FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Cliff Richard Payments !!
Cliff Richard Payments !!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"How good to see that the BBC have been fined over the Cliff Richard incident. Because they wouldn't apologize to him in the beginning his lawyers took it to the high courts and have now had probably 10 times the amount awarded to him. Good on him the BBC have run roughshod over many peoples lives in the name of journalism. On the other hand us as licence payers end up ultimately paying the fine for them. " Disgrace the way he was treated. | |||
"How good to see that the BBC have been fined over the Cliff Richard incident. Because they wouldn't apologize to him in the beginning his lawyers took it to the high courts and have now had probably 10 times the amount awarded to him. Good on him the BBC have run roughshod over many peoples lives in the name of journalism. On the other hand us as licence payers end up ultimately paying the fine for them. " As a licence payer i am more than happy to have it go towards that as i believe he was treated appallingly by the BBC.. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Let's not forget that the Police had a big part to play in this. Who tipped off the BBC, and who allowed the BBC to fly their helicopter over the potential crime scene?" Good point | |||
| |||
| |||
"More money in the kitty for him" I think it's safe to say that money wasn't his motive... Bloody good on him, they acted appallingly and could have stopped it all with a simple apology. | |||
| |||
| |||
"This is avoidable victimization BUT my heart goes out to victims of child abuse who still suffer as adults - where is their compensation? (i mean non high profile cases who have never received a penny or justice)." They can get compensation of up to. £500000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. | |||
| |||
"Let's not forget that the Police had a big part to play in this. Who tipped off the BBC, and who allowed the BBC to fly their helicopter over the potential crime scene?" He settled his claim against the police and they paid him £400k | |||
| |||
"At least the police didn't find any more songs in his house.lol"  | |||
"I think it's massively wrong that the media can name people in such cases before they have even been charged. Can have a massive effect on that person. From personal experience of a friend who was arrested on suspicion of r*pe, never charged but named and shamed then the the woman was found to be lying. He's struggled ever since to find decent work etc. As that leaves a mark on you that doesn't go. Should not be able to name until a charge has been made, end of." . The contempt of court issues are a bit of a nonsense at times, Stephen Laurence's killers were publicly outed on the front of the daily mirror with the headliner murderers despite being found not guilty at the time and subsequently found guilty some years later. I don't hear anybody complaining they didn't receive a fair trial and should get compensated? | |||
"Its been going on for 4 years.... He has spent 4 million on lawyers fees ... he hasnt made any money from it .. he just wanted his name cleared ... " He'll get his lawyers fees paid on top of the damages. He's made a lot out of it. | |||
| |||
"Its been going on for 4 years.... He has spent 4 million on lawyers fees ... he hasnt made any money from it .. he just wanted his name cleared ... He'll get his lawyers fees paid on top of the damages. He's made a lot out of it. " He won't get £4 million back when he compensation was only £200K. The costs are out of all proportion. | |||
"maybe a quick google search about him might change your mind about him " In what way? | |||
"Its been going on for 4 years.... He has spent 4 million on lawyers fees ... he hasnt made any money from it .. he just wanted his name cleared ... He'll get his lawyers fees paid on top of the damages. He's made a lot out of it. He won't get £4 million back when he compensation was only £200K. The costs are out of all proportion." Part of his claim is for the fees of his lawyers to limit the damage caused by the disclosure. The judge has ruled they are recoverable as special damages. He got £300k on account of costs from the police. (with more to come) and recovered £400k from them. Youre right he probably won't get all the £4 million and you're right the defendants will probably argue a proportionality point on the costs of the action, but it's.quite common to get costs much larger than damages. Happened all the time when I sued the police. | |||
| |||
"True, but when he has spent £4 million on a £200k claim, even with some recoverable as special damages, the worst costs draftsman in the world could easily negotiate 10-15% from those, let alone a Judge at detailed assessment, so he is now going to be out of pocket. I suspect that he doesn't care, and this was more about proving a point, which he has. " He has got £600k so far including the money from the police and special damages, still to be assessed and including some of his lawyers fees, have to be added. There's also the issue as to whether his lawyers will enforce their legal liability for costs against him to the extent he ends up out of pocket. It's very bad PR for a lawyer to do that and most firms wouldn't. | |||
| |||
"Its been going on for 4 years.... He has spent 4 million on lawyers fees ... he hasnt made any money from it .. he just wanted his name cleared ... He'll get his lawyers fees paid on top of the damages. He's made a lot out of it. " £4 million on lawyers fees? That’s a shocking amount! | |||
