Cliff Richard - Sexual Abuse Claims

theres a lot of dodgy rumours on that there internet - at this point i'm ready to believe just about anything to do with celebrity abuse.
 
Kronos said:
What is really scary is allegations can be made about something that happened 30 odd years ago. I am sixty and I am sure I got up to some naughty stuff in my time. Not with children unless you include playing a rather risqué version of mummies and daddies when I myself was but a child.
Click to expand...

Put him on the register!
 
Fr0dders said:
Interesting read

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...chard-is-completely-unacceptable-9672367.html
Click to expand...

I do think the Police appear to have acted inappropriately. On one side you have the argument that Cliff should be dealt with in a private manner until charges are brought against him. That would be the right time to go public.

I also see why the police appear to have gone the other way and informed the press though, as it helps them bring in more potential valid claims of Cliff's misconduct. Most of the Jimmy Savile victims were living in silence till the whole thing went public and then they found the courage to come forward. Same thing with Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and others. So there is a clear benefit in terms of collecting evidence against the accused by going public.

In my opinion, going public before charges are brought is simply wrong though. It's like hanging a man before a jury can pass a guilty verdict. I think the way in which the Police have handled this Cliff Richard affair so far needs to be questioned and investigated, because if Cliff is innocent then it's totally unacceptable to treat him in such a way. However if it turns out Cliff is guilty, you can bet that all this will be forgotten and nothing done about it.
 
South Yorkshire Police has complained to the BBC and accused it of breaching its own editorial guidelines after the broadcaster found out about a search the force was planning to carry out at the home of pop star Sir Cliff Richard.

The singer's Berkshire penthouse was searched for five hours on Thursday by officers from South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police as part of an investigation into an alleged sexual assault on a boy under the age of 16 at a religious event in 1985.

South Yorkshire Police said it was "disappointing" that the BBC was slow to acknowledge that the force was not the source of the "leak".

It acknowledged that it did confirm to a reporter at the corporation the date of the search of Sir Cliff's house, but only because the BBC had already contacted the force to say it knew about a planned investigation.
Click to expand...

Utter muppets.
You can't play it both ways.
I dislike the line the BBC took on this, helicopters in the air, watching the police in and out, a Journalist at the gate, and one at the gate in Portugal, for what basically they could have saved the corporation all that money and reported the actual facts of what had occurred, was occuring.
 
the most interesting point for me in the independent article is that the police should only be granted a warranty if they can specify what evidence they hope to obtain from the search which will help them with their investigations.

What exactly do they think they can find in his home now, some 25 years later ?

The whole thing stinks.
 
I want him to be innocent and sue the police for their conduct. Searching someones home when they are on holiday with no specific evidence in mind is a disgrace in my opinion. He's had no chance to defend himself and his life is ruined now regardless of outcome.
 
Sliver said:
I do think the Police appear to have acted inappropriately. On one side you have the argument that Cliff should be dealt with in a private manner until charges are brought against him. That would be the right time to go public.

I also see why the police appear to have gone the other way and informed the press though, as it helps them bring in more potential valid claims of Cliff's misconduct. Most of the Jimmy Savile victims were living in silence till the whole thing went public and then they found the courage to come forward. Same thing with Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and others. So there is a clear benefit in terms of collecting evidence against the accused by going public.

In my opinion, going public before charges are brought is simply wrong though. It's like hanging a man before a jury can pass a guilty verdict. I think the way in which the Police have handled this Cliff Richard affair so far needs to be questioned and investigated, because if Cliff is innocent then it's totally unacceptable to treat him in such a way. However if it turns out Cliff is guilty, you can bet that all this will be forgotten and nothing done about it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the reasons often cited for going public is as you say that it gives people the courage to come forward.

I'm also sure that the police have been on the end of a rather big stick in regards to how they handled Saville, and so were determined to make sure that the public as a whole know that they are investigating this case.
 
Cliff Richard officers may be disciplined over alleged 'witch-hunt'.

Police officers have been warned they could face disciplinary action over their dealings with the BBC before the highly public five-hour search of Sir Cliff Richard’s home following an allegation of historic child abuse.

The corporation came under fire from politicians, senior police and one of its former journalists, Sir Michael Parkinson, after it broke the story of the probe into the 73-year-old singer, who was reportedly preparing to return from holiday in Portugal to face police questioning over the affair.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sciplined-over-alleged-witchhunt-9674983.html
 
Sliver said:
Most of the Jimmy Savile victims were living in silence till the whole thing went public and then they found the courage to come forward.
Click to expand...

Alleged victims. Jimmy Saville was never convicted of a single offence. No matter how great the evidence against him (and it is overwhelming) he didn't have the opportunity to defend himself.

One of the greatest precepts of our justice system is the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Even the greatest monsters are entitled to that. The historic actions of the BBC and the police are shameful. They covered up the actions of of Saville and denied those who have now accused him the right to justice. Just as Saville was denied a trial, those who claim to have been abused were denied justice under the law. The BBC was more concerned with protecting itself than those who were within its care.

Now with Cliff Richard the BBC have swung the other way. Rather than giving this man fair treatment they are seeking to win a PR battle and show how "reformed" they are. They have treated Richard appallingly and I am disgusted at their actions.
 
Yeah. I think I've already stated more than once that the BBC have questions to answer. So we're in agreement.
 
The bosses of the BBC and South Yorkshire Police have been summoned to appear before MPs after a claim of a "cover-up" over a recent police raid on Sir Cliff Richard's Berkshire home.

Home affairs select committee chairman Keith Vaz said the chief constable had accused the BBC of a cover-up "which is a matter of deep concern".

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28901918
Click to expand...

When BBC TV news acts like American TV news we have a problem.
 
Last edited:
Police expanding their investigation into potential sexual abuse charges relating to more than one victim.
The police are saying that this is an investigation that has increased significantly since it's inception back in August 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom