Cliff Richard now!

Pookeyhead
Never heard of court reporters? Perhaps the Police did tell the press, perhaps they didn't, but unlike you I don't need to struggle to think of other ways the press could have found out.
The only thing surprising about this is how long it has taken. There have been rumours about this for a very very long time.
 
Bernie174 said:
Pookeyhead
Never heard of court reporters? Perhaps the Police did tell the press, perhaps they didn't, but unlike you I don't need to struggle to think of other ways the press could have found out.
The only thing surprising about this is how long it has taken. There have been rumours about this for a very very long time.
Click to expand...

I had this conversation with J the other night, he was equally disgusted that the press seemed to know about the search very quickly. However, I have another theory that doesn't involve police or court leaks of any variety. Operation Yew Tree and other investigations of a similar nature have now been public knowledge for, what, 2 years [feels like 10 years some days]? Quite some time anyway and plenty of rumours and old stories will have got into the hands of the press, not to mention those [the press] that were around during the 70's/80's and will have heard any rumours at the time. So, whilst I am not suggesting there would be 'stake outs' of the homes of anyone that might come up in the investigations, based on those various rumours, it is not beyond the realistic to assume there is a network keeping an eye open for any such search activity at various premises and reporting back very quickly. Somebody said a few posts ago that the Beeb 'got wind' of it... now how did that happen I wonder. ;)
 
Bernie174 said:
Pookeyhead
Never heard of court reporters? Perhaps the Police did tell the press, perhaps they didn't, but unlike you I don't need to struggle to think of other ways the press could have found out.
The only thing surprising about this is how long it has taken. There have been rumours about this for a very very long time.
Click to expand...

Indeed; and those rumours stretch back as far as the 1960's. So, true or not, these rumours aren't a product of the internet or a result of of any fallout fro Operation Yewtree.
 
South Yorkshire police have said that they contacted the press.
 
Yv said:
it is not beyond the realistic to assume there is a network keeping an eye open for any such search activity at various premises and reporting back very quickly.
Click to expand...

Except that in this instance the police appear to have been filmed from above arriving at the property.
 
arclight said:
South Yorkshire police have said that they contacted the press.
Click to expand...

How up to date is that piece of info? Last night, in today's papers and according to the al Beeb news:

"in a statement, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) said it had not alerted the media to the search in advance.

It said: "When a media outlet contacted SYP with information about an investigation, we took the decision to work with them in order to protect the integrity of that investigation.

"Since the search took place, a number of people have contacted the police to provide information and we must acknowledge that the media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.""
 
chadders said:
How up to date is that piece of info? Last night, in today's papers and according to the al Beeb news:

"in a statement, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) said it had not alerted the media to the search in advance.

It said: "When a media outlet contacted SYP with information about an investigation, we took the decision to work with them in order to protect the integrity of that investigation.

"Since the search took place, a number of people have contacted the police to provide information and we must acknowledge that the media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.""
Click to expand...
Correct. Just watching an interview right now. BBC actually took the information to the Police who decided to work with them.
 
BRASH said:
Correct. Just watching an interview right now. BBC actually took the information to the Police who decided to work with them.
Click to expand...

Saves me a bit of typing...ta!
 
South Yorkshire Police haven been trying to put the wheel back on with the Media ever since Hillsborough. Let's hope they have a solid media strategy. If Sir Cliff Richard is innocent then this could backfire for them. This could turn out to be a shabby trial by media. This is only an allegation under investigation at this stage.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
gramps said:
Except that in this instance the police appear to have been filmed from above arriving at the property.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, in this case it is that way as its being reported now [I stopped keeping up with every bit of info quite some time ago, feels like a proper merry go round] but as a general theory, wouldn't be surprised if it has some validity. SYP have put themselves in a very awkward position have they not.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
South Yorkshire Police haven been trying to put the wheel back on with the Media ever since Hillsborough. Let's hope they have a solid media strategy. If Sir Cliff Richard is innocent then this could backfire for them. This could turn out to be a shabby trial by media. This is only an allegation under investigation at this stage.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
Click to expand...