"Yeah right! They are not going to discount them by a £million. This is a magic circle firm and Cliff, not some scruffy high street outfit with a client who can't really afford to pay the difference!" Even if that's right special damages will take him up to about. £1.5 million I should think, of which £500k might be lawyers fees. That would leave him with £3.5 million lawyers fees. If he got 20% assessed off that would leave him £700k to pay thus putting him in profit by £800k If you haven't read the judgment it's on the judiciary website, which I think makes it clear why he will be in profit. | |||
"This is avoidable victimization BUT my heart goes out to victims of child abuse who still suffer as adults - where is their compensation? (i mean non high profile cases who have never received a penny or justice). They can get compensation of up to. £500000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. " Unless the law has changed, there's a time limit. | |||
"This is avoidable victimization BUT my heart goes out to victims of child abuse who still suffer as adults - where is their compensation? (i mean non high profile cases who have never received a penny or justice). They can get compensation of up to. £500000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Unless the law has changed, there's a time limit." But that is irrelevant in this case. | |||
"Yeah right! They are not going to discount them by a £million. This is a magic circle firm and Cliff, not some scruffy high street outfit with a client who can't really afford to pay the difference! Even if that's right special damages will take him up to about. £1.5 million I should think, of which £500k might be lawyers fees. That would leave him with £3.5 million lawyers fees. If he got 20% assessed off that would leave him £700k to pay thus putting him in profit by £800k If you haven't read the judgment it's on the judiciary website, which I think makes it clear why he will be in profit. " The Judgment doesn't mention a costs figure, so I am not sure where the £4million came from. The Judgment makes it clear that the compensation is shared between the BBC and the Police, 65/35%. There is to be a future hearing on special damages. The BBC will have to hope that their offer and interim payment on special damages turn out to be good enough. | |||
| |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? " Does it matter why there dropped. They were. The man is innocent. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? " exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... | |||
"Didn’t Alex Ferguson not talk to the bbc for years over a undercover program about his son which turned out to be a load of lies ? I remember Gary Linaker coming out with some smug remarks and fergie put him in his place like somebody said earlier the bbc never apologise " The BBC need to apologise for their own paedophile enabling activities | |||
| |||
"This is avoidable victimization BUT my heart goes out to victims of child abuse who still suffer as adults - where is their compensation? (i mean non high profile cases who have never received a penny or justice). They can get compensation of up to. £500000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Unless the law has changed, there's a time limit. But that is irrelevant in this case." I wasn't on about this case! | |||
"He was never even arrested or charged with any offence. After the CPS closed the matter, an alleged victim exercised their right to have the case reviewed. That happened and the matter was again closed. And now he was won substantial compensation from the Police and BBC. I think that makes it pretty clear that there was no case to answer. " Or just no evidence. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... " So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. | |||
"This is avoidable victimization BUT my heart goes out to victims of child abuse who still suffer as adults - where is their compensation? (i mean non high profile cases who have never received a penny or justice). They can get compensation of up to. £500000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Unless the law has changed, there's a time limit." There is, but it can be waived and often is in child abuse cases. | |||
"maybe a quick google search about him might change your mind about him " Agreed I've read it all. And i didnt like his statement tonight saying "it's better 10 people get off with it .. then one innocent person gets convicted" fecking lovely message to the victims of sexual abuse eh  | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up " | |||
"maybe a quick google search about him might change your mind about him Agreed I've read it all. And i didnt like his statement tonight saying "it's better 10 people get off with it .. then one innocent person gets convicted" fecking lovely message to the victims of sexual abuse eh "It is. That's a basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's also a quote too. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up " Sorry about that. I will re phrase it to "some woman on a swingers site". If the police or BBC had any evidence whatsoever that he was in any shape or form form guilty of the offences, you can guarantee they would have deployed it. As said above, the bloke wasn't even arrested. Only dedicated conspiracy devotees can possibly think he might be guilty. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up Sorry about that. I will re phrase it to "some woman on a swingers site". If the police or BBC had any evidence whatsoever that he was in any shape or form form guilty of the offences, you can guarantee they would have deployed it. As said above, the bloke wasn't even arrested. Only dedicated conspiracy devotees can possibly think he might be guilty. " Or misandrists who have an implicit belief that most men are sex offenders. | |||
