Sir Cliff Richard

[Mervyn and Trish]

Of course it is far too early to judge what will be the outcome of what will happen concerning the historic allegation made concerning Sir Cliff, but I for one will be even more shocked and disappointed if there turns out to be anything in it than I was with Rolf Harris. It certainly hasn't stopped the media going into top gear with speculation and comment today.

However, I do have a couple of thoughts concerning the raid on his home. I understand fully that it would defeat the object of such a raid if the suspect was forewarned, giving them time to clear out anything of relevance. But in that case to give notice to the media, to enable the BBC for example to have camera crews on the ground and a helicopter in the air to witness and film the police arriving, seems unforgivable. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

And what for heavens sake did they expect to find anyway? The allegation relates to 1985 and Sir Cliff bought that home in 2008. Is it remotely likely that anything related to 33 years before he moved in will be there? And given the internet speculation about him for the past two years how stupid would he be even if he was guilty as hell if the place was not now squeaky clean?

It feels to me much more like a fishing trip, to take away computers for instance, to see if there is anything they can use to chuck at him. Can a search warrant really be granted for as random a purpose as that? I don't know. Perhaps someone in the trade does, but if so it seems very sinister and 1984.

However on a positive note I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Cliff when I was but a teenager myself to interview him for hospital radio. I was alone in an office with him for around 20-30 minutes. Should I start preparing my compensation claim now? It would only be my word against his but that seems enough in these historic cases.

Or should I be offended that I was evidently such an ugly kid that he made no inappropriate moves at all?

[david63]

The words vindictiveness, jealousy, compensation, mischief are all ones that come to mind.

[towny44]

I wondered if the police had sold tickets to the search, or perhaps they all just wanted to have a nosey round his penthouse apartment. Whatever they certainly turned up mob handed.

[Silver_Shiney]

As the alleged offence is supposed to have happened at a Billy Graham rally, I can't help but feel this is just another anti-Christian pop to bring the church into disrepute. I would be bitterly disappointed if the allegations were found to be true.

However, we are all frail human beings and prone to making BIG mistakes. That does in no way excuse or condone criminal activity, be it molesting a child or making a false accusation of molestation.

[Manoverboard]

We jived to Cliff's hit ' Move It ' as far back as 1958 ...

He was linked to a few young ladys like our Cilla and Olivia Newton John etc but also shared a home, it was whispered, with Russ Conway who was, it was alleged, of a homosexual persuasion.

In those halcyon days it made not a scrap of difference to our own feelings towards him as a musician but now I ask myself " Who is this little creep who has come out of the woodwork " ?

A compo seeker I reckon and one who should be banged up at his Majesty's pleasure unless he has proof positive for his unwelcome accusations.

[gfwgfw]

Bleeding Heck

The late Sir James Wilson Vincent "Jimmy" Savile, OBE, KCSG has unashamedly left a gert "Hornets Nest" has he not

To my simple mind it is getting a tad empty headed

Bodies popping out the rotten timber with dubious long distant disturbed memories

Is SAD yes but just let it be

Luboo all

The Reflective Giant of Cerne Abbas

[Silver_Shiney]

I heard them say this is nothing to do with Op Yewtree....

Who knows?

[david63]

I heard them say this is nothing to do with Op Yewtree....

Who knows?

Perhaps not directly but it almost certainly is indirectly.

[Delboy]

I met him before he had made his first record, in 1957/58 I used to visit a coffee bar in Soho London called the 2i's, in the basement was a small room where they used to have groups play, it only had room for about twenty people. that's where I met him, he used to sing there as did Tommy Steele.

I was born the same year as Cliif Richard 1940, my birthday being in February his in October.

I suspect the police intention when raiding his property and why they informed the press, was to bring as much attention to the incident as possible, in the hope that it would jog others people's memories, and cause more other people to come forward, some people's memories being easily jogged.

Personally I believe in innocent until proved guilty, and I don't think the police handling by notifying the press before him, was the right way to go about it, especially as the accuser remains anonymous.

[paulosmac]

Whilst everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, we should not be publishing or broadcasting anyone's name in relation to these sorts of offences. It's disgraceful that his name will be now tainted regardless of the outcome of the criminal justice process.

I would say to previous posters however, you need to be careful of your default positions on the subject of historic child abuse (mainly by celebrities) being reported many years down the line. You appear to be dismissing them as malicious and judging the complainant without any objective evidence to back up your assumptions. I remember the posts about Savile a few years ago, when that story first broke on the old P&O forum and there were certain people who initially came across as apologists...

This type of offence needs both parties to remain anonymous until the judicial process has been concluded

[Stephen]

To be on the safe side I don't think he'll be singing 'The Young Ones' for a while

[royalprincess]

It seems to me that they have a list and a pin and then shut their eyes and wherever the pin lands that's the next person who will be investigated and to hell with the consequences that causes.

[Silver_Shiney]

You could well be right, royalprincess....

[towny44]

Well I hope he is innocent, but I did hope the same with Rolf Harris, however if they do decide to charge him he may be better off facing a South Yorkshire jury, rather than a vindictive Southwark one.

