Cliff Richard - shock!

Nonu

Do they drag me back kicking & screaming ??

If they did, when they are going through the selection process, you could always mutter loudly to someone that the defendant looks a bit dodgy anyway so is probably guilty

As someone said yesterday, "There's no Smoke without a fire but sometimes it's just a smoke machine,"

What happens if I am STATESIDE ??

Do they drag me back kicking & screaming ??

i.e. over 70

Unless you're too old, of course...

You don't get a choice, Nonu. If your name comes up, you serve, with your left foot in plaster if necessary.

That did not scan correctly:-

^DID I HEAR CORRECTLY ELO- ME -.
SERVE ON A JURY??

That is what I meant

However, at least someone is not denying such a saying exsists !!

DID I HEAR CORRECTLY ELO,U SERVE ON A JURY ??

I would rather shoot myself in the lefttit foot.

Might suit some !!

If you take the saying "there's no smoke without fire" to its logical conclusion, you are saying that whenever someone is accused of something there must be at least some truth in the allegation.

You might not be the best person to serve on a jury Nonu.

That was my opinion which I do believe I am perfectly entitled to, just as others are perfectly entitled to their opinion.

,It is known as DISCUSSION, people putting forward their point of view.

A L O L

Of course there is smoke without fire. That saying is just as absurd as lightning never strikes twice in the same place when there are records of numerous repeat strikes.

But whether there is smoke without or with fire adds nothing to the discussion.

That surprised me too mrsjones and I like your point bout us assuming that what happens in the UK must apply elsewhere.

Actually G2 if people want to discuss systems in different countries, and how the laws against abuse are different it's ok to do so. I've just checked GN guidelines and that's not listed

Mrsjones- I wasn't talking about CR but about basic principles as other posters were doing the same. I was talking about the UK because all of this is happening in the UK - if we want a discussion about different systems in different countries, then that's another thread. I said I thought there was an issue about publicity about searches but the discussion had moved onto arresting and charging so I was also addressing those issues

GrannyTwice your comment "once someone is arrested, publicity can bring forth ......." is the one that matters. There has been no arrest (so far).

The article from The Independent that Aka linked above on Saturday discusses the police codes with regard to a search warrants and charges - these codes are in place to protect all of us.

I was really surprised to see in that article the comment about the time limits on such cases in most European countries. Isn't it peculiar how you (or I anyway!) just assume that what happens in the UK must apply everywhere!?

Mud washes off too, or it dries and brushes off. Just saying. Mud is so misunderstood!

But we should be careful to

a) not generate more smoke in an already overheated smoke generating machine by throwing on unseasoned wood (ie, contributing to rumours and believing them without confirmation).

b) not throw any mud until we are certain that the target is a legitimate one. It sticks to the thrower's hands too, and dirties them.

Truth be told :-
a] There is no smoke without fire.

b] Mud sticks I am afraid .

We've had similar debates to this before and several issues seem to be being conflated. I agree that in general it seems wrong to publicise the searching of someone's property. However, once someone is arrested, publicity can bring forth other victims which can facilitate the person being charged. This is often the case in situations when individual women have not been believed about a rape but publicity has led to the person being charged and subsequent conviction. A recent example was John Worboys the black cab serial rapist who would not have been charged without the publicity which led to a worker in a rape crisis centre remembering a similar earlier case, IIRC

In total agreement with last few posts. There should be no publicity until someone is actually charged.

Disgrace, innocent until proved guilty.

I absolutely agree with you Charleygirl - none of it should be reported until it has been properly investigated.

I do not think that their names should be splashed over newspapers and this includes Joe Bloggs, until proven guilty because mud sticks.

The response to this latest 'scandal' seems to be overwhelmingly pro-Cliff who is now being portrayed as a rather noble victim.

Can't see it going anywhere. Too well connected and wealthy.

I do realise he may very well be innocent of course.

Hollydaze