Sir cliff Richard

[willowbankbear]

I got a yellow card for saying what I think about him , thought we were in a free speech society

 

[Dogbark]

I got a yellow card for saying what I think about him , thought we were in a free speech society

 

[cornish mackem]

Can't really say what I think about him on here mate.

Share similar views to @Cowvahlo though

Gay? Yes probably, no issues with that whatsoever. It's my opinion that we haven't heard the full truth yet.

What views are they? I've gone through the thread and not seen home post on it at all ( which is a first mind)
Everyone has a past and that will vary on if it's morally wrong depending where you set your bar but criminally wrong? I don't think so but that opinion with no inside knowledge and is only an opinion but I may be wrong.
I do find it strange however that the vultures are circling him over the years.

 

[mux]

What views are they? I've gone through the thread and not seen home post on it at all ( which is a first mind)
Everyone has a past and that will vary on if it's morally wrong depending where you set your bar but criminally wrong? I don't think so but that opinion with no inside knowledge and is only an opinion but I may be wrong.
I do find it strange however that the vultures are circling him over the years.

Can't really air my views in public mate

I just think that there is much more to him than we know. There are too many sources of information saying too many things. The fact that the police thought it worthwhile raiding his house for a start is a bit of a giveaway, they don't do that for nowt.

I don't care what the official line is now, the police have got their suspicions and I'm not surprised as to why.

 

[cornish mackem]

Can't really air my views in public mate

I just think that there is much more to him than we know. There are too many sources of information saying too many things. The fact that the police thought it worthwhile raiding his house for a start is a bit of a giveaway, they don't do that for nowt.

I don't care what the official line is now, the police have got their suspicions and I'm not surprised as to why.

The flatties have to act on the suggestion after what the have missed and overlooked over the years especially in Yorkshire

 

[JonMc]

There are too many sources of information saying too many things. The fact that the police thought it worthwhile raiding his house for a start is a bit of a giveaway, they don't do that for nowt.

Too many sources? Chris Fay has been totally blown out of the water as any kind of credible source and the main fella at the heart of the raid on Richard's home was by all accounts mainly on the say so of a paranoid delusional who is himself apparently inside for sexual violence.

 

[mux]

Too many sources? Chris Fay has been totally blown out of the water as any kind of credible source and the main fella at the heart of the raid on Richard's home was by all accounts mainly on the say so of a paranoid delusional who is himself apparently inside for sexual violence.

Pointless trying to discuss it on here mate. Those aren't the only things going against him.

 

[soapster]

Just watching the interview on ITV news - he said (verbatim) - "I would rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer".

So ten Jimmy Savilles get away as long as Cliff is ok then. If he had been proven guilty and locked up for 5 years and then proven totally innocent I could have sympathy but it was police raid on a house while he was not even there. If the BBC had not ran the story and it turned it out he was guilty and they had sat on the story everybody would be up in arms.

the bbc should not be deciding who is guilty or not. that is down to the courts to decide after the police have collated the evidence.
cliffs reputation has been tarnished. people will think he is guilty on the premise of no smoke without fire
the mantra of guilty men free rather than one innocent is an old one
bbc deliberately ran this for sensationalism. helicopter hovering in the sky. not giving one thought that he may be innocent

And then be exonerated in an even more high profile manner? I'll take your 610 grand thanks

his credibility shot to pieces. it is a terrible accusation to make and some people will still believe its true

 

[PinzaC55]

I got a yellow card for saying what I think about him , thought we were in a free speech society

Same here.

 

[Sir Lancelot]

He has commented that "I won't go near children anymore"

What a very strange comment to make

Sir Cliff Richard wins privacy battle against BBC | Daily Mail Online

Not really. People ask him to pose for photographs with them and their children. He’s just saying he will never do that again. So unless you are suggesting that posing to r a photograph with a person and their children then I’m not sure what you find strange about the comment.

Half of Facebook are nonces if posing with kids is strange!

Just watching the interview on ITV news - he said (verbatim) - "I would rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer".

So ten Jimmy Savilles get away as long as Cliff is ok then. If he had been proven guilty and locked up for 5 years and then proven totally innocent I could have sympathy but it was police raid on a house while he was not even there. If the BBC had not ran the story and it turned it out he was guilty and they had sat on the story everybody would be up in arms.

Not quite. He quoted someone who had said that. Not sure who the originator of the phrase was and said that he felt the same.

