Cliff Richards house raided - investigation now dropped

[Gamston 10]

Two people. And how do you know the allegations were false?

 

 

 

In that case, we better let everyone out of the jails then and not prosecute anyone. Or keep waiting until the rich and powerful pop their clogs before we air complaints about them.

If this allegation had been made against a normal un famous person, then South Yorkshire Police wouldn't have been interested at all. The Police hoped that with the publicity other people would come forward claiming they had been abused or whatever. It is a disgrace tactic from the same Police force who turned a blind eye to real abuse which happened for many years in the Rotherham area.

 

Your last paragraph is just being silly.

[monkey104 10]

]If this allegation had been made against a normal un famous person' date=' then South Yorkshire Police wouldn't have been interested at all.[/b'] The Police hoped that with the publicity other people would come forward claiming they had been abused or whatever. It is a disgrace tactic from the same Police force who turned a blind eye to real abuse which happened for many years in the Rotherham area.

 

Your last paragraph is just being silly.

 

I think what you meant to say was that the media would not have been interested.

 

There are many cases in courts all over the UK involving sexual offences but because the suspects are not celebrities they are not reported in the media.

[Gamston 10]

I think what you meant to say was that the media would not have been interested.

 

There are many cases in courts all over the UK involving sexual offences but because the suspects are not celebrities they are not reported in the media.

I know what I meant to say, which is the Police would not have been interested in a case with the same circumstances, if the alleged attacker was not famous. In this particular case I suspect there was no shortage of South Yorkshire Police volunteering to go and nosey around Sir Cliff Richard's house, but a shortage a South Yorkshire Police showing the same enthusiasm to investigate real current crimes in the South Yorkshire area on the same day.

 

 

I agree the media would not have been interested if the alleged attacker had not been famous.

[Lex Luthor 10]

If this allegation had been made against a normal un famous person, then South Yorkshire Police wouldn't have been interested at all. The Police hoped that with the publicity other people would come forward claiming they had been abused or whatever. It is a disgrace tactic from the same Police force who turned a blind eye to real abuse which happened for many years in the Rotherham area.

 

This is a tactic used by police forces up and down the country, not just SYP. If it hadn't been used in the Savile case then we would have no idea about the extent of his abuse. I don't think it is a disgrace tactic. I think the veil of silence that often surrounds victims of celebrity abuse justifies this method.

 

As for SYP's handling of Rotherham, I agree that is a disgrace.

 

 

 

 

Your last paragraph is just being silly.

 

Is it? What do you suggest we do then? Public figures and non-public figures all suffer when the finger is pointed at them.

[Gamston 10]

This is a tactic used by police forces up and down the country, not just SYP. If it hadn't been used in the Savile case then we would have no idea about the extent of his abuse. I don't think it is a disgrace tactic. I think the veil of silence that often surrounds victims of celebrity abuse justifies this method.

 

As for SYP's handling of Rotherham, I agree that is a disgrace.

 

 

 

 

 

Is it? What do you suggest we do then? Public figures and non-public figures all suffer when the finger is pointed at them.

 

There is a big difference between alleged victims coming forward after someone has been charged with an actual offence to 'fishing' for alleged

victims, when there is no evidence to charge someone with an offence.

 

Sir Cliff Richard is not Jimmy Savile and has lived an entirely different life style. We don't and never will have a true actual fact to the extent of the abuse Jimmy Savile inflicted because there is a possibility all his alleged victims are not telling the truth.

 

It would be silly to let everyone one out of jails which you suggested. There is also a difference between convicted criminals than 'fishing' for alleged victims of famous people, just because a member of the public has made an historic allegation against a celebrity, which is more than likely motivated by the current compensation culture rather than real justice.

[WarPig 78]

If this allegation had been made against a normal un famous person, then South Yorkshire Police wouldn't have been interested at all. The Police hoped that with the publicity other people would come forward claiming they had been abused or whatever.

