Cliff Richard's home searched by police investigating sexual abuse claim

[chiang mai]

The question is, in my world, was a crime committed, did it ever take place, the CPS says these things are 50/50 at best.

And it's worth pointing out that the police alerted the press in advance as to the search of the accused property, how did that happen I wonder.

[neverdie]

If this nonsense continues, at some point in time we'll likely reach a stage where folks will be arrested for something they may or may not have done, in a previous life

So it's okay to abuse and rape children, as long as it happened a while ago..?

Well, full respect to you in a way for standing and up and using a public forum to justify child abuse. Personally I think it's heinous, disgusting crime and the fact it often takes victims years and years to come to terms with it and to stop blaming themselves is utterly heartbreaking, but for you it's "nonsense" and I guess you have to be admired in a way for being prepared to defend such crimes, as strange and repellent as I find that.

I'm not sure how anyone can convict or not convict at this early stage, wouldn't it be prudent to hear what the Police & potentially the prosecutors have to say about it.

Having been involved in criminal investigations for years, I've found it's always prudent to examine the EVIDENCE first.

Perhaps CM is right perhaps he is wrong, hopefully the investigation will reveal all.

Sure, absolutely- and I don't have an opinion over Cliff Richard one way or the other - but I think most of us agree the idea that just because a crime happened some years ago doesn't diminish the fact it's a crime or it's impact, and has been shown recently with other high profile cases, in the eyes of the law these men are still guilty- and dismissing such investigations as 'nonsense' is exactly the sort of victim-blaming culture that has allowed such situations as this to arise.

I'm not saying anyway is guilty. But the moment you dismiss these investigations and whitewash people purely because it happened a long time ago- well, that really is choosing to ignore the evidence and sends out quite a dangerous message- it's okay to do these things if nobody tells and nobody finds out at the time.

(...obviously by the use of 'you' I don't mean you personally and get we're pretty much arguing the same point...)

Sure mate. Most of us here are on the same page, but not everyone

[bartender100]

Not surprised at all, just that it took so long, I was told 30 years ago by a C list UK gay celebrity that CR liked "chicken" ie young

[theoldgit]

I'll say this just one more time, this is an emotive subject, but cut out the flames.

If you are the subject of flaming, please report it, don't bite.

[neverdie]

The question is, in my world, was a crime committed, did it ever take place, the CPS says these things are 50/50 at best.

And it's worth pointing out that the police alerted the press in advance as to the search of the accused property, how did that happen I wonder.

In your world?

Is that the world when you instantly jump to the defence of an accused person without seeing, feeling, touching or hearing any evidence?

In this case possibly the defence of a potential Peadophile ?

Strange world that one.

[HughJass]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHKwzpwK8Ss

Edited August 15, 2014 by HughJass

[chiang mai]

I'll say this just one more time, this is an emotive subject, but cut out the flames.

If you are the subject of flaming, please report it, don't bite.

Sorry.

[ATF]

These type of accusations are not taken lightly by the CPS or the Police. To get a Court Order to search someone's house while they are absent leaves the CPS open to a massive lawsuit from an ordinary person never the less a celebrity.

No smoke without fire

[Rumblecat]

Blah blah blah, go back and read my views again - any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!"

See, I think that's where it gets dangerous- you're dismissing people because of social class and status- precisely the kind of things that have kept people quiet for so long, the fact they've had it drummed into them that no-one will believe them. The fact so many of these things seem to be coming to light is a domino effect- seeing that speaking out can bring justice.

Are false claims ever made? Sure. Same with rape, same with assault, same with fraud, same with many crimes sadly. But you get the same arguments used by people to dismiss rape claims- undermining the victim. Should there be tougher laws against making false claims? Absolutely. But your obvious and blanket contempt for anyone making sexual abuse claims against someone famous is exactly why people in the public eye got away with such crimes for so long.

They're just lottery losers to you.

And you've also claimed that even if a crime did or didn't happen a long time ago it shouldn't be investigated.

Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Fred Talbot, Rolf Harris etc... all these people should be exonerated by your reasoning of the fact they are famous and the crimes happened some time ago.

[chiang mai]

The question is, in my world, was a crime committed, did it ever take place, the CPS says these things are 50/50 at best.

And it's worth pointing out that the police alerted the press in advance as to the search of the accused property, how did that happen I wonder.

In your world?

Is that the world when you instantly jump to the defence of an accused person without seeing, feeling, touching or hearing any evidence?

In this case possibly the defence of a potential Peadophile ?

Strange world that one.

In my world ND there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, evidence, proof, admission, court case, judge/jury - not just a newspaper article in the Daily Mail on a slow news day! If you're world looks any different from that we'll never be friends or agree on anything, end of. BTW sorry if you're still smarting from the earlier thread, that really was too bad!!!

