# Should these threads be allowed?



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*The ones i'm talking about, are those like the Cliff Richard thread. No offence to the poster of that thread.
I cannot see how they are fair, and only lead to speculation and idle gossip.
As a forum, i personally believe we should not have such threads until a person has been found guilty.
Just my opinion.
Your thoughts?*


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

I think it is human nature for us to want to talk about high profile news, and provided the thread keeps to to/fro debate, rather than out and out accusations, then I think it does no more harm than discussions at work, over coffee or on a street corner.

Not everyone is skillful at debating though, which is where yesterday's thread went wrong.

Our new member appeared over hasty to declare guilty there and then, whereas others amongst us are prepared for justice to take its course.

Mods were right to step in and calm things, but I don't think it would be right to stop such threads completely. Not everyone has another outlet.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There's absolutely no reason why things which are already in the public domain shouldn't be discussed on a forum.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

havoc said:


> There's absolutely no reason why things which are already in the public domain shouldn't be discussed on a forum.


*But what is there to discuss? His house was searched. So anything else is just gossip and speculation. Just my opinion as i said.*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Since the defamation laws were updated all the mods have to do if someone crosses a line to the point it invites any legal input is to hand the details of that poster over. The forum is not at risk.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I think it would be a shame to stop any discussion but do agree that it should be debate and not arguments that get quickly out of hand so we need to be mindful.

Child abuse is such an emotive subject, can't see any normal person not being sickened by it and so can understand this upsetting or even triggering people.

I don't want to believe the CR stuff is true...time will tell. I didn't think Rolf Harris was guilty at first either.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Janice, I don't see why not. We might not agree with some of the content of such threads and I'm not particularly interested in contributing to them but the internet is full of all kinds of speculation and discussion.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I don't honestly know Janice - that particular thread did descend into the surreal.

My old Dad is a wise old boot, mentioned it last night and he said whatever the truth is he is tainted now with those sort of accusations a large proportion of people will always believe there is no smoke without fire. Terribly sad & unjust for the genuinely innocent but unfortunately its the way of the world


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> I don't honestly know Janice - that particular thread did descend into the surreal.
> 
> My old Dad is a wise old boot, mentioned it last night and he said whatever the truth is he is tainted now with those sort of accusations a large proportion of people will always believe there is no smoke without fire. Terribly sad & unjust for the genuinely innocent but unfortunately its the way of the world


*I agree with this, and that is what worries me.*


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I agree with you. It becomes trial by social media. I remember that poor man who was accused of murder. They dragged up every detail of his life and he was innocent. I think the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is becoming less important to some.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I agree with this, and that is what worries me.*


But even those who are cleared in court, whatever the charge, still unfortunately suffer a tainted reputation. People who are fascinated by this sort of thing don't seem to care whether the target of speculation is ever even charged or found guilty or innocent. They continue their speculation regardless.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I don't think that anyone should be allowed to name anyone until there are actual facts and proof. It's already turned into a witch hunt on social media and all anyone knows is that Cliff's house has been searched, but that's not stopping people condemn him already :nonod:
Plenty of dead end house searches happen everyday across the country without coming to anything.

Once names are linked with these type of offenses it tars their name for the rest of their lives, guilty or not which is grossly unfair.

Now if he is guilty then let him burn in hell, but until we know for sure he shouldn't be dragged through trial by media.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> trial by media.


Is it though?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> But even those who are cleared in court, whatever the charge, still unfortunately suffer a tainted reputation. People who are fascinated by this sort of thing don't seem to care whether the target of speculation is ever even charged or found guilty or innocent. They continue their speculation regardless.


*That may be true, but do you or anyone else on this forum want to be part of that?
I love a good debate, but imho these threads are of no good use.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I agree with this, and that is what worries me.*


Presumably only the police would know about the house being searched so must be a leak to the Press from there? If it hadn't been reported then there would be no discussion.

I can sort of understand why its made public once an arrest is made though, so that any other victims will come forward. Appreciate there is a chance will attract oddballs


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *That may be true, but do you or anyone else on this forum want to be part of that?
> I love a good debate, but imho these threads are of no good use.*


They're of no 'use' to me because I don't find them interesting. If you use the internet and general interest forums in particular it's pretty much impossible not to be a part of them in the broader sense. I just don't read them.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Yes I do, I don't agree with banning certain topics stops people discussing things & surely by opening up in to debates it can make people re-consider their opinions.

Although the particular thread in question is not funny some of the 'theories' are hilarious .... I think it really does show how many people believe anything they read on the internet .... which is also quite worrying!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Yes I do, I don't agree with banning certain topics stops people discussing things & surely by opening up in to debates it can make people re-consider their opinions.
> 
> Although the particular thread in question is not funny some of the 'theories' are hilarious .... I think it really does show how many people believe anything they read on the internet .... which is also quite worrying!


*I'm finding it hard seeing what there is to discuss. The only sure thing is, the house was searched.*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> Is it though?


Yes because people have labeled him guilty of the crime that no one knows he committed. Even if he is proved to have done nothing wrong that will not stop the storm that is FB.

IF he is guilty then rip him to shreds all ya (general you) like, but until then he has done nothing...

Things like this are close to my heart because I have a very close friend that is still having to go through abuse because of a false rape claim...he was 100% innocent but people don't care about the actual facts :nonod:

Cliff's house has been searched - that is it, nothing more, nothing less.

FWIW I can't stand the bloke, but I hate seeing people's lives ripped to shreds because of hearsay!


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

Two words: freedom of speech. We fought hard to be able to have it. As long as what is said is not racist (although I have been victim of this on this forum), homophobic, etc...
You don't have to agree with certain opinions, as I often do, but everyone has the right to have them. We can challenge them, have debates but I strongly believe that we should not gag people for no good reasons.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm finding it hard seeing what there is to discuss. The only sure thing is, the house was searched.*


People will talk about all sorts regardless of facts as has been continually demonstreated!

I don't think any topic should be off limits although the mods will obviously have a harder job looking after some of the threads if they are beoming defamatory.

I don't like the idea of being told what I am/am not allowed to discuss on a forum .... as does happen in the dog section at times


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

ladydog said:


> Two words: freedom of speech. We fought hard to be able to have it. As long as what is said is not racist (although I have been victim of this on this forum), homophobic, etc...
> You don't have to agree with certain opinions, as I often do, but everyone has the right to have them. We can challenge them, have debates but I strongly believe that we should not gag people for no good reasons.


You can't see the irony in this statement?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

We discussed Rolf Harris, why not talk about Cliff Richard?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ladydog said:


> Two words: freedom of speech. We fought hard to be able to have it. As long as what is said is not racist (although I have been victim of this on this forum), homophobic, etc...
> You don't have to agree with certain opinions, as I often do, but everyone has the right to have them. We can challenge them, have debates but I strongly believe that we should not gag people for no good reasons.


*When there are FACTS to debate, i will debate them. Anything else is gossip.*


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm finding it hard seeing what there is to discuss. The only sure thing is, the house was searched.*


Nature of people though isn't it, not just public figures fall victim of the speculation. Police turn up at a neighbours door next day the whole street is talking about the axe murder who runs a vice den, with drug connection and a dog fighting ring in is back garden matters not that the garden it 2 x 2 ft, he's a pensioner who has just been mugged hence the police being there..

Some people just can't help but generate conspiracy theories.

It's guilty until proven innocent these days, and even if you are proven innocent no one will ever believe you are......... :nonod:


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Totally agree. If I want salacious gossip and uninformed opinion I`ll read the Daily Mail.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *When there are FACTS to debate, i will debate them. Anything else is gossip.*


But this is true of many topics though. I have read countless threads on here of urban myths being recounted time & time again. In some ways it's sad they still persist (especially the with racist ones) but in some ways it's interesting to see what people really do believe & how these stories continue to spread.

