• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

Sir Cliff

PhilTheFragger

PhilTheFragger

Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
15,808
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Visit site
So another icon is under investigation for historic abuse allegations.

However there are aspects of this case that disturb me.

Firstly let me say I appreciate that these allegations have to be taken seriously and the proper investigations carried out.

But why were TV news cameras waiting outside his pad when the cops arrived with a news helicopter hovering above.
Who tipped them off ?

As I type this Cliff is plastered all over the 6 o clock news and will be all over the papers tomorrow.
People are making their own judgements based on speculation over the dinner table.

Surely it is now time to stop this media circus and for the police to only release names once the person has been actually charged with an offence.

Mud sticks, and it simply isn't right to do it this way
 
CR knew about the allegations weeks ago and no doubt so did the press.... I think they've actually come a long way. 10 years ago, this would have been front page news before CR even knew of the allegation.
 
PhilTheFragger said:
So another icon is under investigation for historic abuse allegations.

However there are aspects of this case that disturb me.

Firstly let me say I appreciate that these allegations have to be taken seriously and the proper investigations carried out.

But why were TV news cameras waiting outside his pad when the cops arrived with a news helicopter hovering above.
Who tipped them off ?

As I type this Cliff is plastered all over the 6 o clock news and will be all over the papers tomorrow.
People are making their own judgements based on speculation over the dinner table.

Surely it is now time to stop this media circus and for the police to only release names once the person has been actually charged with an offence.

Mud sticks, and it simply isn't right to do it this way
Click to expand...

Totally agree. There are people that say that naming the perpetrator is neccessary because it can allow other victims an opportunity to come forward and possible assist with evidence but it's also leading to a mockery of the innocent until proven guilty concept. Now they are tried by the media before anything gets to court. How this can then allow for a jury to make a decision based solely on the facts in court is beyond me.
 
I heard Jim Davidson on the radio a few days ago say that he knew the police were going to arrest him some days before it happened, tipped off by the press!
 
Theres something sick and wrong about the way these cases are initially handled. Did it really need a convoy of eight cars to go to Sir Cliffs gaff in full view of the media.
 
I just hope that if in the event of there being no case to answer that that is given full front page treatment
I fear that even though Jim Davidson and Freddie Starr have been exonerated, this has not been publicised as much as it should .
 
It's a tricky one this. It's easy to imagine a plausible accusation for which there is insufficient evidence to charge the accused but I think the police have an obligation to investigate further. Naming the accused in an attempt to identify further victims is, for me, a legitimate approach. However, it must be horrible to be wrongly accused in this situation so I hope someone makes an informed decision as to the plausibility of the original accusation before making it public....

A difficult balance to strike.
 
Why can't the Police release the name as a last resort?
Why can't they fully investigate the original allegation, keeping identities secret until they either have EV.idence to charge or enough evidence to suggest further investigation is required..?
Person A alleges that Cliff has abused them, for example.
The Police investigate as fully as they can, gleaning as much evidence as they can.
If there is no evidence then Cliff doesn't have to be named and shamed
If there is sufficient evidence he can be charged and that in itself will bring more claimants to the fore.
If there is insufficient evidence for a charge but some evidence that something may have happened, then releasing his name might produce the evidence required. This should only be done of the Police have, say, circumstantial evidence but nothing concrete.
 
FairwayDodger said:
It's a tricky one this. It's easy to imagine a plausible accusation for which there is insufficient evidence to charge the accused but I think the police have an obligation to investigate further. Naming the accused in an attempt to identify further victims is, for me, a legitimate approach. However, it must be horrible to be wrongly accused in this situation so I hope someone makes an informed decision as to the plausibility of the original accusation before making it public....

A difficult balance to strike.
Click to expand...

you would have thought that after all the publicity over Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf etc anyone who had suffered historical celebrity abuse would by now have come forward and reported their claims. Its almost like a witch hunt or Spanish Inquisition now.

Also one wonders what evidence would be still around after 30 years, Yes the police have to do their job, but it should be done with an element of discretion.
 
Imurg said:
Why can't the Police release the name as a last resort?
Why can't they fully investigate the original allegation, keeping identities secret until they either have EV.idence to charge or enough evidence to suggest further investigation is required..?
Person A alleges that Cliff has abused them, for example.
The Police investigate as fully as they can, gleaning as much evidence as they can.
If there is no evidence then Cliff doesn't have to be named and shamed
If there is sufficient evidence he can be charged and that in itself will bring more claimants to the fore.
If there is insufficient evidence for a charge but some evidence that something may have happened, then releasing his name might produce the evidence required. This should only be done of the Police have, say, circumstantial evidence but nothing concrete.
Click to expand...

Yes, sounds like a reasonable approach.
 
Midnight said:
It is a reasonable approach but with famous people , how long do you think it would take for the press to find out ? The unfortunate thing is that these sort of allegations find there way out no matter what.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it says more about Society's insatiable greed for Celeb gossip than anything else.....
 
The thing is, if it were you and I, chances are the name wouldn't have been released until arrests were made. I find it more disturbing that the press are already ahead of the game in terms of knowing what's going on and so any investigation must surely have a degree of taint and suspicion attached now
 
Have never liked the trial by our gutter press - they are the lowest of the low

Believe the first time we should know is if he has been formally charged as opposed to his name being dragged through the mud first

As for the allegations - I'm not surprised by them anymore - I sort of expect him to be announced and I'm wondering who is next
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Have never liked the trial by our gutter press - they are the lowest of the low

Believe the first time we should know is if he has been formally charged as opposed to his name being dragged through the mud first

As for the allegations - I'm not surprised by them anymore - I sort of expect him to be announced and I'm wondering who is next
Click to expand...

Not sure who is left but pretty sure the like of Ed Stewpot Stewart and Tony Blackburn won't remain out of it, not for any implicit wrong doing but because sooner or later someone will make a complain the pursuit of the £££££££££££
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Have never liked the trial by our gutter press - they are the lowest of the low

Believe the first time we should know is if he has been formally charged as opposed to his name being dragged through the mud first

As for the allegations - I'm not surprised by them anymore - I sort of expect him to be announced and I'm wondering who is next
Click to expand...

King Edward Vii
 
According to BBC news this morning the Police haven't even spoken to him yet.............
He's in Portugal and has said he will fully cooperate with the Police should they wish to talk to him......

That can't be the right way to do things can it..?
They get a warrant to search his apartment but they haven't even spoken to him..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top