[chiang mai]

Blah blah blah, go back and read my views again - any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!"

See, I think that's where it gets dangerous- you're dismissing people because of social class and status- precisely the kind of things that have kept people quiet for so long, the fact they've had it drummed into them that no-one will believe them. The fact so many of these things seem to be coming to light is a domino effect- seeing that speaking out can bring justice.

Are false claims ever made? Sure. Same with rape, same with assault, same with fraud, same with many crimes sadly. But you get the same arguments used by people to dismiss rape claims- undermining the victim. Should there be tougher laws against making false claims? Absolutely. But your obvious and blanket contempt for anyone making sexual abuse claims against someone famous is exactly why people in the public eye got away with such crimes for so long.

They're just lottery losers to you.

And you've also claimed that even if a crime did or didn't happen a long time ago it shouldn't be investigated.

Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Fred Talbot, Rolf Harris etc... all these people should be exonerated by your reasoning of the fact they are famous and the crimes happened some time ago.

I never said those things, you imagined and fabricated them:

I did not say an previous crime should not be investigated.

I did not say that the crimes proven against the people you mentioned should not have been prosecuted.

I did not say crimes between different social classes should be dismissed.

Is there anything else you would like to put to me about things I did not say?

Suggest strongly you revisit the things I did say, sllowly, big deep breaths.

[theoldgit]

If this nonsense continues, at some point in time we'll likely reach a stage where folks will be arrested for something they may or may not have done, in a previous life

Please refer to post #40

Please refer to the subscription page of the Sun, Mirror, National Enquirer or Daily Star, so as to remain up to date on such matters.

I just did and he has renounced his British Citizenship and is now a citizen of Barbados. Police have removed items from his house. He is currently in Portugal.

It was just too good to be true.

He hasn't renounced his British Citizenship, he is a non resident of the UK but remains a citizen.

He does have a Barbadian Passport.

[Rumblecat]

I never said those things, you imagined and fabricated them:

I did not say an previous crime should not be investigated.

I did not say that the crimes proven against the people you mentioned should not have been prosecuted.

I did not say crimes between different social classes should be dismissed.

Is there anything else you would like to put to me about things I did not say?

Suggest strongly you revisit the things I did say, sllowly, big deep breaths.

Okay, took a big breath and re-read what you wrote. Like when you suggested that if a certain amount of time had passed, such crimes shouldn't be investigated.

"You are asking me if I think there should be a statute of limitations on various crimes? My simple answer is yes.."

As for those who were investigated and prosecuted (Harris, Hall etc) - they're crimes were investigated long after the incidents. Which you've already come out against. Re: statue of limitations and -

"I do not believe for one moment that the vast majority of humans are capable of accurate recall, of details that comprise events that are forty or fifty years old."

"If this nonsense continues, at some point in time we'll likely reach a stage where folks will be arrested for something they may or may not have done, in a previous life."

So no, you never say they shouldn't have been prosecuted, but under your logic they would have never been investigated in the first place.

As for crimes against social classes being dismissed- thing you've just misunderstood what I wrote. I said it was about the victim being dismissed and undermined because of their social class. For example, if they're not wealthy and the person accused is wealthy, someone might dismiss the accusation as nothing more than money grabbing...

Like, uh... well like this-

"any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!"

"It is therefore far too easy and the system far too accommodating, to point the finger at someone and suggest they did this that or the other, the potential rewards are in themselves an incentive to lie."

That's what I meant by being dismissive because of social class. I'm not making these quotes up, they are all in your posts.

[neverdie]

The question is, in my world, was a crime committed, did it ever take place, the CPS says these things are 50/50 at best.

And it's worth pointing out that the police alerted the press in advance as to the search of the accused property, how did that happen I wonder.

In your world?

Is that the world when you instantly jump to the defence of an accused person without seeing, feeling, touching or hearing any evidence?

In this case possibly the defence of a potential Peadophile ?

Strange world that one.

In my world ND there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, evidence, proof, admission, court case, judge/jury - not just a newspaper article in the Daily Mail on a slow news day! If you're world looks any different from that we'll never be friends or agree on anything, end of. BTW sorry if you're still smarting from the earlier thread, that really was too bad!!!

You need to go back and read everything I've said and remember I have said it with in excess of 2 decades of criminal investigation experience. I'm not just some wannabe who makes assumptions based on no skill, no training and no experience.

As I have said half a dozen times in the thread so far, it will be interesting to see what information and evidence the 'criminal investigation' will reveal. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm talking about for which I suggest you get some formal skill and educate yourself on how it all works.