Many times people recount gossip as if it's fact, not really something that can be (or should be) banned though


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *That may be true, but do you or anyone else on this forum want to be part of that?
> I love a good debate, but imho these threads are of no good use.*


Take Rolf Harris -how many f us could have imagined he was guilty/ yet he was found guilty in court.

Could that not be "of use" in so far as it could give someone on here the courage to report someone of equally apparent "good standing"?

There will people on here, as anywhere else, who have suffered child abuse, yet never reported it because they thought none would believe them.

These cases show it is never too late.



JANICE199 said:


> *I'm finding it hard seeing what there is to discuss. The only sure thing is, the house was searched.*


You can debate how little we actually know about celebrities.

It's all a facade - or is it?

You can debate child abuse in general - or in the church, say, as we are talking about Sir Cliff - far better than it being a taboo subject.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

There is no smoke without fire....

And in the case of Sir Cliff there is very thick smoke, and almost all fire.

I may have been a bit over zealous in my posting last night, for that I apologise. Sorry. But Nicky kept prodding me with a stick to reply, even when I suggested I needed to get to bed. She goaded, saying I was "running away". I was never rude to Nicky, and didn't find anything she said to me overly rude. I just pointed out that the "comedy posts" were distasteful (in my opinion). On the other hand Blackcats saying quote "Shut up. You liar" to me very offensive. 

But in answer to the title of this thread, I believe free speech to be a very important thing and should not be stifled.

Again, apologies to anyone I offended.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Summersky said:


> Take Rolf Harris -how many f us could have imagined he was guilty/ yet he was found guilty in court.
> 
> Could that not be "of use" in so far as it could give someone on here the courage to report someone of equally apparent "good standing"?
> 
> ...


*Yes i agree all of the above can be debated, and have on this forum.
But linking those subjects with a particular name, will turn the debate into a witch hunt.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> But this is true of many topics though. I have read countless threads on here of urban myths being recounted time & time again. In some ways it's sad they still persist (especially the with racist ones) but in some ways it's interesting to see what people really do believe & how these stories continue to spread.
> 
> Many times people recount gossip as if it's fact, not really something that can be (or should be) banned though


It is scary how many people now believe some of these myths just because it's all over the Internet


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> There is no smoke without fire....
> 
> And in the case of Sir Cliff there is very thick smoke, and almost all fire.
> 
> ...


*You do realise you are bang out of order with your post. Both in the eyes of the law and forum rules.
I for one am NOT interested in your gossip.*


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *You do realise you are bang out of order with your post. Both in the eyes of the law and forum rules.
> I for one am NOT interested in your gossip.*


Oh, cheers for that, and here was me trying to be pragmatic with my above reply. Not out of order at all!
So why the need for you to create a whole other thread to discuss it even further, and ironically fan the flames even more on the subject??

It seems you are very interested indeed


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

Well, all I can say is I'm sorry I posted the thread now. Tho I think if I hadn't someone else would have done. 
I am a fan of Cliffs, I have followed him for many years, been to his concerts etc, have never dreamed there was anything sinister about him & *if or until* I'm proven wrong I shall continue to support him.
I always found JS rather creepy but never dreamed that of Rolf either.
In my long life I guess nothing should surprise me now, but it continues to do this.hmy:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Valanita said:


> Well, all I can say is I'm sorry I posted the thread now. Tho I think if I hadn't someone else would have done.
> I am a fan of Cliffs, I have followed him for many years, been to his concerts etc, have never dreamed there was anything sinister about him & *if or until* I'm proven wrong I shall continue to support him.
> I always found JS rather creepy but never dreamed that of Rolf either.
> In my long life I guess nothing should surprise me now, but it continues to do this.hmy:


*Please don't be sorry for posting the thread.
Hand on heart when i heard the news, i was going to start a thread about it, but then i realised it would be wrong. ( for me).
I didn't mean to offend by starting this thread.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Oh, cheers for that, and here was me trying to be pragmatic with my above reply. Not out of order at all!
> So why the need for you to create a whole other thread to discuss it even further, and ironically fan the flames even more on the subject.
> 
> It seems you are very interested indeed


:lol::lol::lol:

Another conspiracy theory?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Oh, cheers for that, and here was me trying to fan the flames even more on the subject??


And you were doing it so well too.:



BelindaCarlisle said:


> There is no smoke without fire....
> 
> And in the case of Sir Cliff there is very thick smoke, and almost all fire.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ladydog said:


> Two words: freedom of speech. We fought hard to be able to have it. As long as what is said is not racist (although I have been victim of this on this forum), homophobic, etc...
> You don't have to agree with certain opinions, as I often do, but everyone has the right to have them. We can challenge them, have debates but I strongly believe that we should not gag people for no good reasons.


I'm all for freedoim of speech. I don't think anyone should be gagged. But, at the same time, with freedom of speech comes a responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the laws of the land. Perpetuating salacious gossip and conspiracy theories and presenting them as *fact* is not allowed by law, and should not be allowed on social media.

Discuss and dissect all the conspiracy theories you (generic you) want to about anything - that's freedom of speech. However, once people start presenting rumours and gossip as FACTS, then that is not freedom of speech. It is defamation of character and libel. People who do it are breaking he law, not exercising freedom of speech.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Apparently the alleged ''information'' had been doing the rounds on the internet for a while (which CR was aware of). I think his statement was sensible and dunder the circumstances dignified. My worry now is that there will be other alleged ''victims'' ready to jump on the bad wagon. Plus as another poster rightly said, give a dog a bad name etc...no smoke without fire...his reputation is now tarnished and even if nothing comes of this, many will believe there was ...nudge nudge, wink wink, you know...''something not quite right''.


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Please don't be sorry for posting the thread.
> Hand on heart when i heard the news, i was going to start a thread about it, but then i realised it would be wrong. ( for me).
> I didn't mean to offend by starting this thread.*


No offence taken. I can see your point too.
You can tell by the way I worded my OP that I was very shocked.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

According to the Express the police went to the house to arrest him,


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ladydog said:


> Two words: freedom of speech. We fought hard to be able to have it. As long as what is said is not racist (although I have been victim of this on this forum), homophobic, etc...
> You don't have to agree with certain opinions, as I often do, but everyone has the right to have them. We can challenge them, have debates but I strongly believe that we should not gag people for no good reasons.


So freedom of speech is a good enough reason to ruin someones life with speculations is it?

Guilty or not CR will never be allowed to forget this...

So in that case you are one of the types that agree that a whole town nearly drove a man to suicide due to false allegations then :nonod:

Just to point out, that I do understand why people discuss what is in the news (human nature after all), my issue is the news releasing names until that person has been convicted, or at least has enough evidence to have the person arrested...

Child molestation sticks in the minds of all, and once a name has been said in reference to an incident then it will be there until the end of time :nonod:

I know what I would want to do to him IF he is guilty...but I am willing to hold my judgement until we have some actual facts


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Spellweaver I know for a fact I have broken no laws.

Even Super in junction's cannot dictate what is discussed online.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

jaycee05 said:


> According to the Express the police went to the house to arrest him,


I heard that, but surely the Police know he now lives in Barbados? Unless he was due to visit Britain, but he cancelled at the last minute, as his dirty cop friends warned him??


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> I heard that, but surely the Police know he now lives in Barbados? Unless he was due to visit Britain, but he cancelled at the last minute, as his dirty cop friends warned him??


Orrrrr, it's a load of rubbish and they only went to search the property


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

When someone is in the public eye, things like this will always generate media & social interest. Whether that be an accusation of shoplifting or something much worse, it will be reported.

And the latest on CR was very much being reported - on every news channel and all over the internet. The reason for the search was not a secret.

As such, for a lot of people this would have been a shock and talking about it - be that at the water cooler or on a forum - is how they deal with it. This also opens the doors for other folks to then speculate and embellish but it has always been this way. It is human nature.

People should have the freedom to discuss whatever topic they wish as long as it is polite, non-offensive and not illegal. 

Anyone who is not comfortable with the discussion should avoid the thread and refrain from posting on it. 


