Cliff Richard

I think you are right gilly, why justthe BBC and not all the media?

Wonderful news. Mr. S. and I saw him in concert last year mainly because we wanted to show our support. He talked briefly about the whole sordid episode and was still clearly distressed by it.

"The police have to investigate but naming the person is wrong, mud sticks "
I agree, Annie. I also thought it was illegal? Influences the court proceedings?
What happened to innocent until proved guilty?

It was only the BBC that had a helicopter hovering over the house filming the police as they arrived, only the police could have tipped off the BBC .

I have no idea and don’t care if he is gay, I do care that anyone can be publicly named with no evidence , no charges.

Have forgotten the name of the American film producer , Harvey ? , when the accusations started that second rate actress told the press he hunted her down to Liverpool and raped her. With all the women he worked with in America why on earth would he bother to go to Liverpool for any woman.

There is a huge difference between being gay, and liking young underage boys. Not making any allegations about anyone- just saying it is very different. I personally don't mind at all about the sexual orientation of anyone- but I would be very concerned about the latter. Whomever it is.

I prefer not to comment on this case with you Jura, sorry

Rape isn't about sexAnnie its about power and Weinstein was showing her he could get to her wherever she was ...thats why he travelled to Liverpool after her .

That is fine Annie, and I won't say anything else either.
You ddidn't live in Surrey in the late 60s, did you?

Did he not have power in America ?

I lived in Wales in the late sixties

I lived in Surrey in the late 1960s Jura.

I’m not sure what you are saying you KNOW, as opposed to repeating rumours, because your post has been removed.

I think I know what you are insinuating. But it’s easy to drop hints and spread gossip.

If you actually KNOW something with evidence why not go public. You can’t be sued if what you say you know is verifiable.

If its not, well, it’s just nasty.

jura is always quoting her 'friends'. At least Brexit is getting a rest.

On this thread, at least.

Do you know if he is donating the money to charity?

Nandalot he got his knighthood for his charitable works so I would expect that he would. However, he has never boasted about his good works, he prefers to do them by stealth. I did live in Surrey, in an area where he did lots of good things, quietly. I never heard any rumours about him except people suggesting he had been the benefactor when it was anonymous. I am shocked that anyone would suggest such things unless they had proof.

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1096412&subid=0

I do know of this because I know of a beneficiary

Christina Webb, does this mean anything to you Juna

I think we have got to the situation now where the accuser should be named.

We have had too many cases like this one, where false accusations have been made against people in the public eye, which were later found to be completely false.

Actually, come to think of it, not just well known people. There have been cases in the press about men in all sorts of professions having their lives completely torn apart by malicious accusations. Their lives have been ruined, yet the accuser retains their anonymity.

Surely that's so wrong?

Totally agree with you JE

+1

Do you mean the accuser should be named if it turns out that it was a false accusation*JE*? It’s not necessarily the case that because there is no evidence that the accusation was false. I think this is a whole lot more complicated than some people seem to think.

So anyone should make false accusations, ruin the life of an innocent person ?

Annie - it happens.
The husband of one of my close friends was a
Primary school teacher. 2 of his pupils accused him of
something indecent. Later they admitted they had made it up. But meanwhile he was suspended, and never went back to teaching.

It does happen Fennel, frightening to think how often , but seems we should accept those accused then not charged are really guilty just no evidence

I friend of mine, a very much respected homeopath for many years was accused by a woman of improper touching, another woman came forward with the same allegation, it took a year to clear his name, he no longer practices which is a great loss to this area after so many years . The two women happen to be close friends , one came forward to strengthen the accusation by the first woman. The first woman’s name was in his appointment book, the second wasn’t!

It seemed that the need for news scoop overtook any common sense by BBC in the Richard case.

If a person makes a malicious allegation of sexual abuse and it is found to be malicious that person can be prosecuted and named & so they should be.

If an allegation is not malicious and remains unproven or the accused is found not guilty of sexual assault due to lack of evidence etc. the person who made the claim must feel dreadful too. Their abuser goes free.

Gossip about celebs is rife. Some gossip is founded, some is not. The police must investigate all accusations and everyone has a responsibility to support victims of assault. That is how Savile et al got away with their sleazy ways because we could not believe St Jim could be bad!

I am, however, sorry that Richard went for money. I understand the need to clear his name as he felt 'violated' etc. But it would have been good for a very wealthy man to simply seek to have his name restored. I hope a good cause is benefitting from the award.