Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 275 comments are related to the topic:
SIR CLIFF....
SIR CLIFF....
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 275
|
By:
Time sadly does make a difference Shrewd Dude
The further we go into the past, the harder we make it for ourselves to find truth If you read my earlier posts, I did say I would tend to believe those cases where people are not famous or are wealthy.....because this complicates things...what are these peoples motives are they seeking money or attention or just being malicious .... I am sorry this question has to be asked |
|
By:
Indeed it does ebul and it is the job of people at various stages of the judicial process to take an informed view. Police to CPS to Judge and if necessry ultimately to jury. They all have to wrestle with that issue.
|
|
By:
if that evidence is compelling enough...well to me is it not
the very high legal burden required.. again I do not think this was reached You were called to the bar eternal  well I certainly missed my vocation in life...I think I could torn to you to pieces in court even if I say so myself  |
|
By:
Until I teach them a little humility lots of people do ebul. You could start at the beginning by understanding what the law is. Learn to walk first before cultivating your delusions.
|
|
By:
the pendulum is swinging .... they didn't even prosecute JS .. the prosecution failed initially in the first cases brought under Yewtree ... their first success being Max Clifford.
Stuart Hall was found guilty of indecent assault but was not part of Yewtree. In the case of Rolf it didn't go down well when he said he'd never been to Cambridge ... well it's easy to see how an 86 year old could make that mistake when the event took place in the countryside .... also in the judge's summing up did he mention the motives of the witnesses regarding money ? the pendulum is swinging .... |
|
By:
But hey if you want to take your shot I have a vacancy for another challenger. I see promise for fun. Delusions and arrogance. My favourite combination. Melly seems to be indisposed currently. Can you get written consent from your GP to confirm your sanity? I like to know what, if anything, I'm taking away from a man.
 |
|
By:
curious
On a point of fact you may recall that the national treasure at the time Mr Hall professed innocence and waxed lyrical about this and was quite scurrilous in his assertions about the victims. Then he let his advocates down by pleading guilty. There was no need to be found. He was a snake who made people who had already suffered suffer just that little bit longer. |
|
By:
But your point Ebul on time past is relevant only to the credibility and reliability of the evidence.
Someone may be far more credible or reliable giving evidence 10 years later on something life changing than someone 6 months later on something they have seen happen dozens of times. Or they may not. But it's the juries role to decide that and that is what happens. It's not the police, the CPS, you or the medias role to say there's no evidence, it's only an allegation or an assertion so it shouldn't go to trial. The witnesses credibility and reliability will be tested in court and if they believe it to be credible and reliable then it is evidence. Yewtree is no different to any other case with this respect. You probably have a point over corroboration and proof in sexual assault cases as it is clearly a big issue because there has to be a balance between proving sexually assault crimes actually happened and increasing convictions and having safe guards in place against wrongful convictions but the Yewtree cases are no different to any others with this respect. |
|
By:
Eeternaloptimist • August 15, 2014 12:57 AM BST
Until I teach them a little humility lots of people do ebul. You could start at the beginning by understanding what the law is. Learn to walk first before cultivating your delusions. well if you have been trained in law you have an advantage over me I was taught at school That we presume innocence in this country, until proven guilty so I stand by that as natural justice, and by and large we have kept to it, until now...we are losing it, but I will stand up by what I was taught at school. Someone may be far more credible or reliable giving evidence 10 years later on that is my problem Shrewd dude....everything is dependant on an alleged victims evidence How good a presentation do they make? How good a performance in court? How good are their acting skills? How good a liar are they? etc In fact whether they are telling the truth or not, does not affect their performance, although we believe it does. That only happens in fiction You may not demand corroborative evidence but I am afraid I do, and we have a much greater chance of getting that the more recent the case is You are arguing Shrewd Dude that the only thing that matters is the victims allegation regardless of time elapsed. This means that anyone can be sent to prison at anytime in their lives, basely solely on someone's allegation. They just have to have a convincing story, no other evidence required. I cannot accept it. How does anyone get a convincing story? Well pick up any women's magazine(I only do in the Drs honestly) It is filled with these stories from beginning to end. In fact I doubt if there is any woman who has not been sexually abused at one time or another. If they have not been they just make it up, which I feel may be happening here I stand on my position. |
|
By:
I was extremely impressed to note police thoroughly checking behind deck chairs on the roof terrace, this particular repository for evidence of a thirty-year-old crime is often overlooked. Very well done indeed.
|
|
By:
You could rip me to shreds and you drop that turd for people to step on ebul? I particularly enjoyed the bit about what you demand. I'm sure you'll get unanimity if you seek to change the old legal dictum, I think from Lord Denning, abut the man on the Clapham Omnibus. It should now read what would the man in the Doctors surgery reading the womens magazines think?
|
|
By:
ebulGery 15 Aug 14 00:45 Joined: 08 May 10 | Topic/replies: 14,348 | Blogger: ebulGery's blog
Time sadly does make a difference Shrewd Dude The further we go into the past, the harder we make it for ourselves to find truth If you read my earlier posts, I did say I would tend to believe those cases where people are not famous or are wealthy.....because this complicates things...what are these peoples motives are they seeking money or attention or just being malicious .... I am sorry this question has to be asked So you believe allegations against those who are not rich and famous, but not those who are? If anyone ever wondered how these people have been getting away with it for so long, here is your answer.  |
|
By:
Pokermonster • August 15, 2014 10:23 AM BST
I was extremely impressed to note police thoroughly checking behind deck chairs on the roof terrace, this particular repository for evidence of a thirty-year-old crime is often overlooked. Very well done indeed. |
|
By:
It should now read what would the man in the Doctors surgery reading the women's magazines think?