If Sir Cliff Richard is "innocent" ?

At this point in time there is no issue and until, AND IF, there is something discovered from an investigation, that yields evidence to support possible criminal charges, which results in a court dealing with those charges, such points just add to a feeding frenzy of rumour and innuendo. God help us all.

Edited to remove auto emoticon

Steve
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
If Sir Cliff Richard is "innocent" ?

At this point in time there is no issue and until, AND IF, there is something discovered from an investigation, that yields evidence to support possible criminal charges, which results in a court dealing with those charges, such points just add to a feeding frenzy of rumour and innuendo. God help us all.

Edited to remove auto emoticon

Steve
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I said !

But if you wish to play semantics I will add "found" ( to be innocent ) and add at this junction "or there is no case to offer"
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Yes that's what I said !

But if you wish to play semantics I will add "found" ( to be innocent ) and add at this junction "or there is no case to offer"
Click to expand...

Hugh,

I did say "At this stage it's only an allegation and under investigation"

If you are going to quote me then make sure you put it in context. Thank you

Nick
 
Last edited:
whatever the "why and wherefores" of all these high level celeb cases ……… certain police forces have a lot to answer for ………. but wait a minute they never get "brought to book" as they have usually retired, gone to Spain or whatever ……. and anyway it was so long ago that it's best forgotten as far as their knowledge, at the time, is concerned.

South Yorkshire police force, are they the "paragons of virtue"?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Yes that's what I said !

But if you wish to play semantics I will add "found" ( to be innocent ) and add at this junction "or there is no case to offer"
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier

Nobody facing a criminal charge answerable in a court of law is "found innocent" or "found to be innocent". The presumption is innocent until found guilty or are declared not guilty. Therefore this is not a matter of semantics but a basic tenet of our system of justice which has taken hundreds of years to develop and refine and has also been adopted by many countries worldwide imcluding the USA. The onus is therefore on the prosecution to prove guilt and not for the defence to 'prove' inmocence. That is mot semantics.

Remember that should you ever face the stress of a criminal charge and appearance in court.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
As I posted earlier

Nobody facing a criminal charge answerable in a court of law is "found innocent" or "found to be innocent". The presumption is innocent until found guilty or are declared not guilty.
Steve
Click to expand...
Unless you are up here and they can throw in the 'Not Proven' verdict. Which I've always understood to mean 'We know you did it but canna' prove it.':)
 
BRASH said:
Unless you are up here and they can throw in the 'Not Proven' verdict. Which I've always understood to mean 'We know you did it but canna' prove it.':)
Click to expand...

Absolutely BRASH

However it still underpins the failure by the prosecution to fully deliver their case and the accused leaves the court as inmocent as they were on arrivsl but allows the harpies to tut and prattle.

A quite useful statement but again Scottish law has a few useful words and processes available which would be useful for both criminal and civil issues south of the border.. Like in the USA where "malfeasance" allows a range of latitudes to throw into he mix.

I have enjoyed watching a few really interesting cases in Edinburgh and to see "angry judges" in full glow.....

S
 
what gets to me and really does irk me ,is all these alleged crimes or assaults etc by lots of famous names all happened years ago lots of years ago ,are the payments from the story hunting press now getting larger .or am i missing the point .why keep stume for 30-40 years and then suddenly decide your bums hurting .or your tits are aching because someone famous "weighed" them and it took you 30 years to realise .get on the real planet for gawds sake :bat::bat:
 
chadders said:
How up to date is that piece of info? Last night, in today's papers and according to the al Beeb news:

"in a statement, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) said it had not alerted the media to the search in advance.

It said: "When a media outlet contacted SYP with information about an investigation, we took the decision to work with them in order to protect the integrity of that investigation.

"Since the search took place, a number of people have contacted the police to provide information and we must acknowledge that the media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.""
Click to expand...

