Cliff Richard now!

Whippet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that you have stated that you know there are no criminal psychologists or criminologists involved on the parliamentary side of "lawmaking", and I would be interested to hear how you know that.
 
chadders said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Probably more of that goes on than we realise, Jim.
 
My 92 year old mum just does not believe this, so it cannot be true ………
 
Ok Viv... from my profession, from my wife's (different) profession and from colleagues within the CJ family including those who have worked as senior advisors in the MOJ again as specialists in this area. I'll end my input here as you've clearly cross examined more recently than I've been in the box.;)
 
BillN_33 said:
My 92 year old mum just does not believe this, so it cannot be true ………
Click to expand...

Your mum and 11 like-minded oaps ....and Cliff is golden :-)
 
Hugh
malfeasance is misconduct in public office in UK law.

Pookeyhead

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.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you did, but with the Police. You found them guilty without any evidence, or even an allegation, apart from your own.
 
Now this interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

It seems to suggest that somehow the Beeb got wind of this investigate/ search some while back, which has already been admitted, but we don't know how.
Reading this, SYP seem to be implying that as the Beeb came to them and told them they were ready to run the story. So in order not to blow the investigation, they came to an agreement to cut the Beeb in on the deal in return for the Beeb's silence. To me that sounds like the Beeb putting pressure on SYP to "co-operate". I'm beginning to wonder who is in charge of the investigation here. After all the Beeb let Savile and others get away with sexual abuse for decades.
 
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...

Correct

Trouble now is common usage and contraction to the truncated "P****"

Yet historically there are instances of both Greek and Roman literature wherein paedophilia and underage hetereo and homosexual activitt is a norm. 2000+ years we demand (rightly) more protevtion for children.

From a different life we saw more infra-famoly sexual misconduucr and children (mainly young girls) in care from both broken families and runaways falling into entrapment bh gangs. Quite a few trials with gangs of mdn hsing pre teen and above girls where strong prison sentences have been handed down.

As with any of this issue, in amomgst the high profile "gang trials" there is pernicoous "lone wolf" activity that keeps us as parents on our toes.

PH

I kmow

I just think the manner in whivh it used in the US partivularly is good. Has been used many times to add prison time for those found guilty of bribery and coruption rather than a slap on the wrist for all but a few MPs (as an example) giddling expenses.

I exemplified the issue outdide of the discussion as an example of hlw others makd beter ude of laws. Im this case malfeasance. I worked in the MoD in the late 1970's when a mid ramk civil servant got 18 months for aceepting a bribe of under £2K for giving a contract for some printing work. Stricter times then.

S
 
Hugh...I'm going to return to your post later when, hopefully, it will more closely resemble English! :eek:
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Hugh...I'm going to return to your post later when, hopefully, it will more closely resemble English! :eek:
Click to expand...

His name is Steve and I think it is a case of big fingers and small keyboard! ;)

...just guess nearby letters and it all makes sense... :D
 
Tigger.ufo said:
His name is Steve and I think it is a case of big fingers and small keyboard! ;)

...just guess nearby letters and it all makes sense... :D
Click to expand...

Life's too short! :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Hugh...I'm going to return to your post later when, hopefully, it will more closely resemble English! :eek:
Click to expand...

Viv

V tired eyes

A couple of Guinesses

And a sodding Galaxy S4 mini being tapped on by my banana fingers....

Not the best combination!

Steve
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Viv

V tired eyes

A couple of Guinesses

And a sodding Galaxy S4 mini being tapped on by my banana fingers....

Not the best combination!

Steve
Click to expand...

Ah...then all is forgiven.
I have the same damn phone :lol:
 
South Yorkshire Police have now made a formal complaint to the BBC.

BBC however, state that that they have followed and not breeched journalistic guidelines.

Any other police force would of just executed the search warrant and got on with the job. if the media picked up on it the press office would have just issued an initial statement saying "that a warrant was executed 'at an address in......... of a (enter age) male and enquires are continuing" or similar words.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
South Yorkshire Police have now made a formal complaint to the BBC.

