Sir Cliff Richard

Page 6 of 11 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 9.36am
Originally posted by becky It's because Mr Celebrity Threesome haven't done anything illegal so can protect their privacy. In the case of a celebrity who has been accused of a criminal offence, their name is splashed all over the media to encourage any nutter who has ever been at the same location as the accused to come forward and add their two penny worth to the accusations, in the hope that if the police can't get them for one thing they may just come up with another......or "encourage other victims to come forward" as they put it. Trial by media indeed! Edited by becky (11 May 2016 9.11am) Well except those who have of course been convicted of serious crimes committed against children, by a jury of their peers. Problem is, the failure of society to deal with these allegations at the time, notably Jimmy Savile has created something of a spotlight on the past, that has resulted in a very high level of convictions (as far as sex offence crimes go) of people with high media profiles. Its even worth noting that of those cleared, one of them was unable to prove libel, as the on the balance of evidence the judge determined that the accuser was telling the truth. Another, was cleared because at the time what they did was not a sex offence that fitted the description of the accusation, at the time. Had the offence been committed in more recent times, they'd have been found guilty. Only a few of them have been dismissed as fabrications. Its important to remember that 'not guilty' is about reasonable doubt. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 May 16 9.36am

Originally posted by becky

It's because Mr Celebrity Threesome haven't done anything illegal so can protect their privacy.

In the case of a celebrity who has been accused of a criminal offence, their name is splashed all over the media to encourage any nutter who has ever been at the same location as the accused to come forward and add their two penny worth to the accusations, in the hope that if the police can't get them for one thing they may just come up with another......or "encourage other victims to come forward" as they put it. Trial by media indeed!

Edited by becky (11 May 2016 9.11am)

Well except those who have of course been convicted of serious crimes committed against children, by a jury of their peers.

Problem is, the failure of society to deal with these allegations at the time, notably Jimmy Savile has created something of a spotlight on the past, that has resulted in a very high level of convictions (as far as sex offence crimes go) of people with high media profiles.

Its even worth noting that of those cleared, one of them was unable to prove libel, as the on the balance of evidence the judge determined that the accuser was telling the truth. Another, was cleared because at the time what they did was not a sex offence that fitted the description of the accusation, at the time. Had the offence been committed in more recent times, they'd have been found guilty.

Only a few of them have been dismissed as fabrications. Its important to remember that 'not guilty' is about reasonable doubt.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 9.39am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle How has this all got into the public domain anyway. It's Ok for Mr Celebrity Threesome to get an injunction stopping anyone from even revealing his name as with the Premiership football manager with the over active p**** but the fact that the police have prepared a dossier on a celebrity and passed it to the CPS is happily made public. The law has now changed to innocent until reputation murdered by the media The law allows for the pursuit of damages for libel, slander and actions relating to charges. Interestingly at least one celebrity 'victim' of malicious lies, tried this, and had the case dismissed because whilst the CPS case didn't achieve beyond reasonable doubt, it did establish that the events most likely happened. Unsurprisingly, the celebrity in question on realising that, settled the case quickly. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 May 16 9.39am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

How has this all got into the public domain anyway. It's Ok for Mr Celebrity Threesome to get an injunction stopping anyone from even revealing his name as with the Premiership football manager with the over active p**** but the fact that the police have prepared a dossier on a celebrity and passed it to the CPS is happily made public.

The law has now changed to innocent until reputation murdered by the media

The law allows for the pursuit of damages for libel, slander and actions relating to charges. Interestingly at least one celebrity 'victim' of malicious lies, tried this, and had the case dismissed because whilst the CPS case didn't achieve beyond reasonable doubt, it did establish that the events most likely happened. Unsurprisingly, the celebrity in question on realising that, settled the case quickly.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 11 May 16 9.39am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its important to remember that 'not guilty' is about reasonable doubt. Though don't overlook that "not guilty" can also at times equate to "completely innocent"... Edited by legaleagle (11 May 2016 9.41am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

11 May 16 9.39am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Its important to remember that 'not guilty' is about reasonable doubt.

Though don't overlook that "not guilty" can also at times equate to "completely innocent"...

Edited by legaleagle (11 May 2016 9.41am)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 9.57am
Originally posted by legaleagle Though don't overlook that "not guilty" can also at times equate to "completely innocent"... Edited by legaleagle (11 May 2016 9.41am) Of course, but that's implied by the term not guilty, that you're innocent. People seem to equate that being not guilty means 'its all lies'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 May 16 9.57am

Originally posted by legaleagle

Though don't overlook that "not guilty" can also at times equate to "completely innocent"...

Edited by legaleagle (11 May 2016 9.41am)

Of course, but that's implied by the term not guilty, that you're innocent. People seem to equate that being not guilty means 'its all lies'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 May 16 10.33am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Of course, but that's implied by the term not guilty, that you're innocent. People seem to equate that being not guilty means 'its all lies'. Which, if the accused is innocent, means some if not all of it must be lies........or a distorted version of the truth, or only contain enough truth for a case to be presented (which actually doesn't require much 'truth' at all).... A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 May 16 10.33am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Of course, but that's implied by the term not guilty, that you're innocent. People seem to equate that being not guilty means 'its all lies'.

Which, if the accused is innocent, means some if not all of it must be lies........or a distorted version of the truth, or only contain enough truth for a case to be presented (which actually doesn't require much 'truth' at all)....

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 11.28am
Originally posted by becky Which, if the accused is innocent, means some if not all of it must be lies........or a distorted version of the truth, or only contain enough truth for a case to be presented (which actually doesn't require much 'truth' at all).... I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction) In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial. I think it can be lies, but that usually starts to come unstuck at Pre-Trial reviews, Police and CPS corroboration. Take the Ched Evans case, the police and CPS didn't rely on just her word, they collected and presented evidence to corroborate her word. They usually won't proceed without a reasonable chance of winning the case. Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred. Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through The 'reasonable doubt' defence "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 May 16 11.28am

Originally posted by becky

I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction)

In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial.

