Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 19:43:48 GMT -1
Well now. So Sir Cliff's UK home was raided this morning by the polis, on account of a charge of historical sexual abuse. Bormes and Nota have both posted here about such allegations this past few months so I doubt this comes as a surprise to either of youse? Some might say *no smoke without fire*, others might say *innocent till proved guilty*. I seriously hope Cliff's crime career goes no further than becoming a Barbadian citizen and avoiding UK tax. (he signed the Better Together letter btw, that 'celeb' appeal...hollow laugh...)
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Aug 14, 2014 21:20:00 GMT -1
Getting a bit like the Star Chamber (pun most definitely intended)
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Aug 14, 2014 21:39:32 GMT -1
He was a "Friend " of one of the UK's most notorious killers and gangster Kray twin, he was a great "Friend" of Lord Boothby and various other Gay actors etc., He was apparently a regular visitor to the infamous London B and B where children were regularly shagged by paedos. He signed in as "Kitty" allegedly and one of the forced children has spilt the beans so to speak, he is also alleged to have been to the infamous Jersey nightmare where possibly or allegedly killings took place!! Saville was also a friend of his. I think Westminster and many hangers on are tainted with sickness!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 22:39:04 GMT -1
You'd imagine the polis are acting on bona-fide information rather than rumour/internet allegations/conspiracy theories...you'd hope so, anyway.
There is something really bad about the whole Jersey care home thing, and also many other abuses that have been covered up over the years, I've no doubt about that.
Personally it doesn't matter a jot to me whether an abuser is hetero, gay, trans or whatever. It's well documented that the tendency to paedophilia cuts across all classes and creeds. Like all sexual assaults, it's more about exerting so-called power than the actual *act*.
I'm kinda pathetically hoping against hope that he has not done anything untoward that's hurt somebody though.
Wee story:
Pretty much 40 years back now, I was charged with managing a personal appearance he made at the QMU, on a charity appeal. I'm not *religious* myself so I wasn't remotely interested in his *message* but I invited my mum along, huge Cliff fan that she is, and introduced her to him after. He was charming and generous, and in all honesty, I didn't get any kind of creepy vibe off him, unlike more than a few others I've met in a long career in the media industry.
She was that pleased to meet him. I so hope that fond memory's not about to be tainted, I really do.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Aug 15, 2014 5:44:01 GMT -1
Apparently the polis have removed a whole pile of disgusting dvds and other horrendous material - thats his back catalogue and new releases sorted - they are still looking for the child abuse stuff
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Aug 15, 2014 8:22:15 GMT -1
Thats terrible!!!!
I love it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 22:19:13 GMT -1
Apparently the polis have removed a whole pile of disgusting dvds and other horrendous material - thats his back catalogue and new releases sorted - they are still looking for the child abuse stuff Ah. The criminal records, eh? Nah, seriously though, I'd find it hard to believe Cliff has hurt or abused anyone. Call it gut instinct, gaydar, whatever. And another thing. I find it more than a bit disturbing that there's been so much publicity about this: the BBC were apparently tipped off by the police that they'd be raiding the premises and were there on the spot to film and report it. Every front page of every newspaper is carrying the story and of course via social networking, the whole world's aware. I don't think that's right. It's tantamount to trial by media. Should these proceedings not be confidential until such time as there's enough evidence to charge a person with a crime? And then to let the due processes of law decide on guilt or innocence? But call me old-fashioned.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Aug 16, 2014 6:16:22 GMT -1
Apparently the polis have removed a whole pile of disgusting dvds and other horrendous material - thats his back catalogue and new releases sorted - they are still looking for the child abuse stuff Ah. The criminal records, eh? Nah, seriously though, I'd find it hard to believe Cliff has hurt or abused anyone. Call it gut instinct, gaydar, whatever. And another thing. I find it more than a bit disturbing that there's been so much publicity about this: the BBC were apparently tipped off by the police that they'd be raiding the premises and were there on the spot to film and report it. Every front page of every newspaper is carrying the story and of course via social networking, the whole world's aware. I don't think that's right. It's tantamount to trial by media. Should these proceedings not be confidential until such time as there's enough evidence to charge a person with a crime? And then to let the due processes of law decide on guilt or innocence? But call me old-fashioned. They cant be confidential, well apart from whats said in the interview room until the trial if any - reason being is that publicising this will bring other evidence to light, whither that be victims, witnesses or other evidence like pictures film etc.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Aug 16, 2014 7:31:17 GMT -1