Now, no doubt, you're going to tell me how I'm an American bank officer or I am not this and that, that's up to,you. CM, I'm not 'smarting' about anything, the record is quite clear about the way in which you are responding to me these days, name calling, flames, aggression and accusations. The strange thing is, you have done this on various issues and on matters where people here have personal knowledge of me, where I come from what I did and didn't do. I do agree with you, that it's too bad you have behaved so poorly, but that's an issue for yourself, not me. You may notice I haven't been barking at you and haven't been abusive and so forth.

If you have a problem with me, build a bridge, put me on block or whatever but at least be a man and accept that everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if they are wrong. At this point if you want to see my position on this matter, You can start with and going back and reading exactly what I have written in the previous 2 pages........which is exactly more or less in line with what your last statement was made on, which would mean we are agreeing on your last point. Fancy that

There's plenty of opportunity for the person being investigated to defend himself throughout this process, at this time try let the professionals go in and investigate, let them make a determination and either prosecute the case @ the courts or perhaps they will file the matter. The evidence needs to be obtained and examined, simple as that.......it's certainly not time for the so called 'internet experts' that know fekk all about bugger all to run around in circles screaming it's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy, which at this point is pretty much what you are doing.

I will stand by for more insults and more aggression from you, which seems to be the only way you respond recently when faced with opposition to your opinion. It's not my problem and I wish you all the best for dealing with whatever personal matter that is bothering you at the moment.

Goodnight for now.

[Franky Bear]

People are obviously not familiar with Operation Yewtree and others associated with it.

After the stuff came out about JS there was a time when it looked like the cover up would continue. They arrested low level C list celebs like Harris etc. IMO the reason they went after them "first" was basically "test cases" to see if they were going to get convictions. They got the convictions and C list pedos are now in jail.

CR is a major celeb in the UK with a massive fan base along with a limitless amount of funds to fight this. The prosecution will have grilled the person that made the complaint, lawyers will have taken his every word apart and analysed it. There's no way the CPS would have made these moves against CR unless they thought they could get a conviction. The reason they will have made it so public is to show they are not scared to go after big fish and to hopefully encourage others abused to come forwards about CR and other big names like many famous rock stars that are no doubt sitting right now saying, "Uh-Ho"


These names have come up since the late 70's and early 80's but they were always brushed under the carpet by the establishment.

If you are not familiar with this i suggest you use google and type these words in

"Operation Yewtree"
Operation Fernbridge
Jill Dando
The Krays
KIngs cross railway station
Leon Britton



It's all there.

IMO this will go all the way up to the Royal Family

[mrtoad]

Blah blah blah, go back and read my views again - any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!"

I do not agree that is appropriate and the herd mentality is beginning to prevail, as demonstrated by the replies in this thread - folks are simply not thinking it all through or looking at the issues objectively.

EDIT: for unnecessary clarity, amongst thinking half way intelligent people or better:

I do not support or condone child abuse in any shape or form, just as I don't support dimwittedness either!

Now perhaps the lead dog would lead the pack elsewhere! Woof!

Your views are particularly offensive, and the attitude is just one of the reasons as to why many victims of sexual abuse take years for them to come forward. I have worked with both the offender and the victims over the years, and some of the stuff that I have heard would make most peoples skin crawl. There will be more investigations over the coming years, as the wall of secrecy that has protected many of these along doers for many years comes down. As for Savile, most of it was known 20 or so years ago, but people were to scared to act upon it, just have a look at the Elm House list, and see that this stuff goes right to the very, very highest echelons of British Society. No wonder some of the victims were scared to speak out.

[chiang mai]

I never said those things, you imagined and fabricated them:

I did not say an previous crime should not be investigated.

I did not say that the crimes proven against the people you mentioned should not have been prosecuted.

I did not say crimes between different social classes should be dismissed.

Is there anything else you would like to put to me about things I did not say?

Suggest strongly you revisit the things I did say, sllowly, big deep breaths.

Okay, took a big breath and re-read what you wrote. Like when you suggested that if a certain amount of time had passed, such crimes shouldn't be investigated.

"You are asking me if I think there should be a statute of limitations on various crimes? My simple answer is yes.."

As for those who were investigated and prosecuted (Harris, Hall etc) - they're crimes were investigated long after the incidents. Which you've already come out against. Re: statue of limitations and -

"I do not believe for one moment that the vast majority of humans are capable of accurate recall, of details that comprise events that are forty or fifty years old."

"If this nonsense continues, at some point in time we'll likely reach a stage where folks will be arrested for something they may or may not have done, in a previous life."

So no, you never say they shouldn't have been prosecuted, but under your logic they would have never been investigated in the first place.