[Mervyn and Trish]

You mean they may be too busy reading their Pigeon Fanciers Gazette to pay much attention?

BTW my apologies for my mathematical failing, 1985 - 2008 is of course 23 years rather than 33!

I would say to previous posters however, you need to be careful of your default positions on the subject of historic child abuse (mainly by celebrities) being reported many years down the line. You appear to be dismissing them as malicious and judging the complainant without any objective evidence to back up your assumptions.

I would agree with this Paul and do not have a "default" position. What I do have is a worry that justice, either way, is difficult to achieve when there is so much time between the alleged offence and the report, no forensic evidence and no independent witnesses, leaving a jury to judge one person's word against another's. The response to this is often to say that if there are several separate people saying similar things it must be true, which I do not accept as absolute proof. Hence my slightly cynical suggestion that I might make a claim about Sir Cliff myself.

Only he and I were present when we met when I was a teenager and only he and I know what went on in that office. The true answer is nothing other than the interview which I set out to get. It is historical fact we met, no doubt confirmable by his agent's diary. However, if I now claimed he had acted inappropriately it would be his word against mine, but a jury might argue it must be true because I was now an additional independent "victim" coming forward.

I am very worried about the "me too" culture surrounding these cases involving wealthy celebrities. The argument for outing suspects in the way Sir Cliff has been is that it encourages other victims to come forward. It also encourages other bogus compensation seekers to come forward. I am very much afraid that the truth, whatever it is, is harder to get at because there are vultures out there and their actions seriously affects the chance of proper justice either for real victims or innocent celebrities.

[Silver_Shiney]

well said, Merv

[Keechy]

Personally I believe in innocent until proved guilty, and I don't think the police handling by notifying the press before him, was the right way to go about it, especially as the accuser remains anonymous.

Hear hear Delboy. There was a case in Hull a couple of weeks ago where a young devout Christian man was accused of rape. He was named and had pictures published. He was subsequently found not guilty, but the woman who accused him 'Could not be named for legal reasons'. Unfortunately, mud sticks and there will be those who think he simply got away with it.

Once upon a time, newspapers didn't name suspects until after the verdict.

[Frank Manning]

The media have not learned a thing since the Jo Yeates murder, when they publicly pilloried the completely innocent Christopher Jefferies. I think that until anyone is charged by the police for an offence it should be illegal to name them in the media, including social media, in any connection whatsoever.

After the experience which Sue and I had when Matt was killed, the media have absolutely zero merit in our eyes, in fact it is a big minus. They are the lowest of the low.

[Stephen]

The only thing I would say is, if he is proved innocent then the accuser who has suddenly recovered from acute amnesia should be prosecuted for defamation of character and wasting police time.

[david63]

The only thing I would say is, if he is proved innocent then the accuser who has suddenly recovered from acute amnesia should be prosecuted for defamation of character and wasting police time.

... and pay the defence costs - as should happen all of these cases. It seems totally wrong that anyone should have to virtually make themselves bankrupt in defending a case in which they are proven not guilty. Either the accusers or the CPS should foot the bill and if they are not prepared to do so then it could be construed that the case is not strong enough.

[Quizzical Bob]

The only thing I would say is, if he is proved innocent then the accuser who has suddenly recovered from acute amnesia should be prosecuted for defamation of character and wasting police time.

... and pay the defence costs - as should happen all of these cases. It seems totally wrong that anyone should have to virtually make themselves bankrupt in defending a case in which they are proven not guilty. Either the accusers or the CPS should foot the bill and if they are not prepared to do so then it could be construed that the case is not strong enough.

Er... I don't think there's much chance of Richard going bankrupt.

[Silver_Shiney]

The only thing I would say is, if he is proved innocent then the accuser who has suddenly recovered from acute amnesia should be prosecuted for defamation of character and wasting police time.

... and pay the defence costs - as should happen all of these cases. It seems totally wrong that anyone should have to virtually make themselves bankrupt in defending a case in which they are proven not guilty. Either the accusers or the CPS should foot the bill and if they are not prepared to do so then it could be construed that the case is not strong enough.

Er... I don't think there's much chance of Richard going bankrupt.

That's not the point - if he's been unfairly accused, he should not have to pay

[Mervyn and Trish]

Agreed Shiney.

It's a really difficult balance. The argument would be we shouldn't do anything to discourage genuine victims coming forward. But we certainly should do something to encourage bogus ones and to ensure the falsely accused aren't stuck with the bill. It should be automatic in all cases that people found not guilty should have their costs reimbursed.

[Kenmo1]

I was flicking through the Sunday Mirror in a cafe today and saw a headline to the effect that William Roache has decided not to pursue his claim for his legal costs to be paid by the taxpayer due to the fact that he just wants move on with his life and not put his family under further stress. I think the figure quoted was in excess of £100,000. After an extremely stressful year he is very lucky to be in a position financially to be able to do that.

Maureen

[towny44]

I often wonder whether we should combine the CPS with a Public Defenders organisation, give them one budget and make the losing part of the new Org. pay the others costs. This should lead to far less cases going to court, as the guilty would be pressured to plead so by their public defenders, and doubtful prosecutions would also be much less. Unfortunately I doubt the legal profession would be at all happy.