BBC & Sir Cliff

[QPRDave]

I proper hate the BBC and UK media in general. This is a disgusting invasion of privacy
The collusion with Sth Yorks Police is criminal. Officers should be sacked, BBC personnel should be sacked.
The glaring differences between this case and child grooming gangs is shocking.
Cliff will never shake off, this stain on his character. It is quite possibly the worst thing to
brand a man without proof.
Personally I don't think anyone should be named until found guilty, in any type of case.
I know the argument is other victims won't come forward, but they could, after seeing the result of a trial.

[Tarbie]

I proper hate the BBC and UK media in general. This is a disgusting invasion of privacy
The collusion with Sth Yorks Police is criminal. Officers should be sacked, BBC personnel should be sacked.
The glaring differences between this case and child grooming gangs is shocking.
Cliff will never shake off, this stain on his character. It is quite possibly the worst thing to
brand a man without proof.
Personally I don't think anyone should be named until found guilty, in any type of case.
I know the argument is other victims won't come forward, but they could, after seeing the result of a trial.

This is the problem with modern society. People are subject to trial by the press, or even worse, trial by social media. Careers and lives can be ruined by nothing more than rumours. Yet the those that print or spread the stories are free to carry on with their lives more often than not. The financial penalty the BBC have been hit by is a joke. 220k is a drop in the ocean to them, and doesn't even come close to compensating for the stain it's caused on Cliff Richards character.

[brightonr]

And there we were being told police resources were so overstretched that they can’t investigate certain crimes. Obviously not so overstretched that they haven’t the time to commit them.

[QPRDave]

Good replies fellas.
Agree Tarbs joke of a punishment, and bbc still appealing it.

[Stanley]

I actually happen to know one of the detectives who was assigned to the Cliff case and he assured me that he'd been completely fitted up and there wasn't a shred of reliable evidence to support the allegations. The BBC's actions were unforgivable.

[QPRDave]

That's shocking Stanley

[WeAreQPR12]

I know he used to hangout at the Walton hop with all the pedos so really not sure he is completely innocent. Probably just gay but I am not a fan of his

[Blobbers]

I suppose he'll be going on a summer holiday now.

[Tarbie]

I know he used to hangout at the Walton hop with all the pedos so really not sure he is completely innocent. Probably just gay but I am not a fan of his

And this kind of "no smoke without fire" mindset is why it's so wrong making accusations about someone without any proof. As far as I know Cliff Richard wasn't a regular at the Walton Hop at all. He did live down the road in Weybridge, but plenty of famous people live in that part of Surrey.

[72bus]

well he does live his life on the edge

[Hubble]

They should have had him wired for sound, then they'd know if it was all true or not. Understandably he's a bit mistletoe and wining about it. Apparently when asked about the Beeb he just said 'we don't talk anymore,' which I guess he deserves congratulations for. At least he's not living on the dole.

[QPRDave]

I went round to see a female friend of his to try and get to the truth, but was told
Carrie doesn't live here anymore, shame cause she was a living doll!

[Stanley]

I get all the arguments about protecting the freedom of the press etc but IMO that's still never a justification for naming a person before they've even been charged because of all the defamation and harm it can cause. And by the same token, how can it be justified that the accuser's identity be protected by never being named, particularly in cases like this in which the accusation has been found to be totally false after all this time, and after all the damage that person has caused.

The law is a total ass in such cases IMO. Rather than the BBC having to pay all the damages, the accuser should at least have to pay some of them if there's any justice. That would make people think twice in future before trying to greedily profit by fabricating total lies, with zero consideration to the harm they are causing, and which they would probably never do if the person wasn't famous or in the public eye. They're just low life scum if you ask me.

[QPRDave]

Agree Stanley. The woman's rights crowd have imo influenced society too much. Men, actually white men
are the number one enemy to the uk according to these nut jobs, and their rabid demands, are skewing
thoughts and law

[Tarbie]

Agree Stanley. The woman's rights crowd have imo influenced society too much. Men, actually white men
are the number one enemy to the uk according to these nut jobs, and their rabid demands, are skewing
thoughts and law

I think there is a fine line, isn't there? I think it's a good thing that people like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey are being outed for their behaviour. It's not OK that these guys have been able to abuse their positions of power for such a long time, wrecking other peoples lives as they do so. But, this whole idea of trial by social media is a very dangerous thing. Anybody can post anything they want about a person on the internet these days, and many people reading will have trouble telling the difference between fact and speculation. And to be honest, some of the guys that have been implicated recently seem a little hard done by to me.

There was a comedian called Aziz Ansari implicated by this Me Too campaign. From what I can tell, the accuser (who has remained anonymous to this day) had agreed to go on a date with Ansari, drank a few bottles of champagne, had a nice dinner, gone back to his place, and was not impressed that he made sexual advances to her. Ain't being funny, but for most lads of my era, if they've dropped a few hundred quid on a date and a girl has agreed to come home with him them, that's a pretty big green light isn't it? Of course she talked about him misreading signals, and whatever else, and maybe that is all true, but it seemed to me totally inappropriate to try to ruin a guys career in that fashion. He certainly doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Weinstein and Spacey who were up to far worse.