Sorry for being pedantic about due process over trial by media.

Investigation is what’s happening, into a sexual abuse on a boy by a man
Let’s not forget that, it’s a serious allegation

I did not realise there was a due process for trial by media – that is worse hyperbole than the [ non legal] use of the word case. We all know what the poster meant when he said case and , IMHO, one is certainly being made at the moment, unless you wish to argue they raided his house to not make a case.

Sorry for being pedantic about due process over trial by media.

I did not realise there was a due process for trial by media – that is worse hyperbole than the [ non legal] use of the word case.

I think the use of the word “over” was intended to mean “rather than”

Not to mean “with regard to”

The bastardisation of the justice system for media sensationalism is a sorry affair. That could prejudice a jury in a future trial.

Innocent till proven guilty is right not supported by all countries and this is one step backwards towards the lynch mob.

I think the use of the word “over” was intended to mean “rather than”

Not to mean “with regard to”
I see what you did there 😆

The bastardisation of the justice system for media sensationalism is a sorry affair. That could prejudice a jury in a future trial.

Innocent till proven guilty is right not supported by all countries and this is one step backwards towards the lynch mob.
I do not disagree, I doubt chapaking disagrees but I am not sure how “case” contributed to this.

Put yourself in cliffs situation, would you feel safe about leaving your house right now.
Would worry that people would stare, point fingers, spit or even roll
there copy of the paper your plastered all over into a millwall brick and hit you with it.

You would be under a self inflicted house arrest.
Yet you have not even been arrested never mind had charges bought against you.

It is truly shameful and the police best hope he is guilty.

Let’s not forget that, it’s a serious allegation

This should mean that there is more caution about exposing it to public scrutiny, not less.

Innocent till proven guilty is right not supported by all countries and this is one step backwards towards the lynch mob.

Generally this principle is sound, BUT;

It’s a bit of a catch 22…

If you have sufficient reason to believe guilt, but not enough evidence for a guaranteed prosecution, then exposure by the media will bring more witnesses forward.

If you didn’t, then a guilty party could get away with it.

If they’ve pursued this particular avenue of enquiry for the reasons I believe, things could get very interesting indeed…

thank god chip is here to ground the debate

there are two issues regarding anonymity here
1. Being anonymous is good if you turn out to be NOT guilty
2. being anonymous is good if you are GUILTY as it may stop other victims coming forward

Deciding which way to go is difficult, as mud sticks, and neither option is perfect.

I doubt cliff is shitting it going out tbh and I am not sure why you wish to rail against OOT social media reports if you are going to do them yourself [ all be it from the accused [ or investigated ] perspective.

Well if only half of the rumour and conjecture over an MI5 lead high level cover up is true, then using the media is at least going to make another one (cover up) difficult.

I doubt they’d do it unless they have been frustrated over the years with cover ups, super injunctions and the like.

That’s disturbing news about the freedom of information act being curtailed in regard to the Royal Family, there’s enough mud being slung, some of it will bound to stick now..

the media is at least going to make another one (cover up) difficult.
I doubt they’d do it unless they have been frustrated over the years with cover ups, super injunctions and the like.

It was a BBC helicopter, you know the BBC who employed Jim’ll fix it.
There sick of the cover ups.

as somewhat of a pedant in this area, I’m not aware of a single formal definition of “case”…

the way the police are back up to their dishonest leaking shenanigans is outrageous. if the purpose really was to encourage victims or witnesses to come forward, the right way would have been simply to say “we are investigating x, anyone with information y should contact us on z”.

I though that if a witness in court was proven to have lied in any part of there testament, there whole testament is thrown out, also if they are proven to be a liar about a completely unrelated subject there testimony is worthless as you can not believe a word of what is said by a proven liar.

it’s entirely up to the jury (or judge if a jury isn’t empaneled) to decide how much credence to give to a witness or whether to believe them.

chip – Member

It was a BBC helicopter, you know the BBC who employed Jim’ll fix it.
There sick of the cover ups.

So what are you inferring chips? There’s not been a cover up? Those files that Leon Brittain ‘misplaced’ genuinely accidentally vanished? Nobody, not one of all those care home kids didn’t try and get his/her case heard?
The Jill Dando thing, just a coincidence she was doing an expose piece for crime watch (allegedly).

No, there’s just to much albeit circumstantial, virtual bollox about for my liking, I think that’s why they leaked it.