Just been repeated on 1100 LBC news saying that last night S. Yorkshire police said that they co-ordinated the search with a "media organisation".
 
Hugh Jarse said:
As I posted earlier

Nobody facing a criminal charge answerable in a court of law is "found innocent" or "found to be innocent". The presumption is innocent until found guilty or are declared not guilty. Therefore this is not a matter of semantics but a basic tenet of our system of justice which has taken hundreds of years to develop and refine and has also been adopted by many countries worldwide imcluding the USA. The onus is therefore on the prosecution to prove guilt and not for the defence to 'prove' inmocence. That is mot semantics.

Remember that should you ever face the stress of a criminal charge and appearance in court.

Steve
Click to expand...

I know that.

I'm well versed with the UK Criminal system and have been a prosecution witness with some frequency.

However, If there is no 'evidence to offer' then that will be the end of trial. That's assuming if the accused is charged with any criminal offence, it is in the public interest to prosecute and it gets to court in the first place.
 
A not guilty verdict does not mean the prosecution failed to fully deliver their case. It means that whatever evidence was presented by either side has resulted in a jury not finding enough absolute proof presented to find the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Whilst this does on the face of it seem wrong, if you were the officer in charge and you had the option of the media letting the cat out of the bag, informing all and sundry of the instigation of a formal investigation, the search being compromised and evidence destroyed or striking a deal what would you do?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I know that.

I'm well versed with the UK Criminal system and have been a prosecution witness with some frequency.

However, If there is no 'evidence to offer' then that will be the end of trial. That's assuming if the accused is charged with any criminal offence, it is in the public interest to prosecute and it gets to court in the first place.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with that

So many (not just on here) use the "proved innocent" comcept. If we take the develppment of justice bavk to Magna Carta in the 13th Centiry we are 800 year along the disbandonment of Summary Justice. So we need to use the correct terminology to debunk the idea that you are guilty until proven innocent else we end up in this age of mass communication of an expectation that anybodyy going to court is already guilty.

I attend court for a number of reasons and trained as a magidtrate many years back. It is massively boring at times but a tremendous amount lf effort goes into making it fair. We do ourselves a disservice as citizens by falling into the trap of a presumption og guilt because charges are btought againstt s
an individual. Crowd judgement is not reasonable.

As a side issue there was reports that Rolf Harris has been subjected to assault in clink by pther prisoners. I find that reprehensible too. Twisted ethiccs and judgemeent by convivted violent criminals thieves and others found giilty to be wring too. The jail time is the punishment decreed and not a good kicking on a regular basis. I dislike those who prey on children but we jave a developed system to remove liberty from offendrrs. Summarh justice ks no justoce.

Steve
 
And on the point of the semantics discussed earlier, its important in criminology to use the term paedophile correctly, whilst I acknowledge popular usage is different.
True paedophiles are actually quite rare, they account for less than 5% of child sex offenders. They are psychologically attracted to pre-pubescent children and are incapable of having / maintaining adult sexual relationships. Its a condition that has to be diagnosed by a forensic psychologist and is crucial to assessing risk and looking at treatment as their behaviour is 'hard wired'.
Not being a pedant, just thought it may be of interest. Its actually a very 'interesting' area of criminal psychology for those who work in this arena.
 
Legally speaking, paedophile is not necessarily incapable of forming or maintaining an emotional or sexual relationship with an adult.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
If Sir Cliff Richard is "innocent" ?

At this point in time there is no issue and until, AND IF, there is something discovered from an investigation, that yields evidence to support possible criminal charges, which results in a court dealing with those charges, such points just add to a feeding frenzy of rumour and innuendo. God help us all.

Edited to remove auto emoticon

Steve
Click to expand...


