• 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

Liverpoolphil said:
Because he seems just a bit strange to me thats all - and having strong christian beliefs means nothing when you look at the scandal surrounding priests and the acts they have committed.

It could mean absolutely nothing and he is just a quiet recluse type or he could be hidding something
Click to expand...

So he could be guilty or he might not be! Thats quite prolific Phil.

I thought more of you to be honest.
 
SocketRocket said:
So he could be guilty or he might not be! Thats quite prolific Phil.

I thought more of you to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what it is exactly I have said which is so wrong

I just wouldn't be surprised if there was something behind the allegations
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Apart from crimes against music and fashion what exactly are you baseing this on.
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't surprise me about any of the stars from those ages being involved in things

The surprise is the level of some of the stuff after the Jimmy Saville scandal broke.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I'm not exactly sure what it is exactly I have said which is so wrong

I just wouldn't be surprised if there was something behind the allegations
Click to expand...

No smoke without fire Eh! Gut feeling even! Guilty until proven innocent! He looks a bit odd! What exactly do you base your probability of guilt on then!
 
SocketRocket said:
No smoke without fire Eh! Gut feeling even! Guilty until proven innocent! He looks a bit odd! What exactly do you base your probability of guilt on then!
Click to expand...

When have I mentioned him being guilty ?

I'll say it again - it just doesn't surprise me anymore when these people from the 70's etc are being investigated.
 
SocketRocket said:
But why?
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't - maybe the shock of the announcements has gone now and expect the stars from that era to be implicated in the ongoing investigation.

I expect another will be investigated soon as more and more people come forward to report things that some people back then thought was acceptable

Believe the investigation will keep going and going as more claims are made.
 
PhilTheFragger said:
The " I knew there was something fishy going on all the time" brigade really make me want to bash my head against a brick wall.

You know absolutely NOTHING, None of us do.

It is this type of mentality that lynch mobs and kangaroo courts spring from.
Christopher Jeffries has already been mentioned as a prime example of how dangerous and damaging this type of speculation can be.

But it makes a good headlines and sells papers, so it must be Ok then.
Click to expand...

for once I agree with you
 
I think it is totally acceptable to search anyone's home following a serious allegation, more so, I think its necessary and important for that search to be the first course of action and that those people are then interviewed simultaneously or immediately afterwards!

I also think that to go to certain lengths, and unfortunately this means pigeon holing the stars which shouldn't be the case as we should all be equal in the eyes of the law, the CPS should have enough evidence to warrant such an investigation so as to not cause a stigma against anyone should the allegations and case collapse. I personally don't think that just because a case collapses that certain individuals are then innocent, there had to be enough evidence initially for the police to take action and the CPS to take it to court or they wouldn't have bothered! I think this is where the 'smoke without fire' can be born because to action such a case, especially against a high profile individual, the evidence has to have some substance to it as such actions would not be sanctioned on just a whim!

So, there are 2 sides of these kind scenarios, we have the 'hang 'em high', 'I thought he wasn't right' brigade which can harm anyone's reputation should no further action be taken, and we also have the 'do-gooders' and 'tree huggers' who say we shouldn't do this, that or the other until found guilty, but those in the latter can be influential in their vocal support of innocent until guilty from others who have suffered and still suffer as a consequence from an incident however long ago and are unwilling to come forward due to the status of the individual and a hate campaign being reversed upon them!

Personally I don't know what the ideal answer is, but, I will go as far as to say that I don't think that a single allegation of a sexual assault from many years ago wouldn't, or I wouldn't think would lead to a search and removal of personal items from a high profile individuals (a knighted one at that) home whilst he was known to be away!

I think with the gross information still being raised by the Saville enquiry and others that have been convicted, its pretty hard for the authorities to ignore any allegations irrelevant of who they may be and if they have sufficient evidence or substance to search peoples homes first so as to capture further potential evidence, then so be it. Unfortunately the media have a right to report such actions, obviously they have to be careful in any allegations they elude to but they are simply reporting what is actually happening, however sensitive!

Is it wrong for the media to report on any investigations before a conviction, I don't think so, especially against such a high profile person as it may, or may not, allow other victims, if there are any, to come forward!

Could the media be tamed a bit and told cut out the sensationalism, of course they should.

My tuppence :smirk:
 
Fish said:
I think it is totally acceptable to search anyone's home following a serious allegation, more so, I think its necessary and important for that search to be the first course of action and that those people are then interviewed simultaneously or immediately afterwards!