I should not have admitted that....well there is nothing else to read eternal Desmond Orchard well that rather depends if you believe these people have been getting away with anything The reason I said that was I believe there is probably less confusion over motive it is not an absolute rule though |
|
By:
I will make some more comments here:
In the JS case, the complaint was the police did not follow up complaints made against JS at the time. So have resolved to change, they will follow all complaints of this kid. So any outstanding claims must be reopened But they have not this have they, they are inviting FRESH CLAIMS long after these incidents have happened. I can't really see a lot of justice in this....why have people delayed?????????????????????????? |
|
By:
One reason for the delay is the sense of shame victims can feel in these cases...
but this applies to paedophile rather more than a straight sex abuse case? and if a mistaken sense of shame prevented them coming forward before, then surely it would prevent them coming forward now so one can argue this rather disproves this reason |
|
By:
Other things have changed in the meantime
Paedophilia has pretty well been regarded now as it always was although the age seems to have risen a bit? But our definition of sex abuse has changed slightly So can you really charge someone with an offence which was not in existence at the time Also one has to apply the sentencing at that time and finally we have changed our justice system on this In the past people were expected to provide some proof they been abused, but we have dropped that Now only the evidence of the alleged victim and defendant may be used...so can you apply these rules to historical cases? You see I don't think any of the above is justice myself. |
|
By:
David Icke knows.
No wonder the BBC were desperate to get rid of him and make him look like a raving lunatic |
|
By:
aye david icke, doesnt that guy charge on the door to tell people 'the truth'?
|
|
By:
hes in the entertainment business ffs
|
|
By:
You are arguing Shrewd Dude that the only thing that matters is the victims allegation regardless of time elapsed.
This means that anyone can be sent to prison at anytime in their lives, basely solely on someone's allegation. They just have to have a convincing story, no other evidence required. I cannot accept it. When the hell did I argue this? I have no clue what point you are even attempting to make now Ebul. You have been explained the law on numerous occasions and are now just withering on about how you think the system should be once you are corrected. |
|
By:
It's a fact 95% are blinkered,and follow the herd.
That's how they get away with it. |
|
By:
Others have come forward. What a surprise! Must be worth a bob or two.
|
|
By:
another one that was knighted by the queen as well
 |
|
By:
The Royal family know whats going on.
|
|
By:
It's a cesspit of filth.
Kenny. Have you taken the blinkers off yet |
|
By:
kenny......looking grim for cliff
|
|
By:
Sir Cliff's in deep doodoo
|
|
By:
Kenny is probably still in denial.
I took 10's 6 mths ago.prob a 7/4 shot now. |
|
By:
The End is Finnish
|
|
By:
Whats the latest.
Not heard anything since this morning,about police searching property. |
|
By:
generations of Brits have worshipped at the altar of Sir Cliff's goodness - if he falls there is nowhere else to go...
|
|
By:
His only offence is wearing that wig imo.
|
|
By:
•He is on the National Association for Young People in Care’s (NAYPIC) Elm Guest House list. Who IS “Gladys”?
|
|
By:
Kenny. your right.
Wig or not to Wig http://theduckshoot.com/is-cliff-richard-a-paedophile/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=2139&relatedposts_position=2 |
|
By:
don't blame him mind, must be pretty crap being bald.
|
|
By:
Shrewd_dude • August 15, 2014 6:21 PM BST
You are arguing Shrewd Dude that the only thing that matters is the victims allegation regardless of time elapsed. This means that anyone can be sent to prison at anytime in their lives, basely solely on someone's allegation. They just have to have a convincing story, no other evidence required. I cannot accept it. When the hell did I argue this? well you have argued here Shrewd_dude • August 15, 2014 12:34 AM BST Well he keeps using phrases like no evidence, single allegation and assertion so I'm not sure what difference 20 years or 1 year, 1month, 1 week, 1 day would make to his use of these points. Yewtree won't be the only ones dealing with historical cases.The majority of child sexual abuse cases don't come to light until some time after that's what makes them and other sexual offences so hard to prove. The coverage they have got will have led to numerous historical cases which won't be getting reported and/or aren't read about by people like Ebul because they aren't famous. You have said what difference does 20 years or 1 day make read your own posts |
|
By:
Gonna be a lot of sad women if this is true.
|
|
By:
indeed akabula
|
|
By:
Admittedly I've missed out a question mark there but that's clearly a question. I never said the only thing that matters is the victims allegation as clearly any conviction involves an entire trial process. Time doesn't change the nature of evidence so that there's a cut off point between it being evidence at one point and it not being evidence at another point in time. I explained to you that time may be relevant to the credibility and reliability of evidence and that is a matter for the jury but it doesn't change the nature of evidence led so that it's evidence 1 day after an event and it's not evidence 20 years after.
|