One difficulty might be that this gentleman's name was quite often mentioned in connection with Elm Lodge in Barnes and with unsavoury parties thrown by the Krays where all kinds of things went on.
One difficulty might be that this gentleman's name was quite often mentioned in connection with Elm Lodge in Barnes and with unsavoury parties thrown by the Krays where all kinds of things went on.
Quite often? One list by one woman who has been described as a drunken manipulative liar by people who accepted or were sympathetic to her version of events.
A woman or her husband who I believe was found guilty of running a brothel but she claimed she knew nothing about the goings on at the address. Yet when you look at the layout of the medium sized house it's amazing she wasn't aware of the comings and goings at the property.
Regarding the list of names, the woman who gave the names died I believe 20 years ago, so I'm curious how additional names have been added to the list, did the dead woman communicate from beyond the grave?
I never actually said they were true I said what I read went into detail, not that it makes it anymore true. I also said that CR should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I don't think anyone should be named unless there is a strong case against them. Mud sticks & all.
I remember a case about a man being accused of rape, he took his own life. Turned out the girl making the claims, had made it all up. >:(
Maybe I misunderstood...
Stories involving CR have been doing the rounds for years, I read on another forum, a very detailed claim against him. ...... But let's remember that he is innocent until proven guilty. I must add that I am not suprised by the claims.
I always thought the police just carried out investigations but it seems the police pass on their file on to the Criminal Prosecution Service who may advise the police they need certain evidence to secure a conviction...to me that seems dangerous because the police won't be investigating impartially they could end up only looking for or interpreting evidence that leads to a conviction.
The manner in which the police have handled this is totally wrong imo.
I find it very scary. Why there isn't a huge outcry over it and the police being taken to task and made sure they know in no uncertain terms it must not happen makes my blood run cold.
I find it very scary. Why there isn't a huge outcry over it and the police being taken to task and made sure they know in no uncertain terms it must not happen makes my blood run cold.
They have. South Yorkshire Police stood in front of the MPs home select committee to answer questions. The motive was wrong on the BBC and police side, but between then and now more people have come forward. So they opened a can of worms.
I just wonder they knew more back last year than they let on, but the problem is the operation was conducted in an unprofessional way like it was a murder inquiry. It was found to be nothing, so questions need to be answered with extra witnesses coming forward.
Personally we don't know what it's all over as it's only whispers at present. Which sounds like it could be over sooner than later.
Leon Brittan, Cyril Smith...odd that these people were dead too before the stories came out...speaking of those chaps; they - and Kitty appear on the Elm Guest House list. Give it a Google
They have. South Yorkshire Police stood in front of the MPs home select committee to answer questions. The motive was wrong on the BBC and police side
That's somewhat reassuring to hear.
Don't get me wrong. I think historic abuse is not something that should ever be hidden away or swept under the carpet - not after Savile - but trial by media is not the way to go.
If Cliff Richard is guilty of what people are accusing of, then I hope the justice system will handle things in the right way and throw the book at him. For now there's not even been an arrest made, so to presume anything either way isn't right.
I find it very scary. Why there isn't a huge outcry over it and the police being taken to task and made sure they know in no uncertain terms it must not happen makes my blood run cold.
It Is a difficult call really because I'm sure the alleged victims don't want it hushed up any longer. It does make me question if complaints have been made in the past, and the police deliberately leaked the house search info to the media in order to get other possible victims to come forward. I have read of one such accusation against him, where it was claimed a complaint was made to the police at the time. Plus we need to remember that homosexuality was illegal at the time of the complaint I have read (not saying any of it is true btw) and I get the impression the alleged victim was a rent boy at the time, maybe this explains why some never came forward at the time.
Eitherway if there is anything to find, I'm sure it will be. If not, then I hope these whispers will finally be laid to rest.
I totally agree. If a strong enough case is made against them, then they should be named. But not based on claims of he's done this & that. Further investigation should take place before anything is leaked to the press. The manner in which the police have handled this is totally wrong imo.