As for crimes against social classes being dismissed- thing you've just misunderstood what I wrote. I said it was about the victim being dismissed and undermined because of their social class. For example, if they're not wealthy and the person accused is wealthy, someone might dismiss the accusation as nothing more than money grabbing...

Like, uh... well like this-

"any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!"

"It is therefore far too easy and the system far too accommodating, to point the finger at someone and suggest they did this that or the other, the potential rewards are in themselves an incentive to lie."

That's what I meant by being dismissive because of social class. I'm not making these quotes up, they are all in your posts.

My response:

“So no, you never say they shouldn't have been prosecuted”, correct.

“but under your logic they would have never been investigated in the first place”,

Not necessarily! I think there is some form of grid matrix where the nature of the crime is on one axis and the length of time since it took place is on the other, the availability and reliability of witnesses is yet another. I would imagine that most sex crimes tend not to be in the company of large numbers of witnesses, reliable or otherwise, much of the evidence would therefore seem to be circumstantial in those scenarios.

As for crimes against social classes being dismissed- thing you've just misunderstood what I wrote. I said it was about the victim being dismissed and undermined because of their social class. For example, if they're not wealthy and the person accused is wealthy, someone might dismiss the accusation as nothing more than money grabbing.

“any penniless thirty five year old in the UK can now seemingly point the finger at an older wealthy celebrity and accuse them of all manner of bad things, "you did this to me, forty/fifty years ago, remember"? Well actually no. Is this now the replacement for unemployment and disability benefits and lottery losers!" . "It is therefore far too easy and the system far too accommodating, to point the finger at someone and suggest they did this that or the other, the potential rewards are in themselves an incentive to lie."

Yes OK fair cop, I should have said, any penniless, Walter Mitty like, phsyscopathic, bad natured, bankrupt, etc etc. Apologies for not making the list all inclusive, which it is still not.

[mrtoad]

It's all there.

IMO this will go all the way up to the Royal Family

Correct a certain person surname beginning with M is often mentioned

[mrtoad]

A new low in posting, with Peadophilia being defended and victims being called vindictive. Wow.

[jacky54]

These type of accusations are not taken lightly by the CPS or the Police. To get a Court Order to search someone's house while they are absent leaves the CPS open to a massive lawsuit from an ordinary person never the less a celebrity.

No smoke without fire

This must be the stupidest saying in the English language, no prosecution without proof would be a better one.

[Franky Bear]

It's all there.

IMO this will go all the way up to the Royal Family

Correct a certain person surname beginning with M is often mentioned

I like the (British) Royal Family and support them. I think in 5-10 years that opinion will have changed.

[mrtoad]

Two days ago? Sorry CM I wasn't on line two days ago. You're pretty sick though, that's for sure.

[jacky54]

This will all go nowhere just like the Greville Janner case, ooh sorry 'Lord' Janner. He was named by Frank Beck nearly 30 years ago as an abuser of boys. Beck received several life sentences for abuse after he outed then MP for Leicester N West Janner. Despite having his office raided in Westminster the case was dropped and it had far more going for it than the CR one looks like having.

Edited August 15, 2014 by jacky54

[Strangebrew]

Who the hell is Cliff Richards?

[CharlieH]

Agree or disagree over the aspects of this BUT DONT get personal with your remarks about others.

Forum rules will be enforced and offenders dealt with swiftly.

[mrtoad]

Who the hell is Cliff Richards?

Some bloke that releases crappy Christmas songs every year

[Franky Bear]

This will all go nowhere just like the Greville Janner case, ooh sorry 'Lord Janner. He was named by Frank Beck nearly 30 years ago as an abuser of boys. Beck recieved several life sentences for abuse after he outed then MP for Leicester N West Janner. Despite having his office raided in Westminster the case was dropped and it had far more going for it than the CR one looks like having.

Or Rolf Harris, Or Max Clifford, or Stuart Hall.......

[ATF]

These type of accusations are not taken lightly by the CPS or the Police. To get a Court Order to search someone's house while they are absent leaves the CPS open to a massive lawsuit from an ordinary person never the less a celebrity.

No smoke without fire

This must be the stupidest saying in the English language, no prosecution without proof would be a better one.

A search warrant cannot be issued without reasonable suspicion. It's not something that's done lightly.

[jacky54]

Who the hell is Cliff Richards?

Harry Webb born in India and more popular than the Beatles in Thailand back in the 60's

Edited August 15, 2014 by jacky54

[mrtoad]

I'm in agreement that the police must have reasonable evidence to have been issued with a search warrant. There is a lot of people that have been hiding away for a few years, that must be shitting themselves , as they wait for the knock on the door.