Perhaps he did not get tipped off in time to put a super injunction on, remember them, these super injunctions that most of us thought were outrageous as it meant the mega wealthy were being able to hide when ordinary mortals had names all over the media if suspected of anything? Mr House the current Police chief of Scotland has an ongoing one allegedly!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 20:05:39 GMT -1
Ah. The criminal records, eh? Nah, seriously though, I'd find it hard to believe Cliff has hurt or abused anyone. Call it gut instinct, gaydar, whatever. And another thing. I find it more than a bit disturbing that there's been so much publicity about this: the BBC were apparently tipped off by the police that they'd be raiding the premises and were there on the spot to film and report it. Every front page of every newspaper is carrying the story and of course via social networking, the whole world's aware. I don't think that's right. It's tantamount to trial by media. Should these proceedings not be confidential until such time as there's enough evidence to charge a person with a crime? And then to let the due processes of law decide on guilt or innocence? But call me old-fashioned. They cant be confidential, well apart from whats said in the interview room until the trial if any - reason being is that publicising this will bring other evidence to light, whither that be victims, witnesses or other evidence like pictures film etc. Yeah, I never thought of that actually. I can't help but think though: what if the allegation's unfounded? I'm thinking of that murder case in Bristol a few years back when the girl's landlord was pretty much tried and convicted by the media because he looked a bit eccentric. Turned out it was a neighbour that did it. I still think the raid shouldn't have been made public till he's been charged with a crime. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Aug 16, 2014 20:10:04 GMT -1
The Police are BECOMING THE LAW!! DANGER!!!!
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Aug 16, 2014 20:59:05 GMT -1
They cant be confidential, well apart from whats said in the interview room until the trial if any - reason being is that publicising this will bring other evidence to light, whither that be victims, witnesses or other evidence like pictures film etc. Yeah, I never thought of that actually. I can't help but think though: what if the allegation's unfounded? I'm thinking of that murder case in Bristol a few years back when the girl's landlord was pretty much tried and convicted by the media because he looked a bit eccentric. Turned out it was a neighbour that did it. I still think the raid shouldn't have been made public till he's been charged with a crime. Or not. Think erse also a modicum of trying to manage the media response too, remember when Rolf was interviewed it all went pear shaped because he was listed as an 80 odd year old un-named so speculation ran rife. At the end of the day, I suppose you can't have a news blackout on it as it will out, they can only control, uk based sites, stick the info on a foreign hosted site and here's hee-haw they can do
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 21:07:09 GMT -1
Well, Nota, the story goes that the Police tipped off the BBC who were there waiting with camera crews when the raid took place. It's been reported that Cliff himself was not told. Maybe for the reason Bormes mentions? Cliff's said he's been aware of the internet *noise* but didn't dignify it by responding. You wonder if he'd have taken out an injunction against a search of his property. I aye think injunctions imply something to hide...
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Aug 16, 2014 21:20:31 GMT -1
Well, Nota, the story goes that the Police tipped off the BBC who were there waiting with camera crews when the raid took place. It's been reported that Cliff himself was not told. Maybe for the reason Bormes mentions? Cliff's said he's been aware of the internet *noise* but didn't dignify it by responding. You wonder if he'd have taken out an injunction against a search of his property. I aye think injunctions imply something to hide... Very difficult to take an injunction out against a search warrant. The polis only have to show limited evidence to obtain one, they can enter your premises without one if they choose, but are only allowed to inspect, not search and/or remove anything. As long as the warrant is signed by an appropriate magistrate and contains correct details then its legal The polis had been working with the BBC apparently, they insist that hey didn't announce the search warrant details to them. Cliff is bound by the same rules/laws as everyone else, he does not warrant any consideration that anyone else wouldn't receive. There's no real legal requirement not to name persons of interest to an enquiry, protecting his sensibilities is not on, when they don't do it for others, just because the media snt much interested in jo bloggs and what he does, doesn't mitigate anything in the slightest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 22:15:24 GMT -1
I thought, in Scotland anyway, that polis don't name a suspect in any case until an arrest's been made?
|
|