I also think that to go to certain lengths, and unfortunately this means pigeon holing the stars which shouldn't be the case as we should all be equal in the eyes of the law, the CPS should have enough evidence to warrant such an investigation so as to not cause a stigma against anyone should the allegations and case collapse. I personally don't think that just because a case collapses that certain individuals are then innocent, there had to be enough evidence initially for the police to take action and the CPS to take it to court or they wouldn't have bothered! I think this is where the 'smoke without fire' can be born because to action such a case, especially against a high profile individual, the evidence has to have some substance to it as such actions would not be sanctioned on just a whim!

So, there are 2 sides of these kind scenarios, we have the 'hang 'em high', 'I thought he wasn't right' brigade which can harm anyone's reputation should no further action be taken, and we also have the 'do-gooders' and 'tree huggers' who say we shouldn't do this, that or the other until found guilty, but those in the latter can be influential in their vocal support of innocent until guilty from others who have suffered and still suffer as a consequence from an incident however long ago and are unwilling to come forward due to the status of the individual and a hate campaign being reversed upon them!

Personally I don't know what the ideal answer is, but, I will go as far as to say that I don't think that a single allegation of a sexual assault from many years ago wouldn't, or I wouldn't think would lead to a search and removal of personal items from a high profile individuals (a knighted one at that) home whilst he was known to be away!

I think with the gross information still being raised by the Saville enquiry and others that have been convicted, its pretty hard for the authorities to ignore any allegations irrelevant of who they may be and if they have sufficient evidence or substance to search peoples homes first so as to capture further potential evidence, then so be it. Unfortunately the media have a right to report such actions, obviously they have to be careful in any allegations they elude to but they are simply reporting what is actually happening, however sensitive!

Is it wrong for the media to report on any investigations before a conviction, I don't think so, especially against such a high profile person as it may, or may not, allow other victims, if there are any, to come forward!

Could the media be tamed a bit and told cut out the sensationalism, of course they should.

My tuppence :smirk:
Click to expand...

Excellent post Fish.
 
Trial by media? Is it really? Is it a privacy issue? Maybe that depends on how private the individual is.

Sadly, as can be seen in the microcosm of society we have on here, there is the "no smoke without fire" brigade who will have a jaundiced view.

Is he guilty? Not proven. Is he guilty because he's a celeb from the 70's? Laughable judgement. Is he guilty coz he's "strange?" Are people that small minded that they would allow a prejudice like that to colour their judgement? Sadly, yes they are.

I don't have a view on his guilt or innocence. For me, there's an allegation to be answered. Using the media might lead to others coming forward in support of those allegations. However, there has to be responsible journalism in a case like this, or the case itself could be weakened.
 
Fish said:
I think it is totally acceptable to search anyone's home following a serious allegation, more so, I think its necessary and important for that search to be the first course of action and that those people are then interviewed simultaneously or immediately afterwards!

I also think that to go to certain lengths, and unfortunately this means pigeon holing the stars which shouldn't be the case as we should all be equal in the eyes of the law, the CPS should have enough evidence to warrant such an investigation so as to not cause a stigma against anyone should the allegations and case collapse. I personally don't think that just because a case collapses that certain individuals are then innocent, there had to be enough evidence initially for the police to take action and the CPS to take it to court or they wouldn't have bothered! I think this is where the 'smoke without fire' can be born because to action such a case, especially against a high profile individual, the evidence has to have some substance to it as such actions would not be sanctioned on just a whim!

So, there are 2 sides of these kind scenarios, we have the 'hang 'em high', 'I thought he wasn't right' brigade which can harm anyone's reputation should no further action be taken, and we also have the 'do-gooders' and 'tree huggers' who say we shouldn't do this, that or the other until found guilty, but those in the latter can be influential in their vocal support of innocent until guilty from others who have suffered and still suffer as a consequence from an incident however long ago and are unwilling to come forward due to the status of the individual and a hate campaign being reversed upon them!

Personally I don't know what the ideal answer is, but, I will go as far as to say that I don't think that a single allegation of a sexual assault from many years ago wouldn't, or I wouldn't think would lead to a search and removal of personal items from a high profile individuals (a knighted one at that) home whilst he was known to be away!

I think with the gross information still being raised by the Saville enquiry and others that have been convicted, its pretty hard for the authorities to ignore any allegations irrelevant of who they may be and if they have sufficient evidence or substance to search peoples homes first so as to capture further potential evidence, then so be it. Unfortunately the media have a right to report such actions, obviously they have to be careful in any allegations they elude to but they are simply reporting what is actually happening, however sensitive!

