General Chat

I'm conflicted. I can see the reasons on both sides. I think the problem lies with the "no smoke without fire" types who seem to want to believe the worst even when no charges are brought.

I do believe there should be a cut off for historic charges. Who can remember where they were on a specific date 20 years ago? People don't keep diaries any more.

The reason why people are named when charged is primarily for the protection of those charged. It is part of habeas corpus. The British state has a dark history of people "disappearing". By making arrest and charge public those who wish to assist the charged person may do so far more easily.

That the British state shares with China the desire to "disappear" people can be seen in the ongoing treatment of terrorist suspects and the revelations of rendition to the CIA in Guantanamo.

However when it comes to cases of a sexual nature the situation is catch 22. It should be bloody obvious that the police / DPP tactic of arresting a person and then using the arrest as bait for a fishing expedition is wildly incorrect in law as it denies the accused any chance of a fair trial.

C.R., who can afford a decent lawyer, has no e doubt put this point before the DPP with some vigour. There is a mechanism to deal with the matter which is to enforce tight reporting restrictions with heavy penalties on those who ignore them.

As to the BBC;'s involvement. Crass, way outside of its charter responsibility and illegal. They may well find themselves forking out a large sum if C.R. should sue. I hope he does.

I do know quite a few female victims abused as children
only come forward after they have a child Themselves

So maybe a time limit wouldn't work for them

Some good points have been made on here. I too was shocked when I first heard that CR was being questioned, but decided not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

To find out that he has been cleared but that his reputation will have inevitably been damaged, brings mixed feelings.

If allegations have been made, then yes, they should be investigated, but not in full public gaze. The media frenzy on this sort of thing needs to be controlled. Those investigating should be more circumspect and everything should be kept under wraps until guilt is proved. If not proved, then nothing need ever come out.

None of us have 'the right' to know about these cases. Our curiosity should be curbed.

It is not usually in 'the public interest' for sordid details to be published, it is more in the financial interest of the media which feeds on salacious gossip, and which a certain percentage of the population enjoy.

For those making accusations, again, all should be under wraps until the case is proved (or not). If the accused is proved guilty, then appropriate steps should be taken. If the accused is cleared, then the accuser should be dealt with accordingly, maybe with a fine and a police caution.

There should be a time limit on these cases - it's ridiculous seeing these doddery old folk who were at the height of their fame in the swinging but admittedly permissive 60's, being vilified rightly or wrongly, 50 years later.

I started work in the Civil Service when I was 17 (1962) & was very innocent.
It was several months before I realised what the other staff meant when they said "If Mr X says he´s having you on the carpet, he really means it"
It was horrible, as he was in his 60s, but I would never have dreamed of reporting him. I was far too shy.
There´s a world of difference between "groping" & rape although both are equally unacceptable.
Not that I am suggesting for one moment that Cliff Richard has been guilty of groping.

CR case was dropped because there was lack of evidence only

,,,,not that he wasnt guilty or guilty , nor has it been stated,,,,,,,,,



Hes saying hes not gulity.

Kay is just stating the facts

She has not said if she thinks he is guilty or innocent

I am saying no such thing or implied it......I dont have any opinion about it,.

stick to facts and the facts are.

it was dropped because lack of evidence.

CR is stating he is not guilty.

Kay has stated the facts quite correctly.

Just over a month after receiving a file of evidence from police on the singer, lawyers for the CPS said on Thursday that there was insufficient evidence from the police investigation to charge Richard and no further action should be taken against him.

ah well

another post RR'd by an unknown person


2 in one week is getting to be a record :-)


I was only asking IF she thought him guilty, as otherwise I see no reason to raise the fact that the Public Prosecutor said "for insufficient evidence"

It is interesting that CR himself in his print interview said that people would us that clause as a reason not to believe him.

"Deciding not to prosecute

If the crown prosecutor decides that a prosecution should not go ahead, the case will be stopped, usually by what is called 'discontinuance'. Unless there are special circumstances which mean that it is not appropriate to do so, you will be told the reasons for the decision to stop the case."

source: CPS web site

so what are the reasons in the case of C.R.? It is no good Richards being left out to dry with a bland decision not to prosecute and the world and its dog left to speculate. Whoever decided on the appointment of Alison Saunders must be somewhat miffed a safe pair of hands she is not.