Sir Cliff Richard

[Manoverboard]

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

I think you mean Harry ?

[jay-ell71]

I think it is Richard as he changed his name by deed poll.

As much as I will be disappointed if Sir Cliff is proved to be guilty, I cannot believe that the police can get a search warrant on a whim. They must have something, although what they were looking for in a flat that Cliff bought in 2008, when the "offence" took place in the 80s one can't begin to imagine. The whole matter has be very very badly handled by the Police.

Sir Cliff was on our Seabourn cruise 20 months ago. He had his entourage with him. The group of five were, three men a woman, and him, always together. We presume the woman was his sister. Cliff did not/would not engage with any of the passengers, did not speak to anyone or even make eye contact. Really, only the Brits knew who he was. The Americans had never heard of him and the Australians, had heard of him but did not recognise him. So.....why could he not be like all the passengers who exchanged pleasantries, and enjoyed each others' company. "Good morning" would have been nice. No one wanted to treat him differently from any other passenger. We considered him a very odd character. However, that does not make him a child molester, in fact quite the opposite, as he seems to want to keep his distance from people.

Only time will tell.

[Quizzical Bob]

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

I think you mean Harry ?

I was going to say that but thought I would go with his adopted cognomen. My family are all from around Enfield and Winchmore Hill and many remember him from before he was famous.

[brillo]

The over reaction by the police to these historical claims are taking resources away from present day abusers !!!

[Gill W]

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...

I agree, and I believe that this is the reason victims find it so difficult to come forward.

Some people find it impossible to believe that that abusers like Savile and Harris were hiding in plain sight in the public eye for decades, and even now, after Harris has been convicted still don't quite believe it.

Others focus on the 'compo' element. I think this is to divert their minds from the awful truth that these predators were active for years and years.

What is worse - a few people getting 'compo' or a sexual predator on the loose for decades. I'd suggest it's the former.

Some of these people who have been victims have kept quiet for years, thinking that no one would believe them. It's only now that some of these men have been convicted that they feel 'safe ' in coming forward. Although it still must be a huge step to take, as, taking comments from this forum alone, there is still a section of the public, who will not/cannot believe them.

[Dark Knight]

whilst it takes a great degree of courage to come forward to face their accusers, there have also been false claims from people, who are jumping on the bandwagon and seeking either money or some perverse 15 minutes of fame, which does not help genuine victims

perhaps the accused should remain anonymous, till there is sufficient evidence to prosecute or till found guilty and at that stage their name should be released into the public domain?

I doubt anyone on here is not fully in support of genuine victims

[GillD46]

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...

I agree, and I believe that this is the reason victims find it so difficult to come forward.

Some people find it impossible to believe that that abusers like Savile and Harris were hiding in plain sight in the public eye for decades, and even now, after Harris has been convicted still don't quite believe it.

Others focus on the 'compo' element. I think this is to divert their minds from the awful truth that these predators were active for years and years.

What is worse - a few people getting 'compo' or a sexual predator on the loose for decades. I'd suggest it's the former.

Some of these people who have been victims have kept quiet for years, thinking that no one would believe them. It's only now that some of these men have been convicted that they feel 'safe ' in coming forward. Although it still must be a huge step to take, as, taking comments from this forum alone, there is still a section of the public, who will not/cannot believe them.

I completely agree with this. I have had experience of this with a friend close to me. It took many years for her to open up about abuse but even now, years later, she still isn't brave enough to take legal action for fear of going through the whole process and STILL not being believed.

[Meg 50]

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

I think you mean Harry ?

I was going to say that but thought I would go with his adopted cognomen. My family are all from around Enfield and Winchmore Hill and many remember him from before he was famous.

I did teaching practice in Cheshunt in the early 70s and the children in my class used to tell me how their parents had gorn to school with Cliff

[david63]

I doubt anyone on here is not fully in support of genuine victims

Fully agree - the problem is filtering out the "genuine" victims.

As has already been proven in the courts there have been several instances where the "victims" case has not been upheld - which then begs the question of whether they were genuine or not.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I doubt anyone on here is not fully in support of genuine victims

Fully agree - the problem is filtering out the "genuine" victims.

As has already been proven in the courts there have been several instances where the "victims" case has not been upheld - which then begs the question of whether they were genuine or not.

If we are to accept the courts ruling when people are found guilty we should also accept it when they are found not guilty. We have to rely on the jury who have heard all the evidence, not just the headlines the media pick out.

Perhaps what is needed is a third verdict (as I believe they may have in Scotland) of "not proven" which sits between guilty and not guilty.

[Gill W]

I know of a case where an older person who suffered mental problems was taken advantage of by a person who was known to the victim - this was a person completely trusted by the family.

The victim was not in a position to complain due to the nature of her illness.

