Cliff Richards house raided - investigation now dropped

[alchresearch]

Sir Cliff Richard is still alive which is the most likely reason none of the alleged victims have gone public.

 

There was a lady on the television the other day making an allegation against Clement Freud, who just happens to be dead. I feel sorry for his widow who has done nothing wrong.

 

But that didn't stop the allegations against Max Clifford, DLT, Paul Gambaccini, Freddie Starr, Chris Denning, Rolf Harris, Tony Blackburn, Jimmy Tarbuck, Dr Fox in the past two years.

[Anna B]

But that didn't stop the allegations against Max Clifford, DLT, Paul Gambaccini, Freddie Starr, Chris Denning, Rolf Harris, Tony Blackburn, Jimmy Tarbuck, Dr Fox in the past two years.

 

But not one politician even though we know some of them are at it...

[Gamston]

But that didn't stop the allegations against Max Clifford, DLT, Paul Gambaccini, Freddie Starr, Chris Denning, Rolf Harris, Tony Blackburn, Jimmy Tarbuck, Dr Fox in the past two years.

Correct, but my post was in reply to another poster who made a good point in saying "we haven't heard a single thing from an alleged victim" regarding the Sir Cliff Richard case. The point being alleged victims of dead people go on the television or contact newspapers telling their stories, but don't do the same when the celebrity is still alive, unless they have been found guilty in a court. The point being, it is much easier to get away with telling lies about someone who is dead because they can't defend themselves, unlike a person who still is alive can do.

[Anna B]

Correct, but my post was in reply to another poster who made a good point in saying "we haven't heard a single thing from an alleged victim" regarding the Sir Cliff Richard case. The point being alleged victims of dead people go on the television or contact newspapers telling their stories, but don't do the same when the celebrity is still alive, unless they have been found guilty in a court. The point being, it is much easier to get away with telling lies about someone who is dead because they can't defend themselves, unlike a person who still is alive can do.

 

There's been some stuff in the newspapers from the alleged victim 'Nick.' But the tone and bias has been absolutely disgraceful. It's been so bad I am convinced in the other direction. 'Serial fantasist, Nick, the so called victim has said....' etc they are trying so hard to totally destroy his character and reputation. Too hard...

[Jim Hardie]

He was found not guilty because there was insufficient evidence not no evidence.

It's for this reason that Cliff Richard will not sue SYP because he won't want the evidence they do have to be made public.

Cliff Richard will now live the rest of his life out of the limelight in fear that the evidence that has been proven will be made public - and quite rightly so.

 

Your post has at least three inaccuracies.

a) He has not been 'found not guilty', there hasn't been a trial.

b) Insufficient evidence can mean no evidence.

c) No evidence has been proven, there hasn't been a trial.

[Lex Luthor]

Sir Cliff Richard is still alive which is the most likely reason none of the alleged victims have gone public.

 

There was a lady on the television the other day making an allegation against Clement Freud, who just happens to be dead. I feel sorry for his widow who has done nothing wrong.

 

(Amended as I now know that the title 'Sir' dies with the 'Sir')

 

Did you happen to see the Exposure programme on the subject?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Lex Luthor

[Lex Luthor]

Correct, but my post was in reply to another poster who made a good point in saying "we haven't heard a single thing from an alleged victim" regarding the Sir Cliff Richard case. The point being alleged victims of dead people go on the television or contact newspapers telling their stories, but don't do the same when the celebrity is still alive, unless they have been found guilty in a court. The point being, it is much easier to get away with telling lies about someone who is dead because they can't defend themselves, unlike a person who still is alive can do.

 

Have you heard some of the twelve, thirteen and fourteen year olds' stories from Rotherham?

 

How easy do you think it is for a child to make a complaint, even when the perpetrator is not a powerful, rich, celebrity?

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2016 at 21:55 ----------

 

You are only a Sir when you are alive.

 

Really? That must be why thousands of people have been calling for Savile, Smith, and Patnick to be stripped of their knighthoods posthumous, is it?

[Lex Luthor]

And it's been pointed out when you die the title dies too. Just saying.

 

And it seems you are correct....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-jimmy-savile-cannot-be-posthumously-stripped-of-knighthood-in-the-wake-of-sexual-abuse-8203131.html

 

Sorry for doubting your assertion. I had seen tons of requests for these knighthoods to be stripped posthumous, but had never seen this answer.

[Lex Luthor]

No problem Lex, I wasn't having a pop anyway

 

I appreciate that, you were very gracious in your post, unlike me sometimes!

 

Anyway, we better stop this or someone will come along in a minute and tell us to 'get a room'.

[Marx]

Have you heard some of the twelve, thirteen and fourteen year olds' stories from Rotherham?

 

How easy do you think it is for a child to make a complaint, even when the perpetrator is not a powerful, rich, celebrity?

 

The first Rotherham victims that came to court didn't even realise they were being abused and tried to defend their abusers in the initial interviews with the police.