Cliff Richard - shock!

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 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

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.

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

I would rather shoot myself in the lefttit foot.

Might suit some !!

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

That did not scan correctly:-

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

That is what I meant

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

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

i.e. over 70

What happens if I am STATESIDE ??

Do they drag me back kicking & screaming ??

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

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

HOLLY

AND

Well at at last a conclusion!

Cliff Richard will face no further action.

The South Yorks Police have apologised, 'wholeheartedly for the stress caused'.

www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-06-16/police-apologise-for-way-they-handled-cliff-richard-case/

Only because there is not enough evidence so his name is not entirely cleared.
If I were him and I were innocent this would not be good enough I'm afraid.

It's like saying we know you did it but we can't prove it

POGS it can't have done him much good at his age having to go through all this. The media didn't help showing police going into his home and searching, they never did anything like that with mp's, judges ect

No conclusion, this would mean guilty or not guilty, they have said insufficient evidence , this means - we have some but not enough to charge you. This is so wrong, more concerned with covering the actions of the police yet again

Agree.. and leaving Cliff hanging

It was all handled so badly.
And looks like he was completely innocent.

He can never prove he is innocent , the damage is done

Sadly it is so very easy to make allegations and besmirch someone. Much harder to disprove and therefore prove innocence. That is why in this country we stand by 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The law says innocent until proven guilty. Many people say - there is no smoke without fire

Think the accuser should face some questions too. As you say Synonymous it's so easy to besmirch someone but very difficult for them to disprove especially after such a time lapse.
South Yorkshire Police handled it all so badly and wasted a lot of money in the process it seems.

As you say AB many people do say such things and it is that which is so sad.

I was surprised to read about the late Clement Frued too...