However, due to the courage of care workers, in two different, unrelated locations, this was reported to the authorities.

These care workers had nothing to gain by coming forward, and when it went to court, had to put themselves through giving evidence on behalf of the victim who couldn't speak for herself.

The accused was found innocent.

However, I feel almost certain that he did the things that he was accused of. I think he'd long admired the victim in the years before her illness, and used her illness as an opportunity to get close to her in a way she would never have permitted when she was well.

What I'm saying is, just because a person wasn't found guilty, it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do the things he was accused of, and sometimes the accusers are people with nothing to gain financially.

[Frank Manning]

Come on guys!! Not guilty is not guilty. Otherwise you might just as well put everyone so accused on the 'register'. Whatever we personally think, the jury's verdict is final unless fresh evidence comes up, and fresh evidence should not include trial by sensationalist media, heresay, innuendo, or nudging and winking.

I have sat on the jury for such a trial, and whatever my personal feelings about the accused, the person was found not guilty by a large majority verdict. That was that.

[The Tinker]

Come on guys!! Not guilty is not guilty. Otherwise you might just as well put everyone so accused on the 'register'. Whatever we personally think, the jury's verdict is final unless fresh evidence comes up, and fresh evidence should not include trial by sensationalist media, heresay, innuendo, or nudging and winking.

I have sat on the jury for such a trial, and whatever my personal feelings about the accused, the person was found not guilty by a large majority verdict. That was that.

Totally agree with you Frank. When I did Jury Service I was surprised at how hard it is to arrive at a verdict when you are 'in that room' and luckily my cases were not big ones.

Will be interested in the Pistorius verdict- my view is that he is guilty but maybe the defence have done enough to put doubt in the jury's minds?

[royalprincess]

There is no jury in the Pistorous trial. The judge decides.

[The Tinker]

There is no jury in the Pistorous trial. The judge decides.

Thanks for that info - shows how much notice I have been taking. Didn't realise trial by jury was abolished in South Africa. Should make the Dewani case interesting.

[jay-ell71]

How I agree with you Tinker. When I did Jury Service we heard only one case. We all felt the defendant had been involved with something on the night of the alleged offence, but he had such a clever Barrister and the prosecution lawyer was so inexperienced and weak, that we, the jury were unable to convict. It was very unsatisfactory, but that is the Law. We all hoped that the defendant would be caught out next time! Meanwhile the plaintiff got no satisfaction.

[Gill W]

I agree, you have to accept the verdict of the jury.

But if you personally know the people involved, you can still have your own opinion of what happened

[Silver_Shiney]

I remember an episode of "Rumpole of the Bailey" many years ago when Rumpole entered the interview room and said to the criminal "You know you did it, I know you did it, but it's my job to get you acquitted".

I am sure there are a great many miscarriages of justice on both sides.

[Dark Knight]

it is worth remembering that lawyers, barristers etc do not have to represent the accused, should they think they are guilty
also it is their job to get the accused the "best" deal possible if guilty, so it is as much about proving guilt ,as it is about getting the minimum sentence for those found guilty

my sibling , the Judge, has had cases where the accused is absolutely banged to rights and had no hope of getting off, the job of the defence barrister, is to minimise the sentence
A jury is not infallible and can only be guided by the court etc, a jury are just normal people who have been unlucky enough to be chosen to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of their peers

hence the phrase a jury of your peers

[david63]

Does anyone remember the film "Twelve Angry Men"? - it is about a jury where all but one of the jurors started out by finding the accused guilty and by reasoned argument the one "not guilty" turned the other eleven to eventually overcome their prejudices and return a not guilty verdict.

[CaroleF]

My daughter, a barrister, told me that if a defendant tells her that he is guilty of the offence charged she cannot then represent him and argue that he is innocent. If the defendant admits their guilt to the barrister then another barrister has to be found to represent them.

Carole

[jay-ell71]

That's what I thought Carole. The defendant must not admit guilt to his Barrister. The Barrister may suspect guilt, but so long as it is not spoken then he may defend his client.

[Silver_Shiney]

My daughter, a barrister, told me that if a defendant tells her that he is guilty of the offence charged she cannot then represent him and argue that he is innocent. If the defendant admits their guilt to the barrister then another barrister has to be found to represent them.

Carole

If he admits guilt to the next barrister, he could end up having no-one to defend him!

[david63]

But if a defendant admits guilt and pleads guilty then surely it is the duty of the barrister to argue the mitigating circumstances in order to get a "reduced" sentence.

[Silver_Shiney]

But if a defendant admits guilt and pleads guilty then surely it is the duty of the barrister to argue the mitigating circumstances in order to get a "reduced" sentence.

dunno, perhaps DK could advise us on that one.

My father would never admit his guilt but the three different solicitors he approached saw through him and he ended up having to defend himself in court.