.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Orrrrr, it's a load of rubbish and they only went to search the property


Agreed, and time will tell.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> When someone is in the public eye, things like this will always generate media & social interest. Whether that be an accusation of shoplifting or something much worse, it will be reported.
> 
> And the latest on CR was very much being reported - on every news channel and all over the internet. The reason for the search was not a secret.
> 
> ...


*Would you feel the same if someone started such a thread about a member of your family?
*


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> When someone is in the public eye, things like this will always generate media & social interest. Whether that be an accusation of shoplifting or something much worse, it will be reported.
> 
> And the latest on CR was very much being reported - on every news channel and all over the internet. The reason for the search was not a secret.
> 
> ...


Well said Moggybaby


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *Would you feel the same if someone started such a thread about a member of your family?
> *


It is all over the media, news, papers and social media. A small pet forum discussing it is the least of Sir Cliff's worries. Merely a drop in a very large ocean.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Spellweaver I know for a fact I have broken no laws.
> 
> Even Super in junction's cannot dictate what is discussed online.


Another "fact" that is not a fact at all. I do appreciate he following links are neither as interesting nor as entertaining as your made up facts, but read and learn:

How to Sue Someone for Internet Libel | eHow

Libel & Defamation in the Information Age

can i be sued for libel by someone in a forum?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I do think that celebrities enjoy all the benefits of living their lives with media attention, use the media when they want promotion, etc & it is just the flip side that when stories/accusations, such as these, are made public they will get negative attention because of their fame - they can't have it both ways


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *The ones i'm talking about, are those like the Cliff Richard thread. No offence to the poster of that thread.
> I cannot see how they are fair, and only lead to speculation and idle gossip.
> As a forum, i personally believe we should not have such threads until a person has been found guilty.
> Just my opinion.
> Your thoughts?*


Well, there are often threads about Celebrities or high profile people on here, but it is unusual for one to go the way of the Cliff Richard thread yesterday.

I think one particular poster was mainly the cause of that.

I think it's absolutely fine for people to discuss and even express an opinion about such things, but when outlandish claims are being made and being put forward a little too forcefully as true, that's when things can go wrong.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *When there are FACTS to debate, i will debate them. Anything else is gossip.*


But the internet is just gossip gone viral. It doesn't or shouldn't have any effect upon the proceedings of criminal proceedings in court (if there are any) and in some cases it has worked to a defendant's advantage, ironically.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> I do think that celebrities enjoy all the benefits of living their lives with media attention, use the media when they want promotion, etc & it is just the flip side that when stories/accusations, such as these, are made public they will get negative attention because of their fame - they can't have it both ways


Precisely how I see it! They enjoy the smooth, and need to learn there is also the rough.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> I heard that, but surely the Police know he now lives in Barbados? Unless he was due to visit Britain, but he cancelled at the last minute, as his dirty cop friends warned him??


That would be same cop friends who let the Press know about the search


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> That would be same cop friends who let the Press know about the search


No, those are a completely different set of cops, with different agenda.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> No, those are a completely different set of cops, with different agenda.


Oh!! for goodness sake you do talk some rubbish.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

suewhite said:


> Oh!! for goodness sake you do talk some rubbish.


Come back to me in a years time. People said the same thing when I was posting about Savile on FB 5 years ago.

But I will now leave the topic, the Sir Cliff fans are clearly getting upset. Never mind the poor children and what they went through.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> I heard that, but surely the Police know he now lives in Barbados? Unless he was due to visit Britain, but he cancelled at the last minute, as his dirty cop friends warned him??


Well, whichever group of Cops have taken you into their confidence and revealed all, you might want to ask them why they didn't arrest Sir Cliff when he was at the Wimbledon Championships the first week in July.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> No, those are a completely different set of cops, with different agenda.


Oh Ok!!

The way I see it with all your inside knowledge assume you are in MI5? Or an over active imagination perhaps, but to give you the benefit of the doubt - re your Jill Dando theory both were rather high profile so how come the neighbours did not spot CR shooting the poor lady in the head and Saville being the get away driver?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Well, whichever group of Cops have taken you into their confidence and revealed all, you might want to ask them why they didn't arrest Sir Cliff when he was at the Wimbledon Championships the first week in July.


Or sent cops over to Portugal where he is now


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh Ok!!
> 
> The way I see it with all your inside knowledge assume you are in MI5? Or an over active imagination perhaps, but to give you the benefit of the doubt - re your Jill Dando theory both were rather high profile so how come the neighbours did not spot CR shooting the poor lady in the head and Saville being the get away driver?


You forgot to mention Esther Rantzen. Apparently, she was in it up to her neck too!

I think over active imagination is spot on.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Another "fact" that is not a fact at all. I do appreciate he following links are neither as interesting nor as entertaining as your made up facts, but read and learn:
> 
> How to Sue Someone for Internet Libel | eHow
> 
> ...


Oh please! Ha ha! Now you are just making me laugh


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Seem to be straying from the original question which was should "we" be discussing something until a person is found guilty - and presumably that applies to any kind of potential criminal charge. 

I don't see the internet/internet forums as being any different to any other kind of discussion/debate. Are we really saying that one cannot express any kind of opinion (or even speculation) to friends, work colleagues, family, neighbours? The only difference I can see is that one is on a large scale and the other on a small scale. Either way, a large proportion of the population are talking about it.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Oh please! Ha ha! Now you are just making me laugh


Good. Hopefully, whilst you're laughing, you won't be able to type any more outlandish nonsense and oblige us all to read it.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

The freedom of speech issue is very delicate as with that law a lot of harm has been done. I had no idea about CR till I read this thread, I would have preferred not knowing as it is a very ugly accusation but I agree that if you don´t like a topic then you should just ignore. One day it just might be you posting a topic others don´t like o find offensive and nobody wants to read such heated remarks on their posts.
Personally I feel in matters of abuse, it should not reach the public till there is a sentence and no doubt that the person is guilty. I can´t imagine what it must be like if one is innocent and to have to keep giving explanations. MJ was not found guilty and so many things were said, his career was damaged and people never saw him the same way. I have no idea what really happened but who restores the reputation and peace of mind of those innocent?


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

havoc said:


> There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.


Exactly, the saintly Cliff Richard who middle aged women and pensioners adore, the news was never going to go down well. Shattered perceptions.....


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

havoc said:


> There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.


*I for one have never been a CR fan. Elvis was my cup of tea.*


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

The news this morning said CR was on holiday in Portugal but he and one of his sisters have gone to another part of Portugal
Christine Hamilton on this morning said people should remain anonymous until arrested and proved guilty, which i agree with up to a point, but in these celebrity cases they release the name so anyone else abused by that person might also be given the courage to come forward,knowing they are not the only one
I hope it does prove to be false, as there are bound to be people jumping on the bandwagon, but in light of his name being linked with Elm Guest hose i think there might be some truth in it
Also why shouldnt it be discussed, on a forum, if its public knowledge anyway what is going on. rough with the smooth?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

havoc said:


> There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.


I'm not upset, can't stand the guy big headed creep - what I find odd though is that he has not even been questioned/arrested and a BBC crew was stationed outside his house waiting for the police to go and search it. Other than Saville, because he was dead, the other high profile cases hit the Press once questioned & charged from memory (could be wrong though!)


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Exactly, the saintly Cliff Richard who middle aged women and pensioners adore, the news was never going to go down well. Shattered perceptions.....


Actually, I don't "adore" Cliff, can't stand him to be honest, but at this point in time, nobody knows whether there is any truth in these allegations.

If there is, then there will be justice and rightly so, but until then, your wild theories are going to be treated with the contempt they deserve.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> Seem to be straying from the original question which was should "we" be discussing something until a person is found guilty - and presumably that applies any kind of potential criminal charge.
> 
> I don't see the internet/internet forums as being any different to any other kind of discussion/debate. Are we really saying that one cannot express any kind of opinion (or even speculation) to friends, work colleagues, family, neighbours? The only difference I can see is that one is on a large scale and the other on a small scale. Either way, a large proportion of the population are talking about it.