 

But the police didn't go to the media. The media were going to publish the story straightaway which would have blown the police investigation, potentially losing any evidence that might have bee in Cliffs house. To stop the press reporting the story the police had to agree to allow the media to be present at the house search.

 

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand?

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2016 at 13:44 ----------

 

There is also a difference between convicted criminals than 'fishing' for alleged victims of famous people.

 

What makes you think the police were fishing for victims? The police didn't go to the media.

Edited June 17, 2016 by WarPig

[Eater Sundae 12]

But the police didn't go to the media. The media were going to publish the story straightaway which would have blown the police investigation, potentially losing any evidence that might have bee in Cliffs house. To stop the press reporting the story the police had to agree to allow the media to be present at the house search.

 

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand?

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2016 at 13:44 ----------

 

 

What makes you think the police were fishing for victims? The police didn't go to the media.

 

In this situation, could the BBC have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or interfering with an investigation (or whatever the correct name is for stopping the police doing their job)?

[WarPig 78]

In this situation, could the BBC have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or interfering with an investigation (or whatever the correct name is for stopping the police doing their job)?

 

You'd think so wouldn't you, but I bet they couldn't ever do that as it would look like the police are controlling what the media can and can't do, when our media must always be free and independent. But I do think the media grossly abuse this situation and have few morals.

[alchresearch 214]

My feeling is that in the wake of the Saville scandal and all the other celebs being named at that time (including lots of BBC DJs IIRC) the police were under pressure to quickly get a big name.

 

Sadly Cliff was that name because he was a little like Saville in "quirky" behaviour. Cliff has often been ridiculed for his stance on celibacy and looking young. Imagine what a coup it would be to bring down such a man with high public morals.

 

Only someone who drinks the blood of virgins and done a deal with the devil could keep looking so young.

 

(That last sentence was a joke).

[redfox 10]

In this situation, could the BBC have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or interfering with an investigation (or whatever the correct name is for stopping the police doing their job)?

 

 

No - the police effectively involved them in the raid - that could never be any sort of 'acts tending or intending to pervert the course.

[Gamston 10]

But the police didn't go to the media. The media were going to publish the story straightaway which would have blown the police investigation, potentially losing any evidence that might have bee in Cliffs house. To stop the press reporting the story the police had to agree to allow the media to be present at the house search.

 

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand?

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2016 at 13:44 ----------

 

 

What makes you think the police were fishing for victims? The police didn't go to the media.

 

The whole trip to Sir Cliff Richard's house can be nothing other than a fishing expediture because the Police knew they would never find any evidence about the original historic allegation. They hoped to find some other incriminating evidence which clearly wasn't there. The fact the BBC knew and reported the raid could only aid the Police, if there was anyone out here with any real evidence of any wrong doing about anything.

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2016 at 17:38 ----------

 

In this situation, could the BBC have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or interfering with an investigation (or whatever the correct name is for stopping the police doing their job)?

 

Excellent point. One would think the Police have some powers to stop third parties interfering with criminal investigations.

[foxy lady 10]

Why are people saying the police bungled the enquirey?

 

People made complaints about Cliff Richard to the police, the police investigated the complaints and handed their report to the CPS (which they always do) and the CPS have decided there's insufficient evidence to charge him.

 

It seems to be the new police tactic. If someone makes an alegation against a celebrity they splash it all across the media in the hope that someone else will come forward with similar alegations.

 

The problem is that there are rather a lot of folk out there who are out for their 15 minutes of fame or just out for a bit of compo and a rich celebrity makes them see £ signs.

 

Just take the case of Justin Beiber. Several girls he has never met claim he is the father of their child. So far DNA testing has proved every one of them to be a liar. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/justin-bieber-denies-paternity-claim-spotted-underage-clubbing-new-york-article-1.1359929

 

 

It is far more difficult to prove you didn't fondle someone in a crowd in 1965 than it is to prove you didn't father someone's child.