| |||
"Personally I hope the BBC have to pay out so much it's breaks them . It's a fucking disgrace how he's been treated . And everyone here is talking monetary figures for this and that; that's not the issue . He has said today that this will stain him for life. He now won't go near children for fear of somebody complaining. So it's affected his life in more than a financial sense . Even if he won £100 Million he'd give it away anyway . It's about the smearing of his good clean reputation , so I hope he closes the BBC down. " Or at least let's see some senior heads roll. You can't fine the BBC, it's a contradiction in terms. | |||
"Personally I hope the BBC have to pay out so much it's breaks them . It's a fucking disgrace how he's been treated . And everyone here is talking monetary figures for this and that; that's not the issue . He has said today that this will stain him for life. He now won't go near children for fear of somebody complaining. So it's affected his life in more than a financial sense . Even if he won £100 Million he'd give it away anyway . It's about the smearing of his good clean reputation , so I hope he closes the BBC down. Or at least let's see some senior heads roll. You can't fine the BBC, it's a contradiction in terms. " Yes , or this . The buck stops with the Director General . He should resign  | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up Sorry about that. I will re phrase it to "some woman on a swingers site". If the police or BBC had any evidence whatsoever that he was in any shape or form form guilty of the offences, you can guarantee they would have deployed it. As said above, the bloke wasn't even arrested. Only dedicated conspiracy devotees can possibly think he might be guilty. Or misandrists who have an implicit belief that most men are sex offenders. " It's actually mostly the right wing, new world order, EUSSR types who believe in Paedo conspiracies. The narrative is generally shadowy liberal lites who do terrible things. Gender isn't usually prominent on said narrative | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up Sorry about that. I will re phrase it to "some woman on a swingers site". If the police or BBC had any evidence whatsoever that he was in any shape or form form guilty of the offences, you can guarantee they would have deployed it. As said above, the bloke wasn't even arrested. Only dedicated conspiracy devotees can possibly think he might be guilty. Or misandrists who have an implicit belief that most men are sex offenders. It's actually mostly the right wing, new world order, EUSSR types who believe in Paedo conspiracies. The narrative is generally shadowy liberal lites who do terrible things. Gender isn't usually prominent on said narrative " That only works because Americans don't know what the word liberal means, since they lack a political party to represent that part of politics. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... So the finest legal minds employed by the police and the BBC had to accept that there is no evidence he has ever committed crimes of this nature, but a bloke posting on a swingers site knows different. first off its the female half ... secondly today was about invasion of privacy nothing else. try and keep up Sorry about that. I will re phrase it to "some woman on a swingers site". If the police or BBC had any evidence whatsoever that he was in any shape or form form guilty of the offences, you can guarantee they would have deployed it. As said above, the bloke wasn't even arrested. Only dedicated conspiracy devotees can possibly think he might be guilty. Or misandrists who have an implicit belief that most men are sex offenders. It's actually mostly the right wing, new world order, EUSSR types who believe in Paedo conspiracies. The narrative is generally shadowy liberal lites who do terrible things. Gender isn't usually prominent on said narrative That only works because Americans don't know what the word liberal means, since they lack a political party to represent that part of politics. " Liberal in this context has quite a precise meaning. It means people who are comfortable internationally and don't see the values of race and nation as primary. See also May's citizens of nowhere and citizens of somewhere. As we discussed before saying political terms have an essential meaning that doesn't correspond to how they are actually used is logically incoherent | |||
" As we discussed before saying political terms have an essential meaning that doesn't correspond to how they are actually used is logically incoherent " It's mainly Americans misusing it. I'll stick with the dictionary definition. | |||
" As we discussed before saying political terms have an essential meaning that doesn't correspond to how they are actually used is logically incoherent It's mainly Americans misusing it. I'll stick with the dictionary definition. " In the USA liberal means broadly on the left and that's what the US dictionary definition is. I struggle to see why you think your definition is superior to that of 300 million Americans. | |||
" As we discussed before saying political terms have an essential meaning that doesn't correspond to how they are actually used is logically incoherent It's mainly Americans misusing it. I'll stick with the dictionary definition. In the USA liberal means broadly on the left and that's what the US dictionary definition is. I struggle to see why you think your definition is superior to that of 300 million Americans. " Because they are borrowing our language  | |||