*The way i see it is like this. but i could be wrong.
If you ( not you personally), air your opinion to someone else, say friend or family member, providing you are not over heard you are ok.
Once you start putting things in writing you are then held responsible for those remarks.*


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Well, whichever group of Cops have taken you into their confidence and revealed all, you might want to ask them why they didn't arrest Sir Cliff when he was at the Wimbledon Championships the first week in July.


Because they need time to build a case and send it to the CPS. Their ducks weren't in a row back in July. The Police weren't ready to make a move in July.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Because they need time to build a case and send it to the CPS. Their ducks weren't in a row back in July. The Police weren't ready to make a move in July.


As this supposedly dates back to the 1980's would have thought the ducks have left their mortal coil by now


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Because they need time to build a case and send it to the CPS. Their ducks weren't in a row back in July. The Police weren't ready to make a move in July.


Do you not think it would be an idea to ask if you could change your user name to Miss Marples.:blink:


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

suewhite said:


> Do you not think it would be an idea to ask if you could change your user name to Miss Marples.:blink:


That made me smile (genuinely), thank you.

Though I am a bit too young to be Marple, maybe one of the cool chics on CSI instead?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> Once you start putting things in writing you are then held responsible for those remarks.*


You mean if I had the conversation by email with a friend I should or would be held liable for my comments... but that I shouldn't or wouldn't be had the conversation been a verbal one?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Do you not think it would be an idea to ask if you could change your user name to Miss Marples.:blink:


Maybe Inspector Clouseau?


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> As this supposedly dates back to the 1980's would have thought the ducks have left their mortal coil by now


As you fine well know, it is only recently that this has been looked into. It has always been covered up by the powers that be, exactly in the case of Savile.

Moot point made by you there.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> The news this morning said CR was on holiday in Portugal but he and one of his sisters have gone to another part of Portugal
> Christine Hamilton on this morning said people should remain anonymous until arrested and proved guilty, which i agree with up to a point, but in these celebrity cases they release the name so anyone else abused by that person might also be given the courage to come forward,knowing they are not the only one
> I hope it does prove to be false, as there are bound to be people jumping on the bandwagon, but in light of his name being linked with Elm Guest hose i think there might be some truth in it
> Also why shouldnt it be discussed, on a forum, if its public knowledge anyway what is going on. rough with the smooth?


I can see both sides to keeping the name of the accused private but at the same time realise that in some instances releasing the name can actually help other victims come forward.

Whilst I am not part of the 'no smoke without fire brigade' I do not believe that preventing people from discussing cases such as these is good for a forum.

Much like any other topics I suppose, if you don't like what you're reading then don't read it ....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Because they need time to build a case and send it to the CPS. Their ducks weren't in a row back in July. The Police weren't ready to make a move in July.


How lucky we are to have you here to fill us in on all the inside information.

We're hanging on every word.

Can you really only have been here a few days? Seems like so much longer .............................


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> You mean if I had the conversation by email with a friend I should or would be held liable for my comments... but that I shouldn't or wouldn't be had the conversation been a verbal one?


*I believe, once you have put something in writing, it isn't safe. *


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Sweety said:


> How lucky we are to have you here to fill us in on all the inside information.
> 
> We're hanging on every word.
> 
> Can you really only have been here a few days? Seems like so much longer .............................


You all keep directing questions at me, so I am politely answering them.

I do not expect anyone to hang off every word I say. I am just discussing it like everyone else here, it's not my fault that I know more on the topic than some. I wished I didn't, believe me


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't think they should be allowed to name people in cases like this before they have proof. Otherwise it just becomes a witch hunt by social media and something for the conspiracy theorists to get off on making up insane stories for. Especially where it involves something like child abuse where there will always be that taint on the person regardless of whether they're proven innocent or not


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> You all keep directing questions at me, so I am politely answering them.
> 
> I do not expect anyone to hang off every word I say. I am just discussing it like everyone else here, it's not my fault that I know more on the topic than some. I wished I didn't, believe me


Oh that'll be because your family are the good bent cops then, you know not the bent ones that tipped off the press, not the bent ones that tipped of CR but the ones that are discussing a case to outsiders???


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I am not wound up. Far from it. In fact I don't particularly like Cliff. 

It does not bother me that people will talk about it and some will even say they believe him to be guilty. Cannot stop what a person thinks. And that is fine.

I am even happy for someone to bring some form of a conspiracy theory into it all. People believe in that all the time. And as it has been so beautifullly said on here, people have the right to talk about it. Just like those have the right to go up against it and disagree.

That does not make me a fan of Cliff. It means I am not quick to jump into the conspiracy theory pool with everyone else.

So shoot me...

And, no, I really am not sorry for telling someone to shut up. Out of line? No more than someone accusing others of having the thumbs up for child abuse because they refuse to believe in a theory. So Eff with being sorry. If others can be arseholes, I am happy to do the same back.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I believe, once you have put something in writing, it isn't safe. *


There are laws for both; libel and slander with the latter being in relation to the spoken word. Main difference being, I suppose, that one may be harder to prove than the other.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> I am just discussing it like everyone else here, it's not my fault that I know more on the topic than some. I wished I didn't, believe me


Let me guess.....if you told anybody on the street about what you know you'd have to kill them.

Right.

For some inexplicable reason delusions of grandeur spring freely to the mind.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Zaros said:


> Let me guess.....if you told anybody on the street about what you know you'd have to kill them.
> 
> Right.
> 
> For some inexplicable reason delusions of grandeur spring freely to the mind.


That's one word for it, they have access to police arrest warrants and all sorts apparently


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> You all keep directing questions at me, so I am politely answering them.
> 
> I do not expect anyone to hang off every word I say. I am just discussing it like everyone else here, *it's not my fault that I know more on the topic than some.* I wished I didn't, believe me


Then surely you also know that you shouldn't disclose such "facts" until the investigation is complete?

How is it that you claim to "know" more than the general public?
How can you prove the validity of your claims? After all, to anyone here you are just another Joe Blogs off the street :hand:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Then surely you also know that you shouldn't disclose such "facts" until the investigation is complete?
> 
> How is it that you claim to "know" more than the general public?
> How can you prove the validity of your claims? After all, to anyone here you are just another Joe Blogs off the street :hand:


A youtube video from a neonazi channel is all the proof anyone needs surely :yesnod:


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

This thread is becoming hilarious in a very ironic way. Person 1 claims some kind of inside knowledge. Person 2 assumes they know why and says as much. Persons 3, 4, 5 and so on believe person 2 and perpetuate the myth. Ironic or what?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> This thread is becoming hilarious in a very ironic way. Person 1 claims some kind of inside knowledge. Person 2 assumes they know why and says as much. Persons 3, 4, 5 and so on believe person 2 and perpetuate the myth. Ironic or what?


*I'm still trying to work out why anyone is replying to said person.*


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Then surely you also know that you shouldn't disclose such "facts" until the investigation is complete?
> 
> How is it that you claim to "know" more than the general public?
> How can you prove the validity of your claims? After all, to anyone here you are just another Joe Blogs off the street :hand:


Well, apparently, she is privy to highly classified information, fed to her by two sets of 'Cops', who were apparently one unit to begin with but then went their separate ways and began working in completely different directions, running round like headless chickens.

They were unable to carry out an arrest a month ago, because their ducks aren't co-operating.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> They were unable to carry out an arrest a month ago, because their *ducks aren't co-operating.*


Well that explains everything then.....carry on :ciappa:


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm still trying to work out why anyone is replying to said person.*


For me it is just curiosity


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm still trying to work out why anyone is replying to said person.*


Because maybe, just maybe, she really is Belinda Carlisle and we all love celebrity don't we?


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> So freedom of speech is a good enough reason to ruin someones life with speculations is it?
> 
> Guilty or not CR will never be allowed to forget this...
> 
> ...


