British Singer Sir Cliff Richard Questioned Over Alleged Sex Offense from 35 Years Ago

LONDON – One of Britain’s best-known entertainers, singer Sir Cliff Richard, has been questioned again by police investigating allegations of historical sex crimes, his spokesman said on Friday.

Sir Richard, 75, voluntarily met officers from South Yorkshire Police which launched an inquiry last year into allegations that date back to the 1980s and involve an under-age boy.

“He was not arrested or charged, nor has he ever been. He co-operated fully with officers and answered the questions put to him,” his spokesman said.

“Other than restating that the allegations are completely false and that he will continue to co-operate fully with the police, it would not be appropriate for Sir Cliff to say anything further at this time.”

Full story: http://www.chiangraitimes.com/british-singer-sir-cliff-richard-questioned-over-alleged-sex-offense-from-35-years-ago.html

-- CHIANGRAI TIMES 2015-11-09

Knowing his proclivity and sexual preferences, it is possible that that has happened,

I just hope that is a false charge as I really would like to see such a huge personality

goes to jail, what is it with those famous people that can't keep their dick in their

pants and are now being exposed as sexual deviances?

He won't go to jail. He knows too much about powerful others.

There are a million ways to string allegations out for years (See: Janner case).

These allegations will follow Sir Cliff Richard, resident and citizen of Barbados, to the grave and remain unresolved. At which point, his still living accomplices will sleep a little easier.

I'm surprised he hasn't come to Thailand to teach English.

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

Hey--I'm not clairvoyant! And don't call me Claire.

Great stuff. My sister tried to seduce me at the age of 10. Who is guilty?

Guess his groupie fans, will queue up for his next tour "the After 75th Birthday Tour" of UK .

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

"Here??"

The principal allegation comes from a man who says that as a youth he was abused by the singer during a Christian rally at Sheffield’s Bramall Lane football stadium in 1985.

The search was filmed by the BBC after the broadcaster was given advance warning.

That raid led to criticism from lawmakers who described the co-operation between the police and the BBC as “inept” and causing “irreparable damage” to the singer’s reputation.

"the co-operation between the police and the BBC "

"Cooperation" is another name for tea money?

Edited November 9, 201510 yr by Suradit69

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

Just google Cliff Richard, Kitty, Elm Guest House and all will be revealed!

TBWG

Cliff Richard is the only person who doesn't think Cliff Richard is gay. Hence he never came out, he didn't need to.

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

"Here??"

The principal allegation comes from a man who says that as a youth he was abused by the singer during a Christian rally at Sheffield’s Bramall Lane football stadium in 1985.

The search was filmed by the BBC after the broadcaster was given advance warning.

That raid led to criticism from lawmakers who described the co-operation between the police and the BBC as “inept” and causing “irreparable damage” to the singer’s reputation.

"the co-operation between the police and the BBC "

"Cooperation" is another name for tea money?

Don't think so.

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

See post 10, google it and have a re think.

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

Just google Cliff Richard, Kitty, Elm Guest House and all will be revealed!

TBWG

Don't forget dear old Tony Blair ( Miranda) another customer, so it seems with contacts like that, is another reason Cliff Richards will get away with anything that is proven against him

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

Ask a victim of sexual abuse about the effects it had on them and then think about it, and then, rewrite your excuse.

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

See post 10, google it and have a re think.

Nothing there that proves Cliff Richard did anything illegal. Until he's proven guilty of wrecking someone's life, stop wrecking his.

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

Ask a victim of sexual abuse about the effects it had on them and then think about it, and then, rewrite your excuse.

All those I have known (I studied child abuse as a psychologist at university) chose not to make a fuss about it. Evidently strength of character comes into it, which is fortunate for those who have it. Problem is, people are also capable of exploiting a sense of victimisation in order to gain approbation from society in order to compensate for unrelated types of personal failure. Anyone passing judgement on these issues should at least be aware of the hidden psychological dynamics.

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

Ask a victim of sexual abuse about the effects it had on them and then think about it, and then, rewrite your excuse.

All those I have known (I studied child abuse as a psychologist at university) chose not to make a fuss about it. Evidently strength of character comes into it, which is fortunate for those who have it. Problem is, people are also capable of exploiting a sense of victimisation in order to gain approbation from society in order to compensate for unrelated types of personal failure. Anyone passing judgement on these issues should at least be aware of the hidden psychological dynamics.

I remain unconvinced.

Great stuff. My sister tried to seduce me at the age of 10. Who is guilty?

I appreciate the post maybe tongue in cheek. However, if your sis was famous and you made the compaint 40 years later, she's in the slammer.

Kitty ? his nickname ?

The truth will come out.

How do people here make such claims yet offer no evidence? Did clairvoyance just become plausible?

well he has appeared regularly on the BBC, and he has shaken hands with the queen of England, so by the law of averages........

Guilty! My mum always said he was dodgy after he started singing at Wimbledon!

Edited November 10, 201510 yr by roo860

It's impossible to prove that any psychological harm was actually done, and it's quite possible that the claimants are concocting a convenient excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since. Whatever happened - and no one can ever know the full context that even a single glance or smile can alter (such is the subtlety of human interaction) - I certainly don't believe Sir Cliff intended to cause anyone harm, physical or psychological.

Society needs to reboot on this issue.

See post 10, google it and have a re think.

Nothing there that proves Cliff Richard did anything illegal. Until he's proven guilty of wrecking someone's life, stop wrecking his.

Well apart from his dreadful singing but I guess that is a matter of personal taste and we cannot lock people up for that, unfortunately.

He'll always have a criminal record........."Miseltoe and wine"...

Sir Cliff Richard sex abuse inquiry: No charges for singer

Singer Sir Cliff Richard will face no further action over allegations of historical sex abuse, prosecutors say.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it had "carefully reviewed" the case and decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute".

Sir Cliff said he was "obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close".

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038

Edited June 16, 201610 yr by Basil B