" As we discussed before saying political terms have an essential meaning that doesn't correspond to how they are actually used is logically incoherent It's mainly Americans misusing it. I'll stick with the dictionary definition. In the USA liberal means broadly on the left and that's what the US dictionary definition is. I struggle to see why you think your definition is superior to that of 300 million Americans. Because they are borrowing our language "The term "liberal" actually derives from Spanish and was first dreamed up to refer to those fighting against the Bonapartist regime in Spain around 1810. So if anyone gets to define the term it's them... | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? " The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm, so rather like Yorkshire it doesn't need an extradition treaty. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? exactly, he knows what is coming down the line eventually. a certain guest house visitors book that has haunted him since its publication.This victory today was important in that he hopes the freedom of the press has been curtailed enough in regard to him that editors will be petrified to publish anything remotely connected to him in future... " I suspect that the high profile this incident has, everyone involved would have worn their shovels out looking for the merest scrap of evidence. I mean, who'd want to leak the story to press, have the whole thing filmed, only to find there's no case to answer? If there was any evidence it would have been found. | |||
 | |||
"From what I understand of his court case yesterday he was suing for an invasion of privacy.. I'm pretty sure if I'd have been accused of these offences the BBC or other TV companies would have named me , I'm not sure why a celebrity should be treated any different, "IMHO no one should be named until they're at least charged. | |||
| |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty." As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? " I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! " No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm, so rather like Yorkshire it doesn't need an extradition treaty. "OK my mistake it was Barbados So why did he become a citizen of Barbados which doesn't have an extradition treaty with UK when all this started? I know he has every right to seeing as he is a free man and hadn't been charged but why would an innocent guy do that There simply can't be any evidence if you haven't done said crime so why do that? | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty." I doubt if the license payers will settle the bill, I'm willing to bet the BBC has insurances for this type of situation. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. " It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. " |so according to your logic jimmy savile is innocent too? | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could" So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. |so according to your logic jimmy savile is innocent too?" Yes, because obviously if there's no evidence against person A, it must mean that Person B, against whom there is evidence is also innocent. I hope you never get called up for jury service... | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. " His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved" Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Right I've not read this full thread as I'm too busy so forgive me if this has been said. In my view this was a case of the establishment protecting the establishment as it is known to be riddled with paedophiles high up in the establishment. This verdict has made it a whole lot harder to convict these paedophiles which some will agree with and some won't! But I'm off...so don't expect a reply until late tonight...if the thread is still running..." The BBC is part of the establishment | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. " This.. It's why we have a justice system albeit not a perfect one.. It's so you and I don't get strung up on the whim of someone in power because the village gossip or the vindictive malicious neighbour have said he/she did such n such.. The levels of proof and what's required too prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are there for all regardless of status or that they look different.. If the same 'logic' and lack of proof were to be applied for your partner, children, best friend etc as is evident on such threads for others maybe some common sense would appear.. Pitchforks for paediatricians eh.. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end." Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. This.. It's why we have a justice system albeit not a perfect one.. It's so you and I don't get strung up on the whim of someone in power because the village gossip or the vindictive malicious neighbour have said he/she did such n such.. The levels of proof and what's required too prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are there for all regardless of status or that they look different.. If the same 'logic' and lack of proof were to be applied for your partner, children, best friend etc as is evident on such threads for others maybe some common sense would appear.. Pitchforks for paediatricians eh.. " Someone told me _al2001 steals milk bottles from old ladies and I wrote it down on a piece of paper. He's clearly guilty. