Cliff Richard now?!

RandomName2 · 14-08-2014 08:26PM

buck65 wrote: »

Some naive nonsense on here about holding off until he is proven guilty. Seen this all before. Scumbag

...

They say thinking is dangerous, but I've ben doin sum of it, an I think you may be the guilty party, an your just saying that to get us off your scent. Would be mighty pritty if Richard got sent down for your crime, without time to say antin. Real pritty algether.

I'm onna you.

Scumbag.

emeldc · 14-08-2014 08:42PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

A lack of evidence doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed. In this case, there could be no evidence currently available to prove the crime but this doesn't mean Cliff Richard didn't commit the crime. That's the problem with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' part.

And yet the alleged evil perpetrator, Cliff Richard is named in the press but the 'victim' making the accusation isn't. Even if there is no evidence against him, he's fcuked. That seems fair, doesn't it?

lee_baby_simms · 14-08-2014 08:46PM

Scary to think that some people on this thread could be on jury service next week.

Bang_Bang · 14-08-2014 09:08PM

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Scary to think that some people on this thread could be on jury service next week.

I'd say every personality at the BBC and ITV from the 80's and 90's are fúcking shítting themselves, it seems to be the done thing at the time, especially raping teenagers.

Holsten · 14-08-2014 09:12PM

None of these people should ever be named like this, so stupid it blows my mind.

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 09:12PM

anncoates wrote: »

Surely his penchant for tight leather trousers and avuncular cardigans combos should have alerted the authorities decades ago.

If not that, his cold dead eyes?

http://cliffricharddyinginside.tumblr.com/

:eek:

Nomis21 · 14-08-2014 09:17PM

Here's a bit more for the rumour mill but the facts below are true:

In the early 70's Cliff Richard was invited to sing and talk about Christianity by the Religious Education teacher in the school where I was a teenage pupil in North London.

The teacher who invited Cliff to the school was sacked shortly after Cliff Richard's visit and convicted of sexually abusing boys and jailed.

Bang_Bang · 14-08-2014 09:30PM

Holsten wrote: »

None of these people should ever be named like this, so stupid it blows my mind.

Why? Most have been guilty apart from ken (sink the banana) Barlow

Shakespeare's Sister · 14-08-2014 10:15PM

buck65 wrote: »

Some naive nonsense on here about holding off until he is proven guilty. Seen this all before. Scumbag

Wtf? No matter how much you want him to be guilty, doesn't mean he is. This allegation could be false.

B.A._Baracus · 14-08-2014 10:32PM

".. we're on going on... brixton holiday..."

DeanAustin · 14-08-2014 10:41PM

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Why? Most have been guilty apart from ken (sink the banana) Barlow

Well that's not true...

alan partridge aha · 14-08-2014 10:47PM

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Why? Most have been guilty apart from ken (sink the banana) Barlow

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

14-08-2014 10:55PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

A lack of evidence doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.

If anyone made that remark in relation to a rape case, the weight of AH's wrath would befall him. Rightly so.

Just because he's a 'sleb doesn't mean he's automatically guilty.

In this case, there could be no evidence currently available to prove the crime but this doesn't mean Cliff Richard didn't commit the crime. That's the problem with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' part.

No, that's the beauty of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' part.

Shakespeare's Sister · 14-08-2014 11:00PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

Yeh a false allegation is too damn easy to make, that's why I'm always so skeptical until proof comes out/they're found guilty.
The "No smoke without fire" crowd strike me as people who much prefer the world being full of paedos - that's how anxious they seem to be for people to be found guilty of child abuse.

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 11:09PM

Magaggie wrote: »

The "No smoke without fire" crowd strike me as people who much prefer the world being full of paedos - that's how anxious they seem to be for people to be found guilty of child abuse.

That is some twisted logic you got going there.

Personally, I would prefer to believe one of the top level cops in the UK who says most people who make allegations of child sex abuse are telling the truth.

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 11:11PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

No, sorry, wrong. Those people were acquitted, that's true (or in case of Davidson, never charged.)