Funnily enough, Leon Brittan is related to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is the current Chairman of the Intelligence and Security committee, appointed by David Cameron…

Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile were both on an investigation into pornography, where they apparently visited sex clubs in London and Copenhagen set up by Lord Longford, who also campaigned for the release of Myra Hindley…

The Jill Dando thing gets more interesting too, but I don’t want to be accused of flooding the thread with facts…

Dont worry, no matter what you type or claim, you wont ever be accused of that.
Innuendo, supposition, linking tow events without any facts, ludicrous claims, YES too many facts Not likely ..perhaps if you post on Icke websites you might be a bit fact heavy but not here.

You really should make it clear that you are saying Lord longford set up an enquiry that as part of its research visited sex clubs.
that reads as if you are saying he set up the sex clubs.

His anti-pornography campaigning made him the subject of derision and he was labeled by the press as Lord Porn when he and former prison doctor Christine Temple-Saville set out on a wide-ranging tour of sex industry establishments in the early 1970s to compile a self-funded report. The press made much of his visits to strip clubs in Copenhagen.

Imagine getting first hand information on a subject before publishing a report …utter madness and he deserves our ridicule.

Have you a credible link to sy cliff or saville went with them mr Facts – Hilarious the self delusion of conspiracists.

C’mon Junky, compared to most of the ‘what’s the most I can spend on a bike to make everyone love me?’/’How often should I frotter myself against my Santa Cruz?’ threads on here jhj’s mostly harmless, isn’t he?

At least he’s not invented a new wheelsize or asked for advice about manbags, funbags or bodybags.

So let me get this straight, I supply facts, and you lamely attempt to discredit them… this is a fun game!!

NINJA EDIT to acknowledge Rusty Spanner :D:

650b is definitely better, because despite weighing more, having more inherent flex and weakness for a given rim profile, you can run the bottom bracket below the axles for better stability + cornering and sell more bikes (I must admit, picking a man bag was a burden on my turbulent hormones 😳 )

So Mr Junky sir, do you have any facts I can try and discredit, or don’t you want to share?

xxx

If you can provide proof that 650b is a perverted conspiracy organised by Cliff, Simon Cowell and Carol Smillie I GUARANTEE you’ll never pay for beer in Burnley again

Dude, that is a challenge I would relish, though even I might struggle at this early stage; however, give me 30ish years and I’ll see what comes out in the wash…

I agree Rusty but he is just as delusional as thinking a 650 b tyre will bring the trial trail alive but no where near as evil 😉

There are facts in my reply 🙄 but you cannot beat delusions with facts

There are facts in my reply but you cannot beat delusions with facts

You appear to supply delusions with facts…

The facts remain; the spin is optional 😉

These recent revelations remind me of the Operation Ore/FBI dirt on Labour Party/Iraq War scenario and also members of the establishment/military boarding schools/Dunblane tragedy.

Each one on their own can be viewed as dubious at best but when all put together you have to wonder if something really sinister has been going on all along.

Sadly I don’t think we will ever know.

I wonder what realistic chance the police saw that by raiding the flat they might find evidence involving a 29 year old crime committed?

Its the type of decision that got the police into trouble in the Hanningfield case (where they arrested Lord Hanningfield in a dawn raid, just so they could search his property – ruled illegal in court with a massive damages paid)

Blatant fishing trip!

If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt.

I grew up in the 60s and we knew to avoid children, we knew it was illegal, and had serious consequences.

There’s no excuses, 15 years and 11 months means you should display some maturity and wait a month.

We knew it then, we know it now.
All depends. I was on holiday in South Devon years ago, and while playing stuff on the jukebox in the site community centre got chatting to a girl who was also on holiday. Anyway, after a while she comes over and just plonks herself on my lap and puts her arms around my neck! My lucky day!
We were pretty much inseparable for the rest of the holiday, and things got pretty steamy, but didn’t go quite as far as full intercourse. As far as I was concerned, she was at least my age, if not slightly older, and I never felt any need to interrogate her, so imagine my shock when, in a letter she wrote later that year she happened to say it was her birthday coming up, and in reply to my next letter asking how old she was, she said 14!
I was 17. There was absolutely no indication at all that she was three years younger than me, in either looks or behaviour or maturity.
We kept in touch by letter for years after, and phone as well, in fact I last had contact with her eleven years ago, but she’s dropped off of my radar, sadly.

ninfan – Member
I wonder what realistic chance the police saw that by raiding the flat they might find evidence involving a 29 year old crime committed?

Exactly my thoughts. The alleged ‘crime’ was carried out nearly thirty years ago in South Yorkshire, and they’re looking for evidence a couple of hundred miles away, in a place the ‘suspect’ not only wasn’t living in at the time, but wasn’t even accommodation, but commercial premises.
There would be no computer files, probably no clothing or other likely forms of ‘evidence’ that could yield anything at all that could incriminate anyone after all this time.
Captain Ahab would be well proud of a fishing expedition on this scale.

