Cliff Richard to face no charges for claims of historic sexual abuse

[Queenbean]

Due to insufficient evidence

www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/16/cliff-richard-will-not-face-charges-over-sexual-abuse-claims

[PlectrumElectrum]

As much as he feels he's justified in suing both organisations, I abhor his decision to do so. Does he need the money? What purpose does it serve to extract funds from either organisation given they are both public bodies? To prevent them from naming other well known figures in similar circumstances in future? Given the flip side of Cliff Richard/Paul Gambacini/Nigel Evans is Stuart Hall/Max Clifford/Rolf Harris, with many more now dead who escaped that scrutiny through no doubt threatening the very action CR is currently taking, I think it's pretty appalling that he's taking this route now. He's flexing that very power that those who are guilty of such offences use as such a powerful weapon in silencing victims/the justice system/media etc.

Had he decided to campaign for whatever law changes he deemed necessary to protect all those future well known people from the public scrutiny he's endured, I could see the point (even if I disagree with it). But a millionaire suing both organisations for millions?

[11122aa]

He has Just announced he is suing the BBC and Police. Will probably succeed in both the legal action and changing the law for no naming till charge or even conviction ( what government is going to say no to the media and household names supporting it.) The public also support it when it comes to famous people ( yet when serial rapists get off because of it they people will rightly moan about the law they wanted changed).

[Girlgonewild]

I tell people every week not to sue because it costs a fortune and you often lose. in 99% of cases where yiou have a good case it makes sense not to sue. Failure to sue for libel or the conduct of the BBC or whatever does not mean guilt.

As we all know we are all innocent until proven guilty in the UK thankfully.

[228agreenend]

Sorry, not obvious, can you explain.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

^ what prettydumb said.

[PrettyDumb]

He won't sue. The reason why is obvious.

[228agreenend]

There's an interview with Cliff on This Morning tomorrow. It would be interesting to hear how he feels (and whether his faith has supported him during this time).

Surely if there was any remaining suspicion, they wouldn't have closed the case. Possibly naive, but innocent until proved guilty.

[11122aa]

And it's heavily rumoured that Cliff has secrets he does not want to reveal but are open secrets.
Cliff would be the perfect person for that conspiracy having his main ( and very loyal) fan base as older females with a completely squeaky clean public image and many celebrity friends to help the campaign succeed ( which it will because who will speak out and risk being accused allowing an innocent man life to be destroyed)

[mummytime]

But wouldn't this be a brilliant way to get a cover up law through?

A dodgy police force informs national media when it is going to make a raid on a high profile celeb. The raid gets national coverage. The celeb's name gets pulled through the mud - and ideally the witnesses/accusers are unreliable/can be frightened off.
Then this celeb can be used to push through gagging legislation.

(In fact it would work best probably if the celeb wasn't guilty - but had a few other secrets. Even easier if they could be shut up about anything they may know about the larger conspiracy).

Of course I have no idea what is truth or lies.
Just that in the 80s, 70s, 60s etc. not all abusers were well known/powerful but lots did "get away with it".

[bojorojo]

The Daily Mail is not the most sensible newspaper to read for a balanced debate. People who support the need to publish names of who is being investigated say it must continue to allow those who have been traumatised by abuse to come forward. It is a fishing exercise. In some cases like Jimmy Savile, it worked. With Sir Cliff, it has been a disaster.

What I find odd is why South Yorkdhire Police tipped off the BBC about the raid and why the BBC decided to go along with it. Both poor decisions.

Lastly I find Sir Cliff is suddenly very quiet about his strong Christian beliefs and it appears revenge is on his agenda. He may be entitled to pursue SYP and the BBC in the Courts but possibly forgiveness, letting go of anger and lending his support to others who are not in his financial position might be a better way forward. There have been parents of murdered children, who have a strong faith,who have been able to do this and have been stronger for it. He says this investigation nearly killed him. I find this odd. His belief in Jesus should rise above this. He died, Cliff Richard did not. I am not religious but I do know what a true Christian would do, and it is not retribution that Sir Cliff is likely to pursue and it is not being consumed by anger. Obviously his very publically proclaimed faith has not helped him at all.

[11122aa]

Judging by the front page of the mail today I will be surprised if the law doesn't end up getting changed quite soon. Either a ban on naming before charge or even conviction and/or a statutory reporting time limit will unfortunately be introduced because they do have public support. Id estimate the likelihood of no change at about 10% as public opinion is very strongly in favour of change sadly.

[TooMuchMNTime]

Oh interesting, I didn't see that. What a way to get kicks!

[11122aa]

According to the media today a serial psychopathic accuser was among the nine. I presume attempts to prosecute will occur as this person would appear to be one of the relatively rare true false accusers doing it for just personal enjoyment.

[228agreenend]

Innocent until,proven guilty. Whether you are a famous celebrity, or an ordernary nobody, then you shouldn't be named. Otherwise you are guilty by association.

[11122aa]

The debate will be interesting. A conflicted media but public opinion in the favour of not naming. And naming advocates will tend to be made up of politicians and advocates who are more likely to support remain and therefore not popular if leave has won.

[HooseRice]

Cliff's now calling for high profile figures who are accused of sexual assaults to remain anonymous.

My first thought was that possibly he is innocent (rather than being made of Teflon) and the whole thing is a stunt for the above to go hastily through the Commons preventing actual high profile sex abusers being named.

I wouldn't put it past The Establishment.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

Like myself, apostrophe wasn't specifically referring to the accusers in this case. Just answering your previous question asking why people would do that.

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

apostrophe what, all 4 people who have made accusations?

[TooMuchMNTime]

Tigger, good point, I was just thinking in terms of law and prejudicing trials and so on.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

Jeffries was the media. This was (yes I get that the BBC is also media) the establishment. Bloody odd thing to do.

[TooMuchMNTime]

Tigger, the other thing is when the law allows things like that - I realise Richard could sue but he shouldn't have to - or coverage like what happened to Christopher Jeffries, you do wonder what other shite the law has in place.

I remember reading that Geoff someone lawyer - married to Kathy lette, forget his name - saying that what was done to Richards was an outrage as well. It just makes no sense. Real low point for the BBC there.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

I totally agree with that, Toomuchtime. If anything it's tainted the public perception of the case, making it look biased. But maybe that was the aim of doing that.......

[TooMuchMNTime]

no matter what anyone thinks about this, the BBC showing live footage of his home being raided was not on and I don't really understand how or why it was allowed.

[11122aa]

I do think he will sue through and with massive public support.
And I think some magazine abroad one day will post the names knowing that abroad it will be impossible to prosecute for breaching the anonymity order and way to many will post it on twitter for the police to cope.

[ApostrophesMatter]

They do it because they are ill sometimes. Or because they have been shunned by the person they falsely accuse. Or because they see pound signs if the person is rich.