 

[PinzaC55]

so what about cases like harvey weinstein or kevin spacey. they were outed as guilty before the police even got involved.
presumably the rules will be that if the police are involved then the media will only be able to report it if the police say its ok (ie to get other people to report incidents) or the suspect is actually arrested then they are fair game, but if someone just goes to the media they can report that as they like.

Weinstein and Spacey are American so they fall under a different legal system also their alleged crimes and more recent.

 

[Stubbs ftm]

He has commented that "I won't go near children anymore"

What a very strange comment to make

Sir Cliff Richard wins privacy battle against BBC | Daily Mail Online

I thought that too when I read it.

Odd fella is Cliff. There's something not right about a gadgie doing topless calendar shoots in his 70s.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

BBC appealing. Ruling against freedom of press ect

Didn't they smash into his home with no reasonable grounds for suspicion? Not on that.

And, freedom of the press doesn't mean you can accuse someone of a crime without reasonable suspicion. That is libel.

And, will the BBC pay the fine, or will it come from licence payers in one way or another?

Can't really air my views in public mate

I just think that there is much more to him than we know. There are too many sources of information saying too many things. The fact that the police thought it worthwhile raiding his house for a start is a bit of a giveaway, they don't do that for nowt.

Turns out, they certainly did it for too little - as per court ruling.

Out of interest, what sources and what are they saying?

'No real interest in Cliff Richard, but I think if you're going to make claims such as: "much more to him than we know", then you probably should add a few more details. A bit dramatic because no one gives the first fuck about what is said on here, but in the United States you'd have to be careful about libel - quite right too - if you're gonna make accusations and insinuations without basis then you should be held to account.

 

[pavarotti1980]

Not really. People ask him to pose for photographs with them and their children. He’s just saying he will never do that again. So unless you are suggesting that posing to r a photograph with a person and their children then I’m not sure what you find strange about the comment.

Half of Facebook are nonces if posing with kids is strange!

I didn't say posing with a kid makes him a nonce. Saying he will never be seen with a child is slightly more strange. If he is innocent then he should feel comfortable in children's company.

 

[mux]

Didn't they smash into his home with no reasonable grounds for suspicion? Not on that.

And, freedom of the press doesn't mean you can accuse someone of a crime without reasonable suspicion. That is libel.

And, will the BBC pay the fine, or will it come from licence payers in one way or another?



Turns out, they certainly did it for too little - as per court ruling.

Out of interest, what sources and what are they saying?

'No real interest in Cliff Richard, but I think if you're going to make claims such as: "much more to him than we know", then you probably should add a few more details. A bit dramatic because no one gives the first fuck about what is said on here, but in the United States you'd have to be careful about libel - quite right too - if you're gonna make accusations and insinuations without basis then you should be held to account.

Exactly why I'm not prepared to.

I think I've said enough for people to catch my drift. It's only my opinion based on what I have read about him, his life, his associations and the things people have said about him.

Firm evidence? No. But I have read enough to have my own thoughts on the man. Others may and do think differently which is fine by me.

 

[Cowvahlo]

What views are they? I've gone through the thread and not seen home post on it at all ( which is a first mind)
Everyone has a past and that will vary on if it's morally wrong depending where you set your bar but criminally wrong? I don't think so but that opinion with no inside knowledge and is only an opinion but I may be wrong.
I do find it strange however that the vultures are circling him over the years.

Post has been deleted. No great surprise there.

 

[mux]

Post has been deleted. No great surprise there.

Really?

You must have been behaving in an unacceptable manner over many years and managed to get away with it until just now when your post got deleted and you were exonerated.

 

[Junior Birdman]

Cliff and Sue Barker. Was it in? Or was it out?

 

[Sir Lancelot]

I didn't say posing with a kid makes him a nonce. Saying he will never be seen with a child is slightly more strange. If he is innocent then he should feel comfortable in children's company.

Would you feel comfortable with a child when you know that everyone around is wondering if you are a kiddy fiddler who got away with it?

 

[cornish mackem]

Post has been deleted. No great surprise there.

You are obviously a wrang un and found guilty by the law of the mods where as cliff has only a rumour following him about

I didn't say posing with a kid makes him a nonce. Saying he will never be seen with a child is slightly more strange. If he is innocent then he should feel comfortable in children's company.

If you don’t cross roads then you arnt likely to get knocked down by a car. Self preservation?