Why make it personal? 
I believe strongly in freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I believe everything that it is said, written or that I have heard. 
Voltaire (a French philosopher) wrote " I don't agree with what you say but I will fight to death for you to have the right to say it." I believe in this.
We have laws here to protect people against malicious gossips or accusations: libel and slander laws.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ladydog said:


> Why make it personal?
> I believe strongly in freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I believe everything that it is said, written or that I have heard.
> Voltaire (a French philosopher) wrote " I don't agree with what you say but I will fight to death for you to have the right to say it." I believe in this.
> We have laws here to protect people against malicious gossips or accusations: libel and slander laws.


Actually that person made it personal first. Blackcats and I are the reason every paedophile in the country gets away with it apparently  just because we didn't fall at their feet in gratitude for their rather er delusional claims.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

In fact, give the thread another 5 or so pages and she WILL be the real Belinda Carlisle. Gotta love the internet.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

gskinner123 said:


> Because maybe, just maybe, she really is Belinda Carlisle and we all love celebrity don't we?


Hee hee shhhhh don't blow my anonymity please. It seems male singers are more popular, and members may not be aware of my 70's (with band) and 80's hits (solo)



ladydog said:


> Why make it personal?
> I believe strongly in freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I believe everything that it is said, written or that I have heard.
> Voltaire (a French philosopher) wrote " I don't agree with what you say but I will fight to death for you to have the right to say it." I believe in this.
> We have laws here to protect people against malicious gossips or accusations: libel and slander laws.


 I could not agree more. It is due to media pressure and information being put out there, that these evil men are now being brought to court. Long live freedom of speech!


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Hee hee shhhhh don't blow my anonymity please. It seems male singers are more popular, and members may not be aware of my 70's (with band) and 80's hits (solo)


Gary Glitter?


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

gskinner123 said:


> In fact, give the thread another 5 or so pages and she WILL be the real Belinda Carlisle. Gotta love the internet.


I am not THE Belinda Carlisle, that I do not claim to be true lol.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Would you feel the same if someone started such a thread about a member of your family?
> *


No, I would not like it Janice but I also know that it has always been this way. 500 years ago, they would have gossiped at the village well. 300 years ago they would have gossiped at the village pump. 100 years ago, they would have gossiped in the tea-rooms and coffee houses. Today, they gossip over social media.

It's the way that it is and it won't ever change. Well, not until the next big step in human evolution anyway.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Actually that person made it personal first. Blackcats and I are the reason every paedophile in the country gets away with it apparently  just because we didn't fall at their feet in gratitude for their rather er delusional claims.


Now that is completely untrue, stop twisting it. 

Now you are conspiracy theorizing, oh the irony


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Oh of course people have freedom of speech. What those who screech about how they have the right to say what they want usually forget is people have the right to say what they want about it too. They tend to get annoyed about this


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

gskinner123 said:


> Gary Glitter?


Love you gskinner! Too funny. <3


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Yeah out of here trolls and/or conspiracy theorists using supposedly abused children to get their jollies just sicken me


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

ladydog said:


> Why make it personal?
> I believe strongly in freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I believe everything that it is said, written or that I have heard.
> Voltaire (a French philosopher) wrote " I don't agree with what you say but I will fight to death for you to have the right to say it." I believe in this.
> We have laws here to protect people against malicious gossips or accusations: libel and slander laws.


Voltaire also said, "In the case of news, we should always wait for the sacrament of confirmation." That's why I agree with the original statement that no good comes from discussing things that haven't yet been proven.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I cant see why anyone cant have an opinion, without it getting personal, and skitting at each other, the videos put out on youtube are made by people who are and have researched what they are talking about, at least the ones i have seen anyway,
There is another one out there which i do find very far fetched and cant believe, involving the royal family, and mainly Prince Philip, but again, who knows, there will be people who know people etc,


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ladydog said:


> Why make it personal?
> I believe strongly in freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I believe everything that it is said, written or that I have heard.
> Voltaire (a French philosopher) wrote " I don't agree with what you say but I will fight to death for you to have the right to say it." I believe in this.
> We have laws here to protect people against malicious gossips or accusations: libel and slander laws.


With freedom of speech comes responsibilities, responsibilities that many appear to not care about so long as they get to say what they want, when they want to say it!

If Cliff is found guilty then he is the scum of the Earth, but if it is found out that these are false allegations (not saying either way as I do not know) he will have to live with the label for the rest of his life.
Libel and slander laws do not protect people from pre-judgemet, especially when you have people that believe there is no smoke without fire :nonod:

We are not discussing a simple shop lifting case, or assult where if you are found innocent it is all forgotten about. We are discussing idol gossip that could ruin someones life guilty or not and that is grossly unfair!

Do I have my thoughts on it all? You bet I do!
But I will not immortalize my view on such a matter until actual facts are released. All we have at the moment is a house owned by the man was searched, we don't even know if they actually found anything of significance yet.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> We are discussing idol gossip


Perfect.

........


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Sorry duplicate post.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Yeah out of here trolls and/or conspiracy theorists using supposedly abused children to get their jollies just sicken me


Your above comment and indeed your other comments show it is you getting personal towards me, not vice versa as you are trying to make out.

Anyway, I really will leave it there (I know I keep saying thst), so I apologise again. But sometimes the truth hurts fans, and disbelief prevails. Then acceptance comes, as things unravel.

I hope you all have a lovely weekend, don't have nightmares.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> I could not agree more. It is due to media pressure and information being put out there, that these evil men are now being brought to court. Long live freedom of speech!


And Jimmy Tarbuck? What happened there?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Keep in mind folks - we are in the middle of the school holidays. May also be a full moon too for all I know


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BBC - actionnetwork How to avoid libel and defamation

*Interesting read. ^^^^

" 2. Get your facts right 
*
The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.

And the test of what the words mean is what a reasonable reader is likely to take as their natural and ordinary meaning, in their full context - what you intended as the author or publisher is irrelevant.

If you write something that cannot be substantiated the credibility of your site, organisation or cause may be questioned. It can also land you with an expensive lawsuit and there is no legal aid for libel cases.

The burden of proof lies with the defendant 
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you�ve targeted does not have to prove that you�re wrong.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> Oh please! Ha ha! Now you are just making me laugh


What made you laugh? The big words? Ah well, never mind; you'll be ok once you've grown up a bit and passed your exams.



havoc said:


> There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.


Nah - can't stand the man. And even if he were my all-time hero, I would want him locking away forever if he had abused children. However, what I can never stand by and allow to happen is for someone to be tried, hung drawn and quartered because of bogus, made-ip "proof" believed only by the credulous who thrive on scandal and others' misfortunes. In a former life, people like BC would be knitting at the guillotine, or accusing innocent women of being witches, with as little "proof" as they have about this. It was incredible how one tiny smidgeon of gossip could grow then - and now these parasites on human suffering have the whole internet to aid them in their malicious gossip-mongering.



JANICE199 said:


> *The way i see it is like this. but i could be wrong.
> If you ( not you personally), air your opinion to someone else, say friend or family member, providing you are not over heard you are ok.
> Once you start putting things in writing you are then held responsible for those remarks.*


As I understand it, you are allowed to express an opinoin about anyone, but you are not allowed to express your opinion as a fact.



Sweety said:


> Well, apparently, she is privy to highly classified information, fed to her by two sets of 'Cops', who were apparently one unit to begin with but then went their separate ways and began working in completely different directions, running round like headless chickens.
> 
> They were unable to carry out an arrest a month ago, because their ducks aren't co-operating.


:lol: - Well summarised.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

jaycee05 said:


> Ir, the videos put out on youtube are made by people who are and have researched what they are talking about, at least the ones i have seen anyway,
> ,


Or, more accurately, people who *SAY *they have researched what they are talking about. You tube is full of wannabe documentary films made by people who pretend to have authority in what they are saying - only the credulous would believe them.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> Keep in mind folks - we are in the middle of the school holidays. May also be a full moon too for all I know


Definitely. And the Devil makes work for idol hands.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Often when these things are found to be untrue it has already done untold misery for the person and there family.It may be true about him maybe not,I have my own opinion but until proven one way or other will keep it to myself.