I think it can be lies, but that usually starts to come unstuck at Pre-Trial reviews, Police and CPS corroboration. Take the Ched Evans case, the police and CPS didn't rely on just her word, they collected and presented evidence to corroborate her word. They usually won't proceed without a reasonable chance of winning the case.

Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred.

Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through

The 'reasonable doubt' defence

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 11 May 16 12.07pm
Originally posted by fed up eagle I love the way the police in this country whinge about not having enough funding and resources ie actually putting a bobby on the street, yet they have plenty of money to hound an old man who alledgedly touched someone in the wrong place over 30 years ago. That morning when the BBC had their cameras at Cliff Richards' house, we saw helicopters, police cars (some pretty nice souped up jobs), plenty of man power all there to arrest a frail old man. No wonder they're having their funding cut with all that tax payer funded idiocy. Wholly politically strategic manoeuvre from the old bill to get this into the light. They had one investigation into Elm Guest House killed by Leon Britten and the subsequent files 'lost'. William Hague then killed a second mid-investigation and ordered it to close. Jack Straw sat on his hands and allowed no investigation at all. This can go two ways - Sir Cliff'll as a name connected with Elm will either be thrown as a sacrificial lamb to hope it goes away or be protected as the ramifications to the establishment elite, many other senior names appearing on that guest list or Dolphin Squares coming out and being prostecuted is immense. Look at the closing of ranks to protect Britten and Janner... As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 11 May 16 12.07pm

Originally posted by fed up eagle

I love the way the police in this country whinge about not having enough funding and resources ie actually putting a bobby on the street, yet they have plenty of money to hound an old man who alledgedly touched someone in the wrong place over 30 years ago.
That morning when the BBC had their cameras at Cliff Richards' house, we saw helicopters, police cars (some pretty nice souped up jobs), plenty of man power all there to arrest a frail old man.
No wonder they're having their funding cut with all that tax payer funded idiocy.

Wholly politically strategic manoeuvre from the old bill to get this into the light.

They had one investigation into Elm Guest House killed by Leon Britten and the subsequent files 'lost'.

William Hague then killed a second mid-investigation and ordered it to close.

Jack Straw sat on his hands and allowed no investigation at all.

This can go two ways - Sir Cliff'll as a name connected with Elm will either be thrown as a sacrificial lamb to hope it goes away or be protected as the ramifications to the establishment elite, many other senior names appearing on that guest list or Dolphin Squares coming out and being prostecuted is immense.

Look at the closing of ranks to protect Britten and Janner...

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 11 May 16 12.08pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction) In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial. I think it can be lies, but that usually starts to come unstuck at Pre-Trial reviews, Police and CPS corroboration. Take the Ched Evans case, the police and CPS didn't rely on just her word, they collected and presented evidence to corroborate her word. They usually won't proceed without a reasonable chance of winning the case. Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred. Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through The 'reasonable doubt' defence I think Clinton Baptiste should prosecute I am getting the word..... As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 11 May 16 12.08pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction)

In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial.

Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred.

Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through

The 'reasonable doubt' defence

I think Clinton Baptiste should prosecute

I am getting the word.....

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle Lima 11 May 16 12.29pm
Originally posted by Willo Born in Lucknow,India. Engelbert Humperdinck was also born in India. Edited by Willo (10 May 2016 6.44pm) As was Gandi
Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle

Lima 11 May 16 12.29pm

Send a Private Message to Monty the Eagle

Originally posted by Willo

Born in Lucknow,India.

Engelbert Humperdinck was also born in India.

Edited by Willo (10 May 2016 6.44pm)

As was Gandi

Alert a moderator to this post

Jacey 11 May 16 12.40pm
Originally posted by Monty the Eagle As was Gandi And Freddy Mercury,another queen.
Alert a moderator to this post

Jacey

11 May 16 12.40pm

Originally posted by Monty the Eagle

As was Gandi

And Freddy Mercury,another queen.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 11 May 16 1.05pm
Originally posted by Jacey And Freddy Mercury,another queen. Zanzibar. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 11 May 16 1.05pm

Originally posted by Jacey

And Freddy Mercury,another queen.

Zanzibar.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 May 16 2.13pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction) In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial. I think it can be lies, but that usually starts to come unstuck at Pre-Trial reviews, Police and CPS corroboration. Take the Ched Evans case, the police and CPS didn't rely on just her word, they collected and presented evidence to corroborate her word. They usually won't proceed without a reasonable chance of winning the case. Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred. Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through The 'reasonable doubt' defence No Jamie! If the accused IS innocent then the accuser MUST be telling lies because there NOTHING to be accused of if you are innocent. Sod all the 'reasonable doubt' malarkey - sometimes the true meaning of words really are are black and white. A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 May 16 2.13pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I disagree, it fails to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Because the results of criminal conviction are 'serious' (i.e. prison and criminal conviction)

In civil court the balance of evidence applies, because the consequences are 'minor', almost always financial.

Of course the accuser could be lying, but the CPS and Police work to corroborate that its reasonable that many if not all of the events occurred.

Arguably, this may be the case for Sir Cliff, the CPS are being very through

The 'reasonable doubt' defence

No Jamie! If the accused IS innocent then the accuser MUST be telling lies because there NOTHING to be accused of if you are innocent.

Sod all the 'reasonable doubt' malarkey - sometimes the true meaning of words really are are black and white.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Page 6 of 11 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Sir Cliff Richard

Site Map

Sponsors