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. " Agreed. Totally. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. " I reckon you might be a paedophile. You've never been convicted because there is not enough evidence. I now intend to post all over the Internet that you may be a paedo. See how it works? | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. " We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from" No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? " We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming" So who are the people who gave the information that was on the list? That's how law works. Anyone can say. "some bloke told me cliff Richard is a Paedo and I wrote it down", but surely you can see how worthless that is as evidence? He's in his seventies and has more or less retired to Barbados. It's obviously easier for him there if he is a citizen. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. I reckon you might be a paedophile. You've never been convicted because there is not enough evidence. I now intend to post all over the Internet that you may be a paedo. See how it works? " I can see exactly how it works which is why I agree with a public and international apology! I have never, at any point given a personal opinion as to whether the man is guilty or not. I am just pointing out to anyone that feels strongly enough to adamantly defend his innocence or, would adamantly convict him that, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence either way to say with out reasonable doubt he is one or the other! That this is why there seems to be a situation where people's opinions are split and that I can see why they are split, it's also why I wouldn't defend or condemn him. Presumed innocent rather than guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, not everyone has a legal background. If the press had reported in a more reasonable and less sensational way his innocence or guilt wouldn't be being decided by the public. Hence the belief he deserves his apology. | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. I reckon you might be a paedophile. You've never been convicted because there is not enough evidence. I now intend to post all over the Internet that you may be a paedo. See how it works? I can see exactly how it works which is why I agree with a public and international apology! I have never, at any point given a personal opinion as to whether the man is guilty or not. I am just pointing out to anyone that feels strongly enough to adamantly defend his innocence or, would adamantly convict him that, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence either way to say with out reasonable doubt he is one or the other! That this is why there seems to be a situation where people's opinions are split and that I can see why they are split, it's also why I wouldn't defend or condemn him. Presumed innocent rather than guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, not everyone has a legal background. If the press had reported in a more reasonable and less sensational way his innocence or guilt wouldn't be being decided by the public. Hence the belief he deserves his apology. " We or he do not have to prove our innocence, it is up to the crown to prove a guilt.. The 'enough evidence either way' is at odds with your saying he should have a public apology? And its wrong given the system we have.. | |||
| |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. I reckon you might be a paedophile. You've never been convicted because there is not enough evidence. I now intend to post all over the Internet that you may be a paedo. See how it works? I can see exactly how it works which is why I agree with a public and international apology! I have never, at any point given a personal opinion as to whether the man is guilty or not. I am just pointing out to anyone that feels strongly enough to adamantly defend his innocence or, would adamantly convict him that, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence either way to say with out reasonable doubt he is one or the other! That this is why there seems to be a situation where people's opinions are split and that I can see why they are split, it's also why I wouldn't defend or condemn him. Presumed innocent rather than guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, not everyone has a legal background. If the press had reported in a more reasonable and less sensational way his innocence or guilt wouldn't be being decided by the public. Hence the belief he deserves his apology. " So I went around posting on the Internet that you might be a paedophile, you'd be happy for everyone to take the view that it was impossible to say whether or not you are a paedo, rather than saying you obviously aren't a paedo because no one has ever come up with any evidence that you are? | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming So who are the people who gave the information that was on the list? That's how law works. Anyone can say. "some bloke told me cliff Richard is a Paedo and I wrote it down", but surely you can see how worthless that is as evidence? He's in his seventies and has more or less retired to Barbados. It's obviously easier for him there if he is a citizen. " I've already told you where the list came from. From the two social workers who dealt with the accused party organiser after she was arrested She told them the names then killed herself Its easier in the sun in Barbados than prison in UK alright | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming So who are the people who gave the