But that does not necessarily mean the allegations have been proven false. It means the allegations did not meet the criminal test of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Shakespeare's Sister · 14-08-2014 11:19PM

porsche959 wrote: »

That is some twisted logic you got going there.

Personally, I would prefer to believe one of the top level cops in the UK who says most people who make allegations of child sex abuse are telling the truth.

Oh I'm not part of the "Ah shur they're probably making it up for the money" crowd either. But some people, they hear an allegation (which it is easy to make in fairness) and that's it: mind made up that the accused is guilty, because "There's no smoke without fire", "There was always something a bit funny about him".

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 11:22PM

Magaggie wrote: »

Oh I'm not part of the "Ah shur they're probably making it up for the money" crowd either. But some people, they hear an allegation (which it is easy to make in fairness) and that's it: mind made up that the accused is guilty, because "There's no smoke without fire", "There was always something a bit funny about him".

It's true that false allegations/rumour mill can do harm.

Infamous case from Jersey years back, where a local eccentric was falsely accused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Le_Gastelois

darkpagandeath · 14-08-2014 11:25PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, But all these people with their "well the charges did not stand up". In our and the UK system, You cant be found innocent can you ? You can be declared not guilty by a jury, or have the charges dismissed ?

14-08-2014 11:25PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

It's very hard to prove something as false, even if you can easily demonstrate that it doesn't meet the burden of proof.

If you imprison people for making allegations without definitive proof those are false, you'll deter people from coming forward for fear they'll be imprisoned if a conviction isn't obtained.

It's not a great system but it's the lesser of two evils. A much more sensible idea is to extend anonymity to the accused until a conviction is obtained.

Frankie Lee · 14-08-2014 11:26PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

There is a lot of grey area between a false allegation and not enough evidence to secure a conviction however. Especially when you have a prosecution service and police actively halting investigations into powerful people down through the years.

suicide_circus · 14-08-2014 11:28PM

Cliff has had it up to his elbow with these rumors

Bang_Bang · 14-08-2014 11:49PM

DeanAustin wrote: »

Well that's not true...

Name them, that are not pedos?

Busted Flat. · 14-08-2014 11:52PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Cliff has had it up to his elbow with these rumors

That's deep.

Bang_Bang · 14-08-2014 11:52PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Dont talk BS Bill Roache, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell, Fred Starr, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis(so Far), the scum who hide behind anonymity should be named and imprisoned once the allegations have been proven false.:mad:

Maybe, but they know this bóllox this was goin on

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 12:13AM

Candie wrote: »

It's not a great system but it's the lesser of two evils. A much more sensible idea is to extend anonymity to the accused until a conviction is obtained.

True, but if they go to the media with their story, their anonymity should be waved.

porsche959 wrote: »

No, sorry, wrong. Those people were acquitted, that's true (or in case of Davidson, never charged.)

But that does not necessarily mean the allegations have been proven false. It means the allegations did not meet the criminal test of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

innocent until proven guilty.

recylingbin · 15-08-2014 12:45AM

Cliff should get Max Clifford in to bury this story.
What?
Oh.

alan partridge aha · 15-08-2014 12:52AM

porsche959 wrote: »

No, sorry, wrong. Those people were acquitted, that's true (or in case of Davidson, never charged.)

But that does not necessarily mean the allegations have been proven false. It means the allegations did not meet the criminal test of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Enough is enough, these men were not found guilty and yet they will still be tarnished because of some people's unwillingness to accept the verdict. Deep down a lot of people want to believe their guilty no matter what.

SterlingArcher · 15-08-2014 01:04AM

Maybe the girl just slipped off the cliff and landed on his Richard?

diomed · 15-08-2014 01:17AM

buck65 wrote: »

Who the **** is Freddy Starr?

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1434884.ece/alternates/s927b/Freddie%20Starr%20in%20Who%20Do%20You%20Do%20-%201974

Cliff Richard now?!

Comments