But in the case of Stuart Hall, it was because his name was released that further victims came forward, and he was convicted.
But in the case of Stuart Hall, it was because his name was released that further victims came forward, and he was convicted.
I don't think police should release names unless they've got some really good evidence (matching testimonies from various people, mabye?). The idea that you can just point at someone and say they're a sex abuser without any evidence at all is scary.
Naming people after an arrest is what brings witnesses forward, some in defence of the person arrested. I don't see why this should suddenly change with regards to sex-related criminal allegations. Although, I don't think Cliff's been arrested so probably doesn't apply here.
Every one here defending Cliff don't know him.
Do a little research online or youtube and see the kind of people he was associated with from a young age.
Like many forum members I've heard the rumours on CR for years. I heard them on Savile too (though a little closer to home. My Dad knew him and warned me of him at least 25 years ago). It took until Savile died for the rumours to be investigated despite complaints being made to the police and other authority figures since the late 50's. Not all historic allegations are people 'crawling out of the woodwork' - some have been shouting for years and no-one has been listening.
I don't know if CR is guilty or not but I think it's incredibly damaging to blindly believe he's innocent to the point where the alleged victims are mocked, in the same way to blindly believe he's guilty based on what someone's friend said or what David Icke thinks.
I believe that until (if he is) charged CR should have been allowed his anonymity, but once a trial date etc is in place I can't see how it couldn't be covered by the media. Plus, like with Savile, I do think the coverage would allow further allegations and evidence to come forward and be heard.
But in the case of Stuart Hall, it was because his name was released that further victims came forward, and he was convicted.
Yes I know, that's what I'm saying, it's a tough call for the police, I have said that the police have more than likely deliberately released that info on the hope that it gives any other possible victims strength to come forward, I totally get that. It's abit like the empty dance floor, just takes one person to make the move. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I do have my own thoughts on this, but I'm going to presume he is innocent until he is found to be guilty.
Every one here defending Cliff don't know him.
Do a little research online or youtube and see the kind of people he was associated with from a young age.
I'm pretty sure most people have heard the rumours, they have been doing the rounds for long enough.
Like many forum members I've heard the rumours on CR for years. I heard them on Savile too (though a little closer to home. My Dad knew him and warned me of him at least 25 years ago). It took until Savile died for the rumours to be investigated despite complaints being made to the police and other authority figures since the late 50's. Not all historic allegations are people 'crawling out of the woodwork' - some have been shouting for years and no-one has been listening.
I don't know if CR is guilty or not but I think it's incredibly damaging to blindly believe he's innocent to the point where the alleged victims are mocked, in the same way to blindly believe he's guilty based on what someone's friend said or what David Icke thinks.
I believe that until (if he is) charged CR should have been allowed his anonymity, but once a trial date etc is in place I can't see how it couldn't be covered by the media. Plus, like with Savile, I do think the coverage would allow further allegations and evidence to come forward and be heard.
I have heard of complaints being made to the police, but due to the victims profession, they were ignored and just considered to be part parcel of the way they chose to make their money.
Every one here defending Cliff don't know him.
Do a little research online or youtube and see the kind of people he was associated with from a young age.
Like many forum members I've heard the rumours on CR for years. I heard them on Savile too (though a little closer to home. My Dad knew him and warned me of him at least 25 years ago). It took until Savile died for the rumours to be investigated despite complaints being made to the police and other authority figures since the late 50's. Not all historic allegations are people 'crawling out of the woodwork' - some have been shouting for years and no-one has been listening.
I don't know if CR is guilty or not but I think it's incredibly damaging to blindly believe he's innocent to the point where the alleged victims are mocked, in the same way to blindly believe he's guilty based on what someone's friend said or what David Icke thinks.
I believe that until (if he is) charged CR should have been allowed his anonymity, but once a trial date etc is in place I can't see how it couldn't be covered by the media. Plus, like with Savile, I do think the coverage would allow further allegations and evidence to come forward and be heard.