information that was on the list? That's how law works. Anyone can say. "some bloke told me cliff Richard is a Paedo and I wrote it down", but surely you can see how worthless that is as evidence? He's in his seventies and has more or less retired to Barbados. It's obviously easier for him there if he is a citizen. I've already told you where the list came from. From the two social workers who dealt with the accused party organiser after she was arrested She told them the names then killed herself Its easier in the sun in Barbados than prison in UK alright" According to Wikipedia the man who drew up the list said names were given to him by unnamed "victims" You're getting confused with the picture of Leon Brittan with a boy she allegedly showed him and which no one else has ever seen. I am genuinely shocked that anyone could believe anyone guilty on the basis of such tittle tattle. | |||
" I am genuinely shocked that anyone could believe anyone guilty on the basis of such tittle tattle. " You're not though are you. The logic i see on this thread looks like: 1. Child abuse is awful (true) 2. If we made examples out of some people then maybe we'd reduce child abuse (Not true) 3. Let's find some people to make examples out of 4. Doesn't matter if they weren't guilty as we're doing it for a Nobel cause | |||
"Google guest house book cliff richards. Go to the cig papers blog for an interesting read. Make sure you read the Wikipedia page also for balance. With so many prominent and powerful people involved I doubt us normal people can ever be sure we are getting the full truth. As far as the way the police and the press conducted themselves with regards to Cliff Richards, they should have to apologize very publicly and internationally. I don't agree with the financial payments from tax payers and license fee payers being awarded to someone who clearly doesn't need the extra regardless of the possibility he gives it to charity! Has anyone seen my cat? Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...here Kitty Kitty. As we know plenty of prominent and powerful people have been convicted and gone to prison for child abuse crimes. Richard wasn't even arrested. That's how flimsy the case was against him. Much against my better judgment I looked at the blog. I see the "evidence" against Richard is that in 1990 a convicted fraudster drew up a list of people he said victims of abuse had told him had stayed at the Elm Guest House. Richard is on the list. I mean, for fucks sake. By that logic if I draw up a list of people that I say victims of abuse had told me were abusers and your name is on the list, then you must be an abuser. Can you really not see how much bollocks this is? I'm not suggesting either cig or wiki are totally accurate, just that with so many powerful people involved, inconsistency, convenience and secrecy in the allegations and the discrediting that, it is very complex and there is too much room to feel that the truth hasn't been completely outed. Being a convicted fraudster still leaves the possibility open that he was lieing for his own benefit or, telling the truth but easy to discredit because of his background. Whatever the scenario, it is a situation that people won't be convinced by, one way, or the other because people aren't truly satisfied the allegations have been dealt with in a satisfactory way by trustworthy people. People will always look at cases like Hillsborough and how that panned out when considering this sort of thing. It's people's nature! No. It's bollocks. As I say, even if victims did give him those names, we have no idea who these victims are and whether or not they are telling the truth. Anyone can put anyone's name on a list. It means nothing. It's not complex at all. If you are accusing someone of a serious crime, you have to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence against Richard, hence he is innocent. It's the Fab equivalent of naming and shaming...... No evidence no case. The end. Which is why the BBC should have been more careful in the way they reported the story and, because of that Cliff deserves a very public and international apology. Hopefully, the police force and the BBC can cover what ever they are legally obliged too through insurance policies but I don't believe Cliff needs to be awarded any kind of financial bonus apologies on top, specially if it comes from tax payers. Whether he is guilty or not is a different matter! Is it no evidence or, not enough evidence! There are plenty of criminals clever or lucky enough not to have been caught or, clever/lucky enough not to have left enough evidence behind and plenty that have the right contacts. I don't think that there is enough evidence either way to put it to bed completely. I reckon you might be a paedophile. You've never been convicted because there is not enough evidence. I now intend to post all over the Internet that you may be a paedo. See how it works? I can see exactly how it works which is why I agree with a public and international apology! I have never, at any point given a personal opinion as to whether the man is guilty or not. I am just pointing out to anyone that feels strongly enough to adamantly defend his innocence or, would adamantly convict him that, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence either way to say with out reasonable doubt he is one or the other! That this is why there seems to be a situation where people's opinions are split and that I can see why they are split, it's also why I wouldn't defend or condemn him. Presumed innocent rather than guilty is the way the law is supposed to work, not