CountZero – Member
….We were pretty much inseparable for the rest of the holiday, and things got pretty steamy, but didn’t go quite as far as full intercourse. As far as I was concerned, she was at least my age, if not slightly older, and I never felt any need to interrogate her, so imagine my shock when, in a letter she wrote later that year she happened to say it was her birthday coming up, and in reply to my next letter asking how old she was, she said 14!…

Well underage, steamy eh? and evidence in the form of correspondence?

Mate, if I were you, I’d get a shredder before you start hearing BBC helicopters… 🙂

Seems a reasonable version of events TBH…
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a590851/police-disappointed-by-slow-bbc-cliff-richard-search-leak-denial.html#~oNbl1oxhz0IY1U

Of course it’s easy to say they’re covering their tracks, but it’s quite easy to imagine an unofficial leak to the BBC as well, no?

Unless the BBC were psychic it was a bad police officer who leaked it unofficially, maybe for payment.
They should be trying to weed that person out to be sacked at the very least.

So the police force then effectively crumbled under fear of blackmail that if they did not agree to work with the reporter they would publish the story .

In my mind that is even worse than if they officially leaked it .

Means we have got atleast one corrupt police officer serving on a weak force that are not fit for purpose .

That’s a bit of a naive position, if it’s genuinely what you think and you’re not just arguing for the sake of it.

Really, surely loose lips sinks ships is covered in police training.

So how would the BBC know the polices business, phone hacking maybe.
Some one would have had to tell them.

If the BBC rings up and say we know you blah blah, surely the correct response is, we do not discuss police business with anyone, sorry and put the phone down .

They are basically saying what happened was because the BBC had them over a barrel and it was not how they would have done things otherwise.

There should be an official investigation in to how the BBC knows police business,
And how the police would let the BBC have influence over the investigation.

It’s a mockery of a sham.

Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile were both on an investigation into pornography, where they apparently visited sex clubs in London and Copenhagen set up by Lord Longford, who also campaigned for the release of Myra Hindley…

I’m reading Jimmy Savile’s biography. It says that Savile played no discernible role in that “study”.

Out of interest, which biography?

ninfan – Member
I wonder what realistic chance the police saw that by raiding the flat they might find evidence involving a 29 year old crime committed?

Exactly my thoughts. The alleged ‘crime’ was carried out nearly thirty years ago in South Yorkshire, and they’re looking for evidence a couple of hundred miles away, in a place the ‘suspect’ not only wasn’t living in at the time, but wasn’t even accommodation, but commercial premises.
There would be no computer files, probably no clothing or other likely forms of ‘evidence’ that could yield anything at all that could incriminate anyone after all this time.
Captain Ahab would be well proud of a fishing expedition on this scale.

+1 My thoughts entirely, and did you see how many police cars went along for the ride?

Were any lessons learned from Levison?

Main lesson is just how deeply intertwined politics and the media are: Andy Coulson being a prime example, but David Cameron is still strongly linked to the Murdoch Empire through the Chipping Norton Set

Given that level of collusion, can anyone genuinely doubt coverups have been perpetrated and still continue to this day?

So, the police explanation now is that a BBC journo phones them, saying they were aware of an ongoing police investigation into Cliff, and were ready to publish

The police ‘bought’ their silence on the issue by agreeing to give them the inside scoop on the search warrant – saying that was justified because publication would have endangered the evidence/investigation.

The police say the initial ‘leak’ (ie. that there was an investigation) was not from them.

In this what I find most preposterous is the suggestion that they had to buy the journo’s silence – it seems to presuppose that the BBC would have gone ahead and published information that would endanger an investigation into child abuse despite being asked not to (GIven everything thats gone on, I find that hard to believe) and that the only way to deal with that was by, essentially, inviting them along, rather than the editorial process or even an injunction preventing publication.

can anyone genuinely doubt coverups have been perpetrated and still continue to this day?

I think everyone now accepts there’s been some shocking cover-ups, no?

Media, police, politicians are all self-serving and as entwined in their own lies and deceit that they no longer know how to behave with any integrity or conscience.

They all seem to have made a closed doors pact of covering each other’s arses. At least they can do one thing well.

Out of interest, which biography?

In Plain Sight: the Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile. It’s okay.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/09/plain-sight-jimmy-savile-review-biography-david-hare

Edit: I’ve just to the chapter which discusses Savile’s Jim’ll Fix It trip to Israel and it says all that Begin-Sadat stuff he talked was total fantasy.

What amazes me is that these superannuated halfwits that somehow manage to attain Chief Constable rank should appear on TV and think we might believe a single word they say.