Wouldn't a conviction be tricky to achieve based on just one persons say so? So they leak the info to encourage any other victims to come forward.
I think a big tv event was made of this was exactly to show 'being taken seriously the complaint was' and so in the hope that other alleged victims would come forward. They knew the consiquences of the botch job but felt it would out weigh what would come forward but allow for a back track if needed & if things went too high up the chain of command could be disguised as incompetence.
Every one here defending Cliff don't know him.
Do a little research online or youtube and see the kind of people he was associated with from a young age.
Actually, we're calling into question the morality of the police's handling of the case and having a civilised debate about how to handle abuse allegations. I've not seen anyone defending Cliff Richard in the way that you think, so please learn to read.
Nothing clever about it, just a very frightening trampling over of one of the most basic rights we have; that of privacy and innocent until proven guilty.
Nothing clever about it, just a very frightening trampling over of one of the most basic rights we have; that of privacy and innocent until proven guilty.
Don't think anyone really has that right at all, its all a illusion.
You only have that right once you are found not guilty.
I know a few people who have had their doors kicked in, in the early hours, none had done anything.. You think you have rights until those rights are trodden over.
I feel very uncomfortable about these cases of allegations of sexual abuse which happened twenty or thirty years ago. Obviously, if more and more people come forward there are charges to face but with no DNA, no witnesses and dealing with famous DJs, Pop Singers, Celebs, you never know what the motivations are behind the allegations!! These famous people are subjected to "trial by media". I was really shocked by the Rolf Harris case!
But from the victims point of view they have been speaking up for years and no one believed them . Sadly, there will always be a few chancers jumping on the bandwagon (and I loathe that expression) but it isn't easy to admit to abuse as even today you get tainted. But do you think they should just shut up and get on with their lives and people in power get away with it? I certainly don't
Nothing clever about it, just a very frightening trampling over of one of the most basic rights we have; that of privacy and innocent until proven guilty.
I'm wondering how else they could deal with it realistically. If people are afraid to come forward, the police will hope that this gives others the strength too. How else can they deal with cases like this, if you only have one accuser, it's easier to just label them fantasists, attention seekers. It's how the public deal with it after the claims have been made. Maybe it's attitudes that need to change, and the mob mentality that needs stamping out. Innocent until proven guilty. Just as the victims are just that, until proven otherwise. We need to rid this fear of speaking out.
Comments
Quite often? One list by one woman who has been described as a drunken manipulative liar by people who accepted or were sympathetic to her version of events.
A woman or her husband who I believe was found guilty of running a brothel but she claimed she knew nothing about the goings on at the address. Yet when you look at the layout of the medium sized house it's amazing she wasn't aware of the comings and goings at the property.
Regarding the list of names, the woman who gave the names died I believe 20 years ago, so I'm curious how additional names have been added to the list, did the dead woman communicate from beyond the grave?
Maybe I misunderstood...
I always thought the police just carried out investigations but it seems the police pass on their file on to the Criminal Prosecution Service who may advise the police they need certain evidence to secure a conviction...to me that seems dangerous because the police won't be investigating impartially they could end up only looking for or interpreting evidence that leads to a conviction.
I find it very scary. Why there isn't a huge outcry over it and the police being taken to task and made sure they know in no uncertain terms it must not happen makes my blood run cold.
They have. South Yorkshire Police stood in front of the MPs home select committee to answer questions. The motive was wrong on the BBC and police side, but between then and now more people have come forward. So they opened a can of worms.
I just wonder they knew more back last year than they let on, but the problem is the operation was conducted in an unprofessional way like it was a murder inquiry. It was found to be nothing, so questions need to be answered with extra witnesses coming forward.
Personally we don't know what it's all over as it's only whispers at present. Which sounds like it could be over sooner than later.
That is also currently and has been for some time, under investigation, again.
Too many influential people involved!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11231088/Westminster-paedophile-ring-investigated-over-murder-links.html
That's somewhat reassuring to hear.