Is it wrong for the media to report on any investigations before a conviction, I don't think so, especially against such a high profile person as it may, or may not, allow other victims, if there are any, to come forward!

Could the media be tamed a bit and told cut out the sensationalism, of course they should.

My tuppence :smirk:
Click to expand...

Good Post :thup:
 
I always worry about allegations so long after the event, how can there be any real justice or trial as not many people can be really certain of the facts there wont be any physical evidence left but then if they are guilty they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Excellent post Fish.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with Fish's post.

It almost seems we want to assume the Police and CPS are idiots and undertake these searches and public announcement just for the hell of it. They are, in my experience, pretty professional and would be well aware of the criticism they'd receive if they could not justify acting the way they are.

Whether this means the man is guilty or not time will tell but it seems they believe there's a need to investigate.
 
drdel said:
Yep, I agree with Fish's post.

It almost seems we want to assume the Police and CPS are idiots and undertake these searches and public announcement just for the hell of it. They are, in my experience, pretty professional and would be well aware of the criticism they'd receive if they could not justify acting the way they are.

Whether this means the man is guilty or not time will tell but it seems they believe there's a need to investigate.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting that the police shouldnt investigate these accusations, it is only right and proper that they do.

But tipping off the press and allowing it to turn into a media circus is not the way to do it.
 
Listen to someone from the police this morning - they involve the press to help others to come forward but it's a very thin line to tread as the press obviously always go overboard
 
Fish said:
I think it is totally acceptable to search anyone's home following a serious allegation, more so, I think its necessary and important for that search to be the first course of action and that those people are then interviewed simultaneously or immediately afterwards!

I also think that to go to certain lengths, and unfortunately this means pigeon holing the stars which shouldn't be the case as we should all be equal in the eyes of the law, the CPS should have enough evidence to warrant such an investigation so as to not cause a stigma against anyone should the allegations and case collapse. I personally don't think that just because a case collapses that certain individuals are then innocent, there had to be enough evidence initially for the police to take action and the CPS to take it to court or they wouldn't have bothered! I think this is where the 'smoke without fire' can be born because to action such a case, especially against a high profile individual, the evidence has to have some substance to it as such actions would not be sanctioned on just a whim!

So, there are 2 sides of these kind scenarios, we have the 'hang 'em high', 'I thought he wasn't right' brigade which can harm anyone's reputation should no further action be taken, and we also have the 'do-gooders' and 'tree huggers' who say we shouldn't do this, that or the other until found guilty, but those in the latter can be influential in their vocal support of innocent until guilty from others who have suffered and still suffer as a consequence from an incident however long ago and are unwilling to come forward due to the status of the individual and a hate campaign being reversed upon them!

Personally I don't know what the ideal answer is, but, I will go as far as to say that I don't think that a single allegation of a sexual assault from many years ago wouldn't, or I wouldn't think would lead to a search and removal of personal items from a high profile individuals (a knighted one at that) home whilst he was known to be away!

I think with the gross information still being raised by the Saville enquiry and others that have been convicted, its pretty hard for the authorities to ignore any allegations irrelevant of who they may be and if they have sufficient evidence or substance to search peoples homes first so as to capture further potential evidence, then so be it. Unfortunately the media have a right to report such actions, obviously they have to be careful in any allegations they elude to but they are simply reporting what is actually happening, however sensitive!

Is it wrong for the media to report on any investigations before a conviction, I don't think so, especially against such a high profile person as it may, or may not, allow other victims, if there are any, to come forward!

Could the media be tamed a bit and told cut out the sensationalism, of course they should.

My tuppence :smirk:
Click to expand...

It is a good post but I disagree with the reasoning. Just imagine the Police entering your house while you are on holiday and searching your house with the media tipped off. Just imagine how you would feel when watching it on TV and people looking at you and talking behind their hands and over some allegation of something that may have happened thirty years ago.

To my mind these are the methods of the Gestapo, I had hoped after Magna Carter we had moved on from this type intimidation of free people. It's not as if someone has been shot and they are searching for the murder weapon! The reasonable thing to do would be invite him to the Police Station where he would be questioned and if then deemed necessary a warrant to search his property would then be used. Press releases should not be made at this conjecture.

Again! Just imagine if this was you!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top