BBC however, state that that they have followed and not breeched journalistic guidelines.

Any other police force would of just executed the search warrant and got on with the job. if the media picked up on it the press office would have just issued an initial statement saying "that a warrant was executed 'at an address in......... of a (enter age) male and enquires are continuing" or similar words.
Click to expand...

The actual statement says:

"The force was contacted some weeks ago by a BBC reporter who made it clear he knew of the existence of an investigation. It was clear he in a position to publish it.

The force was reluctant to cooperate but felt that to do otherwise would risk losing any potential evidence, so in the interests of the investigation it was agreed that the reporter would be notified of the date of the house search in return for delaying publication of any of the facts.

Contrary to media reports, this decision was not taken in order to maximise publicity, it was taken to preserve any potential evidence".

The implication being that the BBC was willing to run with the story that Richard was being investigated, possibly spoiling the investigation. It appears that they were "bought off" to keep silent whilst SYP were ready to carry out the search. Neither SYP or the BBC come out of this well. Taken on face facts it would seem that the BBC was able to coerce SYP with the implied threat of spoiling the investigation. That SYP felt compelled to bow to this "pressure" makes me wonder just who is running the show. I would have assumed that the BBC would have willingly backed off in the interest of letting the police get on with their work, in the public interest.
 
Trouble is that SYP are in no position to dictate terms to the BBC. Morally, the BBC perhaps should have backed off and not gone for a deal.
It's not SYP that loose out, its Justice, one way or the other.

Anyway, the fact is it's out in the public arena now. Best let it take it's course.
 
Here's what I don't understand.

Eight policemen spent five hours searching one of Sir Cliff Richard's homes in connection with an alleged offence which, if it took place at all, took place 29 years ago somewhere else.

What on earth did they think they might find which would be relevant to investigating that allegation?
 
There's always been rumours floating about with Cliff. Should maybe wait until he was charged before letting his name be known but I suppose doing it this way could flush out some other people with allegations.
 
chadders said:
Now this interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

It seems to suggest that somehow the Beeb got wind of this investigate/ search some while back, which has already been admitted, but we don't know how.
Reading this, SYP seem to be implying that as the Beeb came to them and told them they were ready to run the story. So in order not to blow the investigation, they came to an agreement to cut the Beeb in on the deal in return for the Beeb's silence. To me that sounds like the Beeb putting pressure on SYP to "co-operate". I'm beginning to wonder who is in charge of the investigation here. After all the Beeb let Savile and others get away with sexual abuse for decades.
Click to expand...

Just goes to lower my opinion of the BBC even more.

They have become just another trashy media outlet who offer more opinion than news these days.
 
Bernie174 said:
They quite obviously had their reasons. There's a lot of different reasons why they did so, it might come out, it might not, but at the moment it's not anyone else's business.
Click to expand...
Well, none of this is anyone else's business, but that doesn't mean people can't talk about it.

With your background you might be able to explain the process though. I mean, I thought search warrants aren't granted for "fishing expeditions", but are only granted where there is a reasonable prospect of gathering evidence related to the specific (alleged) offence. Is that not the case?
 
RichardtheSane said:
Just goes to lower my opinion of the BBC even more.

They have become just another trashy media outlet who offer more opinion than news these days.
Click to expand...

Can you think of a media outlet that isn't?
 
Correct they are issued for a search for something specific, stolen property for example.
I am not saying you can't talk about it, simply answering you point, as best that can be without knowing exactly what they are looking for.
But, at the moment its not something that the Police are going to tell the public about for 2 reasons, if it goes futher and he's charged, he's entitled to a fair trial before a jury, not on the internet and because at the moment its none of the publics business.
 
