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

[OurBlanche]

The roumours were that he was gay... true. That he frequented certain places... true. The later accusations were not clear and there was no eveidence... he was never questioned, nothing was found.

He now joins the slowly growing list of famous, older male celebrities who have been accused, identified, vilified and then just told "OK, bye". Reputations rmain damaged. Jobs, friends, families lost.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

^ this.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

Sorry, the ^ this was to mrsspecter.

[Clawdy]

Mum, automatically believing everyone who makes a claim is as wrong as automatically disbelieving anyone who makes a claim.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

Exactly clawdy.

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

Somebody puts themselves through 2 years of investigations and stress to be told sorry there's not enough evidence now

Why would these people do that?

[Tiggeryoubastard]

You would be amazed what some people will do. Be it lying continually OR abusing people.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[TooMuchMNTime]

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

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

apostrophe what, all 4 people who have made accusations?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[TooMuchMNTime]

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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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)