everyone has a legal background. If the press had reported in a more reasonable and less sensational way his innocence or guilt wouldn't be being decided by the public. Hence the belief he deserves his apology. So I went around posting on the Internet that you might be a paedophile, you'd be happy for everyone to take the view that it was impossible to say whether or not you are a paedo, rather than saying you obviously aren't a paedo because no one has ever come up with any evidence that you are? " Which is why the BBC and the police are or should be apologising. Neither organisation is qualified to pronounce anyone guilty and are supposed to, and are looked upon to act and report facts in an unbiased way. Neither organisation has done that. The information for or against shouldn't be in the public domain (that is wrong) however it is. Based on the information in the public domain I don't feel informed or qualified enough to call it, it's fascinating that some feel they can. The BBC can only apologise for what they have said, they can't make a statement saying that Cliff isn't guilty as, hopefully they have realised they have no more rite and, are no more qualified to pronounce someone inocent than they are to suggest someone is guilty before the law has had its say! Total incompetence really! | |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming So who are the people who gave the information that was on the list? That's how law works. Anyone can say. "some bloke told me cliff Richard is a Paedo and I wrote it down", but surely you can see how worthless that is as evidence? He's in his seventies and has more or less retired to Barbados. It's obviously easier for him there if he is a citizen. I've already told you where the list came from. From the two social workers who dealt with the accused party organiser after she was arrested She told them the names then killed herself Its easier in the sun in Barbados than prison in UK alright According to Wikipedia the man who drew up the list said names were given to him by unnamed "victims" You're getting confused with the picture of Leon Brittan with a boy she allegedly showed him and which no one else has ever seen. I am genuinely shocked that anyone could believe anyone guilty on the basis of such tittle tattle. " he is not confused at all ... plus basing any reasonable argument on wikipedia puts you at a disadvantage... get some facts then argue | |||
"there are two topics getting confused here i think. yesterdays case and judgement and historical investigations into him." I think so too | |||
"there are two topics getting confused here i think. yesterdays case and judgement and historical investigations into him. I think so too "Yesterdays case was clear cut and i agree with the verdict 100%.There was a clear stitch up between operation yewtree and the bbc. The other historical issues are less clear cut and way more difficult to investigate and prove or dismiss | |||
| |||
| |||
"Meant the kids couldn't say it was Richards not could So someone dressed up as a cat and no one could say who it was because they were dressed up, yet we know it was Cliff Richard... Case closed then. His name was on a list of what turned out to be peadophiles a lot of who weren't known at the time. Only by those involved Exactly. plenty of people have been convicted because there was evidence against them. There's no evidence against Richard so he wasn't even arrested. The fact that some of them may appear on the same list when we have no idea at all who said they were involved is irrelevant. We very much do know where the list came from. Mary moss and Christopher Faye two social workers who worked with the accused organiser of said Peado parties in 1990 after she was arrested The fact the list had names of people who turned out to be peadophiles is very relevant No one knew a lot of the list were peadophiles in 1990 only those involved And why get citizenship to Barbados if you had nothing to run from No knows who these alleged victims are who allegedly gave the information Are you saying that anyone who gets citizenship of another country must have. "something to run from"? We do know who some of the victims are 12 children were found at a party in elm hose that was raided by cops And no I am saying why specifically did he get citizenship to Barbados straight after this investigation started if it wasn't to keep away from UK law? He was free to do it but the only reason he done it was to keep away from UK law if charges were coming So who are the people who gave the information that was on the list? That's how law works. Anyone can say. "some bloke told me cliff Richard is a Paedo and I wrote it down", but surely you can see how worthless that is as evidence? He's in his seventies and has more or less retired to Barbados. It's obviously easier for him there if he is a citizen. I've already told you where the list came from. From the two social workers who dealt with the accused party organiser after she was arrested She told them the names then killed herself Its easier in the sun in Barbados than prison in UK alright According to Wikipedia the man who drew up the list said names were given to him by unnamed "victims" You're getting confused with the picture of Leon Brittan with a boy she allegedly showed him and which no one else has ever seen. I am genuinely shocked that anyone could believe anyone guilty on the basis of such tittle tattle. " My memory of it was the list came from Mary moss social worker | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm, so rather like Yorkshire it doesn't need an extradition treaty.
