Cliff Richard

[currytoohot]

In light of the CPS deciding not to charge Sir Cliff, AIBU to think the BBC should set aside as much air time in broadcasting this announcement as it did when it the police were first involved?

She's saying exactly what she said. That that was Cliffs alleged nickname for certain places that he allegedly frequented. Not that difficult to comprehend.

Not that difficult to comprehend.

I was asking a question! how about trying not to be so rude

YANBU.
And YABU to the people posting here who seem determined to suggest Guilty Until Proved Innocent.

Just as a verdict of not guilty does not equal innocent (yay for scotland with its 'not proven' verdict!), not enough evidence to prosecute does not equal no evidence. There was enough evidence for it to be passed to the CPS and historical abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Unfortunately, there is always going to be a clash between 'we believe you' and 'innocent until proven guilty'.

4 men involved here.... That's 4 'we don't believe you'

He's better off keeping his head under the parapet, rather than suing. I'm sure he doesn't want further scrutiny.

In all fairness to the BBC, they just gave it more publicity than I expected them to. Two years, £80,000 spent and still insufficient evidence - or as Cliff just said, insufficient evidence because there was not any to find in the first place.

That post is SO being deleted!

curry it dates back to 1958 so I'm not sure any evidence is going to be blindingly obvious!

Beyond - I wouldn't bet against that, in your soon to be deleted message.

However likely, I think that kind of comment is going to get the entire thread deleted...

Beyond, I completely agree.

There's a reason Saville wasn't outed until after he died - he knew too much about too many people.

That's Saville. We'll see what happens with Kitty.

And Jenner. When it came out he was oblivious. Strangely convenient, that.

It is very difficult once you have been investigated because there is never any declaration of innocence, or that the allegations were unfounded. They just say that there was insufficient evidence.

I do know of a man who was accused of threatening behaviour and punching an older woman. It never happened, and there are two witnesses to the 'event'. But the police investigated and said 'insufficient evidence' He was a man with plenty money and went back to his lawyers but his only recourse was a Daily Fail Sadface .
This woman has form for this - in fact it is her usual recourse when things don't go her way. But the police investigate every incident separately and come up with the same conclusion and never do anything about the false allegations and there are quite a few victims.

So when celebrities bleat that they are being singled out and having their name stained in some special way, I don't really feel sorry for them. It is the same for the ordinary Joe Bloggs, but they do not have a cushion of expensive lawyers and alternative residences. They have to rely on the continued respect of the people in their community who know they are good 'uns really.

I also think that time will tell on this one.

Not surprise about this but I also have a feeling what Beyond said earlier will be the case.

Having seen the Clement Freud thing - the CPS need witnesses to come forward who can corroborate their story somehow. Must be very frustrating for the police and CPS that they can't get it to court. Maybe the news of this being dropped will bring forward victim(s) with stronger, more credible stories.

This may not be the end of it all for him.

I've just read about one of the two accusers that the Police took seriously and spoke to 30 times.

This man - who of course remains anonymous - is currently in prison. He will always be in prison, as he is serving several life sentences for a series of rapes. He is categorised as one of this country's worst sex offenders. Not only that, but is also a paranoid schizophrenic and is categorised as suffering "severe mental illness".

I am absolutely flabbergasted if that is true. No wonder the CPS went with insufficient evidence. You couldn't possibly have put that accuser into court and quite frankly if the only evidence they had was this man's word, plus that of another who couldn't even correctly describe the place he said he was abused (and where Richard was never on his own) then it isn't just insufficient evidence, it's a case of no evidence whatsoever.

Ah yes "we believe you" in the case of historic abuse only applies to people who arent in prison (and for a crime that looks to be statistically linked to childhood abuse) and you are not mentally ill.

Unless of course you are only referring to him not seeming 'reliable' on the stand, which still says a lot about peoples attitudes re criminals and mental illness.

• who are not mentally ill

I agree, the CPS obviously had some evidence but not enough to stand up in court

I think the fact that one of the accusers is a rapist speaks volumes. People who go on to be sexual abusers often have a history of abuse themselves.

Generally speaking, of course.

It's not out of the realms of probability for someone who was abused as a child to go on to be an abuser themselves, with severe mental health issues.

Beyond I'm afraid as someone who saw the devastation caused to a family by a false accuser (and I point out that it was eventually proved conclusively that the accused was completely innocent), I never went along with the whole "we believe you" thing. What I think it should be is "we're listening" and to take every accusation seriously which is not the same as "belief".

And yes, I am talking about reliability on the stand because in these sorts of cases a huge amount of store has to be set by the verbal evidence given in a court because the passage of time generally means the likelihood of any physical evidence is greatly diminished. Even a rookie barrister could tear apart this particular accuser on the stand, probably sufficiently to get a judge to even throw it out of court for lack of evidence.

I say this as someone with mental health issues myself, by the way.

all charges have been dropped.

Regardless of what did and didn't happen, the BBC and police were absolutely out of order to publicize the fact that his home was being searched etc.

And claiming that someone who is an abuser must have been abused and therefore is still a victim is flimsy at best. The man is a renowned rapist, I don't think we can hold CR responsible for the fact that the man is a rapist, if so then who should we hold responsible for the actions which Jimmy Savile committed?

The statistics that rapists are themselves victims are very, very small, there is very little evidence to suggest this is the case. But if people want to use this point to make their claims about CR then you have to do that with all rapists, no? So Ched Evans, Jimmy Savile, Rolph Harris, anyone who rapes any woman must have been brought to this state by the abuse they suffered at the hands of someone else and therefore they are victims too. No thought not.