----------



## BelindaCarlisle (Aug 12, 2014)

havoc said:


> Keep in mind folks - we are in the middle of the school holidays. May also be a full moon too for all I know





Spellweaver said:


> What made you laugh? The big words? Ah well, never mind; you'll be ok once you've grown up a bit and passed your exams.
> 
> Nah - can't stand the man. And even if he were my all-time hero, I would want him locking away forever if he had abused children. However, what I can never stand by and allow to happen is for someone to be tried, hung drawn and quartered because of bogus, made-ip "proof" believed only by the credulous who thrive on scandal and others' misfortunes. In a former life, people like BC would be knitting at the guillotine, or accusing innocent women of being witches, with as little "proof" as they have about this. It was incredible how one tiny smidgeon of gossip could grow then - and now these parasites on human suffering have the whole internet to aid them in their malicious gossip-mongering.
> 
> ...





gskinner123 said:


> Definitely. And the Devil makes work for idol hands.


And you all conspiracy theorizing I am a school child? Oh the irony, deary me!

As for you Spellweaver how rude!!! Lowest common denominator springs to mind.Again, oh the irony.

My absolute final word on the matter.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> My absolute final word on the matter.


Quacking


----------



## oliviarussian (Sep 2, 2010)

Meezey said:


> And Jimmy Tarbuck? What happened there?


Released after questioning without charge!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Poor Matthew Kelly went through hell


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

BelindaCarlisle said:


> There is no smoke without fire....
> 
> And in the case of Sir Cliff there is very thick smoke, and almost all fire.
> 
> ...


not true re no smoke without fire, plenty people in prison in UK right now who are not guilty of the crimes they have been found guilty of.

In Rochdale, Stephan Kizko(not sure of spelling) spent 16 years in prisonfor a murder he was later found totally innocent of and died not much longer after he was released.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Poor Matthew Kelly went through hell


yes and was it not Craig Charles off Corrie who also went through the same thing?

and on the other hand, too many have got away with murder and been protected from greater heights.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Food for thought.

Perhaps one day evolution will realise the error of its errant ways and when it does the ignorant and the stupid will simply cease to exist.

Until that day prevails upon the world its achievements will just have to tolerate its failures.:wink:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> Poor Matthew Kelly went through hell


*And Michael Barrymore.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Zaros said:


> Food for thought.
> 
> Perhaps one day evolution will realise the error of its errant ways and when it does *the ignorant and the stupid will simply cease to exist.
> *
> Until that day prevails upon the world it's achievements will just have to tolerate it's failures.:wink:


Sadly Zaros, the rate at which they are currently procreating, when it does happen, two thirds of the worlds population will be wiped out!!! 

That should bring the price of housing down!! 

.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

oliviarussian said:


> Released after questioning without charge!


Yep but of course splashed all over the media, no smoke without fire blah blah..

Ducks must have migrated for that case...............


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I am reopening this but could we keep the topic more general please. It was not started with the intention of being a rehash of the now closed and removed thread and if members keep referring to that topic this thread will be closed again.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Not read all the replies yet ... Think I've read up until the point where the backwards-and-forwards slanging matches started, but here's my 2pen'th.

Threads surrounding cases such as Harris, Saville, etc always make me a little uneasy, because whilst some act as judge and jury themselves, tar and feather them etc, others believe these celebs are innocent and the alleged victims are nothing more than money-grabbing/fame-seeking wannabes.

I see both sides, but what makes me squirm is that, as a past victim of the same crime being discussed here (but not by any celeb), those who believe that the alleged victims are liars, inadvertently accuse me of lying too. 

I know that's not the intention, and I know some will be horrified by my saying that, but really - what's the difference between me and those people accusing the celebs? I know for a fact that there are those, out there, who are just malicious enough, warped enough, _sick _enough to pull someone's reputation through the mud with not a single element of truth in the allegations ... and I know that there are those who will even go to court and swear it's true.

My case never went to court (not enough evidence, apparently ) yet someone else, who, years after I'd made my statement and started to piece my life back together again, made the same allegations - and her case did go to court - with even less evidence than what they found for my case (hence the eye roll at the beginning of this paragraph). I was asked to appear in court as a witness, they found my original file and tried him on that alongside this "newer" allegations.

All of this was taking place in the shadow of the Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris cases.

So I don't like those kinds of threads because of the personal ramifications to them. I don't think threads like the CR case should be banned - I just try my best to avoid them. Regardless of my personal opinion in this case, I think every celeb who is seen around children as much as those who have been accused were, open themselves to possible allegations around these kinds of crimes. Gagging members about them isn't really going to solve anything.

Could I humbly request ... Please could we remember that real lives are affected by these headlines ... and subsequently, these types of threads? :blush: :blush:

Thank you.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> Not read all the replies yet ... Think I've read up until the point where the backwards-and-forwards slanging matches started, but here's my 2pen'th.
> 
> Threads surrounding cases such as Harris, Saville, etc always make me a little uneasy, because whilst some act as judge and jury themselves, tar and feather them etc, others believe these celebs are innocent and the alleged victims are nothing more than money-grabbing/fame-seeking wannabes.
> 
> ...


*I have read your post several times, and i am unsure how to respond without offending you. But here goes.
I have tried putting myself in the place of the accused. Now IF i were innocent of such a crime i would feel suicidal. 
But having said that, i would feel the same if i wasn't believed.
Imho the system let you down, and there is no excuse for that.
Please forgive me if my post isn't well written.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

This thread was NOT started to slate anyone. Please try and keep it on topic.[/B][/COLOR]


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I have deleted some recent posts and do not want to have to remind anyone to keep this on topic. Further action will be taken against those making unnecessary personal digs.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have read your post several times, and i am unsure how to respond without offending you. But here goes.
> I have tried putting myself in the place of the accused. Now IF i were innocent of such a crime i would feel suicidal.
> But having said that, i would feel the same if i wasn't believed.
> Imho the system let you down, and there is no excuse for that.
> Please forgive me if my post isn't well written.*


No offence taken, Janice.

I really do see both sides. I try to imagine how someone who isn't guilty, but still accused, must feel, by the allegations. In cases where there's a celebrity involved, it's even worse because they have so much more to lose. As other members have said in this thread, even if found not guilty of the crime, sh!t still sticks and reputations never recover.

This is why I'm appalled by those who do cry rape or child abuse when they haven't actually been attacked. It ruins the accused and trivialises the suffering of genuine victims, as well as bringing along the bandwagon for those who are ready to jump aboard ... and ultimately, leads to opinions that people who accuse someone of child abuse, are making it up, which, in turn, makes genuine victims wonder if they'll be believed if they come forward.

Just the kind of thing that real paedophiles and rapists rely on.

The second victim in my case got justice in the end and my attacker's doing time too now, which is all that matters :thumbup:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

When it comes down to it, how do people determine what is allowed or not? Should we start to also ban political threads as often they aren't based in facts but influence people  

It's an emotive subject but at the same time I would like to thing you can get a balanced view. It's up to us, as members to police our own forum do a degree. If we can't be trusted to do that I think it's sad. It's not uncommon for people to state in threads, "don't turn this into a witch hunt" or "we don't know the facts". With social media being what it is, the ability to occasionally say that here and potentially make people think and possibly step back is needed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> When it comes down to it, how do people determine what is allowed or not? Should we start to also ban political threads as often they aren't based in facts but influence people
> 
> It's an emotive subject but at the same time I would like to thing you can get a balanced view. It's up to us, as members to police our own forum do a degree. If we can't be trusted to do that I think it's sad. It's not uncommon for people to state in threads, "don't turn this into a witch hunt" or "we don't know the facts". With social media being what it is, the ability to occasionally say that here and potentially make people think and possibly step back is needed.