OK my mistake it was Barbados
So why did he become a citizen of Barbados which doesn't have an extradition treaty with UK when all this started?
I know he has every right to seeing as he is a free man and hadn't been charged but why would an innocent guy do that
There simply can't be any evidence if you haven't done said crime so why do that?"Are you going to traipse through the whole Commonwealth? Barbados is also a Commonwealth Realm.pmsl | |||
"there are two topics getting confused here i think. yesterdays case and judgement and historical investigations into him. I think so too
Yesterdays case was clear cut and i agree with the verdict 100%.There was a clear stitch up between operation yewtree and the bbc.
The other historical issues are less clear cut and way more difficult to investigate and prove or dismiss"The on warrent served on the Berkshire premises was conducted by South York's police and had nothing to do with the Yewtree investigations. | |||
"Right I've not read this full thread as I'm too busy so forgive me if this has been said. In my view this was a case of the establishment protecting the establishment as it is known to be riddled with paedophiles high up in the establishment. This verdict has made it a whole lot harder to convict these paedophiles which some will agree with and some won't! But I'm off...so don't expect a reply until late tonight...if the thread is still running... The BBC is part of the establishment" Exactly!! the taxpayer is always a easy target...and ultimately that is what has happened the taxpayer will pick up the bill resulting in it now being harder to report the paedophiles. | |||
" I am genuinely shocked that anyone could believe anyone guilty on the basis of such tittle tattle. You're not though are you. The logic i see on this thread looks like: 1. Child abuse is awful (true) 2. If we made examples out of some people then maybe we'd reduce child abuse (Not true) 3. Let's find some people to make examples out of 4. Doesn't matter if they weren't guilty as we're doing it for a Nobel cause" So would you agree with cliff it is better 10 abusers get off then 1 innocent person is convicted? | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm, so rather like Yorkshire it doesn't need an extradition treaty.
OK my mistake it was Barbados
So why did he become a citizen of Barbados which doesn't have an extradition treaty with UK when all this started?
I know he has every right to seeing as he is a free man and hadn't been charged but why would an innocent guy do that
There simply can't be any evidence if you haven't done said crime so why do that?
Are you going to traipse through the whole Commonwealth? Barbados is also a Commonwealth Realm.pmsl
"I know fuck all about the Commonwealth or your realm but I know that Barbados does not have an extradition treaty with the UK Pmsl all you want | |||
"So what's the exact legal position of the allegations against him? Were they found to be completely unfounded or insufficient evidence? If I remember their was evidence And why did he get Bahamas citizenship that doesn't have a extradition treaty with UK? The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm, so rather like Yorkshire it doesn't need an extradition treaty.
OK my mistake it was Barbados
So why did he become a citizen of Barbados which doesn't have an extradition treaty with UK when all this started?
I know he has every right to seeing as he is a free man and hadn't been charged but why would an innocent guy do that
There simply can't be any evidence if you haven't done said crime so why do that?
Are you going to traipse through the whole Commonwealth? Barbados is also a Commonwealth Realm.pmsl
I know fuck all about the Commonwealth or your realm but I know that Barbados does not have an extradition treaty with the UK
Pmsl all you want"Yep your right I rambert that was why the Seaton canoe man went there | |||
"More money in the kitty for him" I see what you did there, I'm guessing the Elm Guest House thing has been brushed under the carpet... | |||