Don't get me wrong. I think historic abuse is not something that should ever be hidden away or swept under the carpet - not after Savile - but trial by media is not the way to go.
If Cliff Richard is guilty of what people are accusing of, then I hope the justice system will handle things in the right way and throw the book at him. For now there's not even been an arrest made, so to presume anything either way isn't right.
It Is a difficult call really because I'm sure the alleged victims don't want it hushed up any longer. It does make me question if complaints have been made in the past, and the police deliberately leaked the house search info to the media in order to get other possible victims to come forward. I have read of one such accusation against him, where it was claimed a complaint was made to the police at the time. Plus we need to remember that homosexuality was illegal at the time of the complaint I have read (not saying any of it is true btw) and I get the impression the alleged victim was a rent boy at the time, maybe this explains why some never came forward at the time.
Eitherway if there is anything to find, I'm sure it will be. If not, then I hope these whispers will finally be laid to rest.
But in the case of Stuart Hall, it was because his name was released that further victims came forward, and he was convicted.
I don't think police should release names unless they've got some really good evidence (matching testimonies from various people, mabye?). The idea that you can just point at someone and say they're a sex abuser without any evidence at all is scary.
Do a little research online or youtube and see the kind of people he was associated with from a young age.
I don't know if CR is guilty or not but I think it's incredibly damaging to blindly believe he's innocent to the point where the alleged victims are mocked, in the same way to blindly believe he's guilty based on what someone's friend said or what David Icke thinks.
I believe that until (if he is) charged CR should have been allowed his anonymity, but once a trial date etc is in place I can't see how it couldn't be covered by the media. Plus, like with Savile, I do think the coverage would allow further allegations and evidence to come forward and be heard.
Yes I know, that's what I'm saying, it's a tough call for the police, I have said that the police have more than likely deliberately released that info on the hope that it gives any other possible victims strength to come forward, I totally get that. It's abit like the empty dance floor, just takes one person to make the move. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I do have my own thoughts on this, but I'm going to presume he is innocent until he is found to be guilty.
I'm pretty sure most people have heard the rumours, they have been doing the rounds for long enough.
I have heard of complaints being made to the police, but due to the victims profession, they were ignored and just considered to be part parcel of the way they chose to make their money.
Billy Graham
Una Stubbs
Sue Barker
Hank Marvin
Wouldn't a conviction be tricky to achieve based on just one persons say so? So they leak the info to encourage any other victims to come forward.
I think a big tv event was made of this was exactly to show 'being taken seriously the complaint was' and so in the hope that other alleged victims would come forward. They knew the consiquences of the botch job but felt it would out weigh what would come forward but allow for a back track if needed & if things went too high up the chain of command could be disguised as incompetence.
Actually if so it is all rather clever.
Actually, we're calling into question the morality of the police's handling of the case and having a civilised debate about how to handle abuse allegations. I've not seen anyone defending Cliff Richard in the way that you think, so please learn to read.
Nothing clever about it, just a very frightening trampling over of one of the most basic rights we have; that of privacy and innocent until proven guilty.
Don't think anyone really has that right at all, its all a illusion.
You only have that right once you are found not guilty.
I know a few people who have had their doors kicked in, in the early hours, none had done anything.. You think you have rights until those rights are trodden over.
But from the victims point of view they have been speaking up for years and no one believed them . Sadly, there will always be a few chancers jumping on the bandwagon (and I loathe that expression) but it isn't easy to admit to abuse as even today you get tainted. But do you think they should just shut up and get on with their lives and people in power get away with it? I certainly don't
I'm wondering how else they could deal with it realistically. If people are afraid to come forward, the police will hope that this gives others the strength too. How else can they deal with cases like this, if you only have one accuser, it's easier to just label them fantasists, attention seekers. It's how the public deal with it after the claims have been made. Maybe it's attitudes that need to change, and the mob mentality that needs stamping out. Innocent until proven guilty. Just as the victims are just that, until proven otherwise. We need to rid this fear of speaking out.