Bernie174 said:
Correct they are issued for a search for something specific, stolen property for example.
I am not saying you can't talk about it, simply answering you point, as best that can be without knowing exactly what they are looking for.
But, at the moment its not something that the Police are going to tell the public about for 2 reasons, if it goes futher and he's charged, he's entitled to a fair trial before a jury, not on the internet and because at the moment its none of the publics business.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. It would be wrong for the police to divulge any more information than is strictly necessary, and we will probably never know what they were searching for.

Logically the police must have had good reason to search the property, and obviously it was good enough to persuade a magistrate to grant the warrant. But still... am I the only person who thinks it's odd? The alleged offence took place in Sheffield in 1985, yet the police have good reason to believe there may be evidence relating to this offence in Berkshire in 2014. I just can't imagine [1] what on earth that evidence might be, and [2] why they thought such evidence might exist? I think there must be an awful lot going on behind the scenes here.
 
Of course there may well have been a 'fishing trip' ... media were said to have filmed "bags of evidence being taken away" according to the Telegraph.
 
gramps said:
Of course there may well have been a 'fishing trip' ... media were said to have filmed "bags of evidence being taken away" according to the Telegraph.
Click to expand...

I heard it said on the news that what they took away was in metal boxes. What we have here is a cauldron of suspicion, rumour, inaccurate reporting and guesswork.
 
arclight said:
I heard it said on the news that what they took away was in metal boxes. What we have here is a cauldron of suspicion, rumour, inaccurate reporting and guesswork.
Click to expand...

Anything taken away would most likely be in sealed evidence bags but whatever way it was taken away it need not have been directly connected to the reported allegation :)
 
For example (and not specific to this case) ... evidence of child sex abuse on a computer being investigated for evidence of fraud or evidence of child sex abuse not related directly to a specific report would be seized and used in any subsequent court proceedings.
 
I just can't imagine [1] what on earth that evidence might be, and [2] why they thought such evidence might exist? I think there must be an awful lot going on behind the scenes here.
Click to expand...

It depends on the specifics of the allegation, which again, only the Police and the person making the allegation know.
If they took away 'bags' or 'boxes' of stuff, they obviously found something they consider relevant.

What that evidence might be? Could be photos, could be computers, could be clothing (think dear old innocent and sweet Monica, and her unwashed dress), could be a lot of things.
Of course there's something going on behind the scenes.... an investigation.
 
I don't quite understand why people find it strange that there might possibly be evidence in a Berkshire house of a crime allegedly commited decades before in Yorkshire.

When someone moves house, they take things with them.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't quite understand why people find it strange that there might possibly be evidence in a Berkshire house of a crime allegedly commited decades before in Yorkshire.

When someone moves house, they take things with them.
Click to expand...

Like jizzed up bed sheets?
 
Classy

That many years on

Your own standards perhaps?
 
gramps said:
For example (and not specific to this case) ... evidence of child sex abuse on a computer being investigated for evidence of fraud or evidence of child sex abuse not related directly to a specific report would be seized and used in any subsequent court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Bernie174 said:
If they took away 'bags' or 'boxes' of stuff, they obviously found something they consider relevant.

What that evidence might be? Could be photos, could be computers, could be clothing (think dear old innocent and sweet Monica, and her unwashed dress), could be a lot of things.
Click to expand...
I guess that in general, the police never know whether the accused might have mentioned the offence to someone. It might be unlikely, but it would be negligent not to check, because that could be the smoking gun. So they need to take away and read all correspondence they find, and search the contents of any computers they find.....

I just hadn't thought it through properly. Thanks for the insights.
 
I wasn't aware of their being that many computers in 1985... & not sure if a warrant will allow them to be taken or even searched...
 
I wasn't aware of their being that many computers in 1985... & not sure if a warrant will allow them to be taken or even searched...
Click to expand...

There were. But even if there were not, then printed photos can be scanned onto computers.

PACE does allow computers to be searched, as does a search warrant if it's something that can be held on a computer. So if the warrant was to search for a nicked TV, you'd be on a sticky wicket looking at the contents of a computer hard disc. But if looking for a nicked TV that the information is was later sold on fleabay, then you would be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top