The problem is this: IF he's found guilty, all the people who are now spreading rumours and justifying doing so will go "See? We were right" and thus reinforce their opinion that it's OK to basically just assume someone is guilty until proven innocent... you know.. like they used to do in witch trials. I'd like to think we'd moved on from then. Perhaps not.
 
viv1969 said:
Legally speaking, paedophile is not necessarily incapable of forming or maintaining an emotional or sexual relationship with an adult.
Click to expand...


It kind of does rely on sexual activity with pre-pubescent children though doesn't it? Sleeping with, for argument's sake a 15 year old doesn't make you a paedophile necessarily. Stupid, yes... Selfish and immoral, almost certainly.... a criminal, absolutely. Not necessarily a paedophile though surely. I've no idea how that distinction is made exactly... and under the current climate, I'm actually slightly concerned about typing the bloody word so much online.. LOL
 
Last edited:
Well, we've got the Sunday papers tomorrow, I suppose they'll be raking over his associations with Saville, Boothby and the Krays. No stone will be left unturned, for good or ill.

arclight said:
Just been repeated on 1100 LBC news saying that last night S. Yorkshire police said that they co-ordinated the search with a "media organisation".
Click to expand...

Quite so. They were approached by the Beeb, who seemed to know about beforehand. However SYP deny that they told the Beeb, as I quoted.
 
viv1969 said:
Legally speaking, paedophile is not necessarily incapable of forming or maintaining an emotional or sexual relationship with an adult.
Click to expand...

Hence why I said in criminology useage not legal. It's use in even fairly recent Acts of law demonstrate the lack of joined up thinking between 'law makers' and experts in the field.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
"At this stage it's only an allegation and under investigation"
Click to expand...

Just pinching your comment, it seems that there is more than one allegation ... reportedly since the media covered it, other allegations have been brought to light. On the one hand if any such allegation being covered brought to light other genuine offences that would be great BUT if the allegation being covered has just brought out others 'jumping on the bandwagon' then that is not great.

It has to be said that, apart from the Saville case, other instances of media coverage have brought to light other victims who have come forward to report confirmed offences ... so there are two side to the media coverage debate.
 
Whippet said:
Forensic psychologists + criminologists vs parliamentary committees / legal advisors with political interference
Click to expand...

And you know there are no forensic psychologists or criminologists involved in the parliamentary side of this process?
 
@Steve Smith
Both very sad cases, one more so, than the other, obviously :(
Just goes to show the negative side of the press.


Pookeyhead said:
It kind of does rely on sexual activity with pre-pubescent children though doesn't it? Sleeping with, for argument's sake a 15 year old doesn't make you a paedophile necessarily. Stupid, yes... Selfish and immoral, almost certainly.... a criminal, absolutely. Not necessarily a paedophile though surely. I've no idea how that distinction is made exactly... and under the current climate, I'm actually slightly concerned about typing the bloody word so much online.. LOL
Click to expand...
There is I believe a distinction in law, about the various "age groups"
There being various names / groups for the offender to "slot into", depending on the increasing age of the child?

But for now I can't find it.
I'm sure some will know the answer though.
 
Cobra said:
@Steve Smith
Both very sad cases, one more so, than the other, obviously :(
Just goes to show the negative side of the press.



There is I believe a distinction in law, about the various "age groups"
There being various names / groups for the offender to "slot into", depending on the increasing age of the child?

But for now I can't find it.
I'm sure some will know the answer though.
Click to expand...

There are numerous different offences depending on the ages and crime committed but there aren't names for the offenders. There are psychological terms for ages ranges to which a person is sexually attracted to: hebephile, ephebophile, telophase and gerontophile

The ages used in these laws can be quite confusing. If you remember the recent media outrage at local resolutions given to child sex offenders, these were in all the cases I'm aware of actually consensual sex between young teenagers where their behaviour was technically an offence for example consensual sex between a 12 year old girl and a 13 year old boy is legally rape.
 
viv1969 said:
How?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that yes I'm aware. I take it you are disagreeing with what I have been saying in my posts? Im just seeking to inform and educate on a topic that clearly a lot of people are interested in if something I've said offends you or you disagree please let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top