*For me it is quite simple. If i would not like to be treated as some are, then i have no right to treat others that way.*


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I think that normally, this kind of thread does get a pretty well balanced set of replies.

We do, in the main, seem to be able to discuss or debate an issue without arguments or sensational statements.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Cliff is very angry at the media knowing what was happening before he did, which is very understandable of course, but i expect they dont inform the accused for a reason, but someone must have leaked what was going to happen to the press


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

I haven't read any of the replies so my apologies.

I think on the whole we as a forum do debate stuff sensibly and with compassion if a sensitive subject. 

However as in real life some people will spoil it, but I don't think that is reason to ban threads of a certain nature.

It just take everyone to see a real person behind the posts and be nice


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I think we should be able to discuss things like this, after all people are all over the internet.

I think there's a different reaction this time as it is THE Cliff Richard and his followers and fans are very loyal to him. The fact he could be wrapped up in any of this comes as a shock so some are quick to dismiss it.
The actual facts are that he went to the paedophile parties at elm guest house. The other facts are that people in the police and MI5 also were part of the ring, so things have been covered up for many years. This isn't conspiracy. 

I do not think every person who has come forward is a liar, nor do I think that every time a celeb is found not guilty,they are infact not guilty. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence sadly.

I don't know if he is guilty of the alleged assault. More people are now coming forward against him as of today.

If he played any part of the sordid affairs at elm guest house or did what he is accused of, I do hope the scum burns in hell with the rest of them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *For me it is quite simple. If i would not like to be treated as some are, then i have no right to treat others that way.*


In which case how many threads would be banned? Everyone has their own definitions. Key is making sure we have a balanced debate. Plenty of social media doesn't.


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

Valanita said:


> Well, all I can say is I'm sorry I posted the thread now. Tho I think if I hadn't someone else would have done.
> I am a fan of Cliffs, I have followed him for many years, been to his concerts etc, have never dreamed there was anything sinister about him & *if or until* I'm proven wrong I shall continue to support him.
> I always found JS rather creepy but never dreamed that of Rolf either.
> In my long life I guess nothing should surprise me now, but it continues to do this.hmy:


I've been to his concerts year ago, so I will be watching this case closely.

Valanita, I am glad you posted the thread. It's not your fault it got spoilt.

Janice, I am glad you started this thread too.

Yes, I do think we should be allowed to debate - but we should do so responsibly, and without insults.



JANICE199 said:


> *Would you feel the same if someone started such a thread about a member of your family?
> *


A very valid point.

No I wouldn't; but I know that people in the village would talk. There's no getting away from that.



havoc said:


> There have been other celebs discussed at length the minute there was any suspicion. I get the feeling people are only getting wound up about this one because it's Cliff.





BelindaCarlisle said:


> Exactly, the saintly Cliff Richard who middle aged women and pensioners adore, the news was never going to go down well. Shattered perceptions.....


It's harder to take in, but only time will tell whether it is true or not.

We don't know these people, we don't have the information, so none of us can say whether it is true or not.



LinznMilly said:


> Not read all the replies yet ... Think I've read up until the point where the backwards-and-forwards slanging matches started, but here's my 2pen'th.
> 
> Threads surrounding cases such as Harris, Saville, etc always make me a little uneasy, because whilst some act as judge and jury themselves, tar and feather them etc, others believe these celebs are innocent and the alleged victims are nothing more than money-grabbing/fame-seeking wannabes.
> 
> ...





LinznMilly said:


> No offence taken, Janice.
> 
> I really do see both sides. I try to imagine how someone who isn't guilty, but still accused, must feel, by the allegations. In cases where there's a celebrity involved, it's even worse because they have so much more to lose. As other members have said in this thread, even if found not guilty of the crime, sh!t still sticks and reputations never recover.
> 
> ...


Liznmilly - These were the best posts on here! Thank you.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Summersky said:


> Liznmilly - These were the best posts on here! Thank you.


And I thought that first one was a little rushed as I had 20mins to think about what I was going to type, type the post, proof-read it, and click Submit.

Thank _you_. :blush:

The 2nd one I had the luxury of time.


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

LinznMilly said:


> And I thought that first one was a little rushed as I had 20mins to think about what I was going to type, type the post, proof-read it, and click Submit.
> 
> Thank _you_. :blush:
> 
> The 2nd one I had the luxury of time.


You wrote with benefit of first hand experience and from the heart, and even then, you could at look at it from the accused's perspective too.

That's hugely admirable.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Police now admit they worked with the BBC ,and thats why the reporters were already outside Cliffs house and a helicopter overhead, a BBC producer "heard" that a raid was to be carried out and phoned South Yorkshire police who confirmed it
Not very nice, yet both police forces are denying they were the ones to leak the information in the first place [Telegraph]


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

No I don't think these threads should be allowed But if the media didn't report on these thing until they had rock solid evidence then these threads wouldn't exist ! I understand why the threads are made people need to talk it out to get it clear in their heads, but the media are cruel! His reputation ... Well you've all heard the saying sh*t sticks!!!!!!! If he is clean he will lwYs have that shadow of a doubt and it is unfair.

It shouldn't be reported until evidence is there to support it, whether he/ she is famous or not. 
Now if they had walked out that apartment with computers and some evidence I would have said " hello maybe" but nothing was found it was a complete media circus which was totally unfair! I think the police didn't handle it very well they should have completed this a more private way.


----------



## chissy 15 (Mar 13, 2013)

jaycee05 said:


> Police now admit they worked with the BBC ,and thats why the reporters were already outside Cliffs house and a helicopter overhead, a BBC producer "heard" that a raid was to be carried out and phoned South Yorkshire police who confirmed it
> Not very nice, yet both police forces are denying they were the ones to leak the information in the first place [Telegraph]


If nothing comes of this and he is innocent (which actually he is till proved other wise), then think he is well within his rights to sue police for their handling of this


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

chissy 15 said:


> If nothing comes of this and he is innocent (which actually he is till proved other wise), then think he is well within his rights to sue police for their handling of this


I'm with you there, normally I rush to their defence but this was handled in a terrible manner!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

chissy 15 said:


> If nothing comes of this and he is innocent (which actually he is till proved other wise), then think he is well within his rights to sue police for their handling of this


Why is he 'within his rights' to sue the police for carrying out an investigation?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

piggybaker said:


> No I don't think these threads should be allowed But if the media didn't report on these thing until they had rock solid evidence then these threads wouldn't exist ! I understand why the threads are made people need to talk it out to get it clear in their heads, but the media are cruel! His reputation ... Well you've all heard the saying sh*t sticks!!!!!!! If he is clean he will lwYs have that shadow of a doubt and it is unfair.
> 
> It shouldn't be reported until evidence is there to support it, whether he/ she is famous or not.
> Now if they had walked out that apartment with computers and some evidence I would have said " hello maybe" but nothing was found it was a complete media circus which was totally unfair! I think the police didn't handle it very well they should have completed this a more private way.


How do you know they didnt take computers, or nothing was found? they did take some things away,according to the news, 
Also if as he said he knows there have been rumours, anyone would have got rid of any evidence wouldnt they, not saying * he* did, but anyone would have, in case of something like this happening


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Normally they say that computers were taken, and normally that's when you know they've got something to pin on them. 

