.

Perhaps you might like to read the cases tried in Victorian times to discover real failure of justice and miscarriages of a class based prejudiced system. Go further back for summary justice.

A day in court is a worthwhile trip. Good education as to the work on all sides to reach a fair and proper outcome.

No system is perfect but a continual improvement process with realistic checks and balances moves us forward as a society.

It is not perfect but it is light years ahead of the 'trial by media and social media' which offers the real TROOF.
 
rjbell said:
As I said innocent until proven guilty I'm not calling for a lynch mob let a court decide. It's nothing like accusing someone being a peodo just for having a long lens. There is evidence enough to justify a warrant but insufficient to build a case. I think he should count his lucky stars. I certainly wouldn't be on here congratulating and wishing him luck taking legal action.
Click to expand...
What evidence exactly? Has it been through the CPS? Arrests made on properly gathered evidence? TESTED in court?

BTW - You may want to read up on paedophilia - it is a psychological term. The term you need is Sexual Offender. That is - A person found guilty of charges brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That act of accusing someone is fraught with danger as it it is easy to drift into slander or libel for unproven utterances..... it's why the media 'danced' around the JS allegations before he died.
 
I don't need to go that far back mate. I only need to look at why guys like Saville, Janner and Cyril Smith got away with abusing children for years without any prosecution. Friends in high places in case you didn't know. Our great British system failing the working class to save the face of the establishment.
 
Phil V said:
Get a grip!

I don't care one way or another, however many of his fans refuse to see that it's true and he refuses to admit it.

Clearly him refusing to admit his sexuality because it'd hurt his reputation amongst his fan base (who are largely conservative) is a bit hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Do you know he is a homosexual for sure?

I am not a fan of his music by the way, just wondered how you seem to know this fact about him?
 
Phil V said:
I'm guessing that he hasn't lost a single day of work due to this,
Click to expand...

R2 stopped playing his records for awhile..
But I'm sure the loss of those royalties didn't hurt him one bit.


LASTOLITE said:
Do you know he is a homosexual for sure?
Click to expand...
Wasn't he "Romantically linked" to Sue Barker ( tennis player) at one time?

But now he lives with his Priest "friend" Sorry Former priest John McElynn who is his constant companion.

In answer to question who knows for sure...
 
scottduffy said:
I would assume the Palace wouldn't take too kindly to accusations like these IF they are false.
Click to expand...

You assume wrong, at least in thinking that the palace don't care. The royals simply don't sue for libel or defamation but I'm sure they would if they could. Cliff Richard has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, I'm quite sure the 'establishment' didn't rally round him to quash evidence or scare off witnesses. As such he has the right to seek redress in the courts for the way he was treated by the BBC and in the press, the fact that he's got the money to actually do it is a bonus for him but it doesn't lessen his rights.

As per usual, too many self appointed judge and jury about here, too many people saying innocent until proven guilty but... A person is innocent full stop until they're proved otherwise.
 
As for his sexuality, as others have said, who cares? being gay ceased to be a crime a long time ago.
 
Steep said:
...................., too many people saying innocent until proven guilty but... A person is innocent full stop until they're proved otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the same thing, just using more words :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top