I just feel the finger shouldn't be pointed just yet. Evidence it happened in the 80 a didn't it! Evidence for that long!!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

A computer wasnt specifically mentioned no, but they did take some things away, if hes innocent it must be terrible for him,but if not well, he deserves all he gets
The police will kmow more than they are telling us, and the Elm Guest house list with his name on it will no doubt be brought up 
There was obviously a motive for the BBC being involved,and that was to encourage anyone else to come forward which it obviously has done
I doubt whether innocent or guilty he will get much sleep tonight


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

jaycee05 said:


> A computer wasnt specifically mentioned no, but they did take some things away, if hes innocent it must be terrible for him,but if not well, he deserves all he gets
> The police will kmow more than they are telling us, and the Elm Guest house list with his name on it will no doubt be brought up
> There was obviously a motive for the BBC being involved,and that was to encourage anyone else to come forward which it obviously has done
> I doubt whether innocent or guilty he will get much sleep tonight


I'm not a fan of cliffs music I just feel sad at how it's been handled, Rolf Harris didn't have this sort of media circus ! If he is guilty , well string him up with the rest, but to be honest I'm not really followed it and do not know what's happened so far , but since nothing was mentioned on the radio I just presumed not a lot had been seized!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

jaycee05 said:


> There was obviously a motive for the BBC being involved,and that was to encourage anyone else to come forward which it obviously has done


The more worldly wise of us would say that the motive for the BBC being involved was to get more viewing figures by making a huge story out of nothing.



jaycee05 said:


> I doubt whether innocent or guilty he will get much sleep tonight


And THAT'S the whole point of why these media-led witch hunts should be stopped. If he - or anyone else for that matter - is innocent, then why should they have to run the gauntlet like this? Fair enough if/when evidence has been found -imo criminals deserve all the media exposure they get. But why cause someone to go through this if they are innocent?

And I'm not saying Cliffi s innocent - I'm saying we don't know at this stage whether he is or not. Time enough for all the horror and disgust if he is guilty - and I will be up there with the rest of you in that if he is - but until he is then the people baying for blood make me feel uncomfortable.

If someone accused you of something, and you were innocent, and the police came around to investigate, when would you want it in the media? Would you want the media saying you were being investigated? Would you want all the sensationalism vampires to be speculating that you must be guilty otherwise why would the BBC be involved and asking for people who knew anything to come forward? Would you want wannabe film producers making videos of their "research" about you and puttting it on youtube? Or would you prefer that it was not reported in the media until the police could say they had investigated and you were innocent?

I'm all for freedom of information - but I want freedom of information about FACTS, not freedom of information that allows the media to stir up trouble for people who might well be innocent. That's not freedom of information. That's just plain gossip.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *The ones i'm talking about, are those like the Cliff Richard thread. No offence to the poster of that thread.
> I cannot see how they are fair, and only lead to speculation and idle gossip.
> As a forum, i personally believe we should not have such threads until a person has been found guilty.
> Just my opinion.
> Your thoughts?*


admin decide, sink/swim


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> The more worldly wise of us would say that the motive for the BBC being involved was to get more viewing figures by making a huge story out of nothing.
> 
> And THAT'S the whole point of why these media-led witch hunts should be stopped. If he - or anyone else for that matter - is innocent, then why should they have to run the gauntlet like this? Fair enough if/when evidence has been found -imo criminals deserve all the media exposure they get. But why cause someone to go through this if they are innocent?
> 
> ...


Spot on post; thank you.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> The more worldly wise of us would say that the motive for the BBC being involved was to get more viewing figures by making a huge story out of nothing.
> 
> And THAT'S the whole point of why these media-led witch hunts should be stopped. If he - or anyone else for that matter - is innocent, then why should they have to run the gauntlet like this? Fair enough if/when evidence has been found -imo criminals deserve all the media exposure they get. But why cause someone to go through this if they are innocent?
> 
> ...


I do agree that this has been handled terribly, and i dont blame him for being angry, i think its a dirty trick to do things the way they have, at least he should have been warned, to see and hear that your house is being raided and you nothing about it must be devastating, *especially * if you areinnocent, i dont like the way this ha been handled at all, and yes he would be well with his rights to sue


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I think the reason why they release names is so others who may of experienced it can come forwards and help build the case.

Sometimes it only takes one person to speak up to give others the courage to without the fear of not being believed. If people who are unknown to each other come forwards with the same kind of story (ie what the person did to them with the same specifics) and also have details (like birth marks that are not common knowledge) then it helps build a case on the person which may not be possible if their name is not out there.

So if it helps build a case then it can be a good thing to release the name.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> I think the reason why they release names is so others who may of experienced it can come forwards and help build the case.
> 
> Sometimes it only takes one person to speak up to give others the courage to without the fear of not being believed. If people who are unknown to each other come forwards with the same kind of story (ie what the person did to them with the same specifics) and also have details (like birth marks that are not common knowledge) then it helps build a case on the person which may not be possible if their name is not out there.
> 
> So if it helps build a case then it can be a good thing to release the name.


*I understand the bit about others coming forward. But i can't get my head around anyone being named until all the FACTS are known. And if they are guilty.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> I think the reason why they release names is so others who may of experienced it can come forwards and help build the case.
> 
> Sometimes it only takes one person to speak up to give others the courage to without the fear of not being believed. If people who are unknown to each other come forwards with the same kind of story (ie what the person did to them with the same specifics) and also have details (like birth marks that are not common knowledge) then it helps build a case on the person which may not be possible if their name is not out there.
> 
> So if it helps build a case then it can be a good thing to release the name.


I agree, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel they couldn't speak up if they have suffered abuse of any kind. But on the other hand, there will also be those who think, "Hang on, I could make some money here" and jump on the bandwagon and exaggerate (or even make up) something that has happened to them and hence make a case against someone seem worse than it is.

It's a very fine line those in authority have to walk in encouraging those who really have been abused to speak out whilst, at the same time, weeding out those who are jumping on the bandwagon. It's not a job I envy them.


----------



## chissy 15 (Mar 13, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> Why is he 'within his rights' to sue the police for carrying out an investigation?


Not for carrying out an investigation obviously they had good reason to want to search his property and they are not going to tell Joe Public their reasons in case of jeopardising a case. I just can't understand their reason for informing the media of this,again maybe their reason will become clear in the future. If not don't think it was fair they did that just because he is someone famous. I am not sticking up for him as personally don't like him but just don't under stand the police for doing this, but then again maybe there is a lot more to this to come out yet we'll just have to wait and see


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

jaycee05 said:


> I do agree that this has been handled terribly, and i dont blame him for being angry, i think its a dirty trick to do things the way they have, at least he should have been warned, *to see and hear that your house is being raided and you nothing about it* must be devastating, *especially * if you areinnocent, i dont like the way this ha been handled at all, and yes he would be well with his rights to sue


To be fair, no one knows when their houses could be raided as that is the whole point of a raid so in all honesty I do not have an issue with that part.

What I do have an issue with is pinning a child molestation case on to someone (anyone) without proof. By all means the media can report that the police held a raid at Sir Cliff's house, but they do not need to disclose the reasons until solid proof has been found..

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If CR is guilty then I would be at the front of the que wanting to rip him a new "one" because in my mind the moment you take away a childs' innocence, is the moment you lose all claims to human rights BUT until then I will keep an open mind and see how the investigation runs.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Summersky said:


> You wrote with benefit of first hand experience and from the heart, and even then, you could at look at it from the accused's perspective too.
> 
> That's hugely admirable.


It was a long time ago, I've put it behind me and moved on; I used to be a hermit and only left the safety of my room for school or outings with my parents, didn't go to any school trips because I didn't have the courage, etc. Now, I'm never in, I have my job as a carer, I can drive, I have my own flat, and I'm ... not afraid anymore. Ultimately, that's my revenge, my closure. I don't need to be bitter, or filled with hate - I'll leave that to him  Yes, I have scars - ones that probably will never heel (trust doesn't come easily with me for a start), but I'm not going to let him keep me down.



emmaviolet said:


> I think the reason why they release names is so others who may of experienced it can come forwards and help build the case.
> 
> *Sometimes it only takes one person to speak up to give others the courage to without the fear of not being believed*. If people who are unknown to each other come forwards with the same kind of story (ie what the person did to them with the same specifics) and also have details (like birth marks that are not common knowledge) then it helps build a case on the person which may not be possible if their name is not out there.
> 
> So if it helps build a case then it can be a good thing to release the name.


That's what happened in my case. I came forward, and suddenly 9 other school kids said it had happened to them, but when the other victim's case came to court, there were only 3 of us willing to testify against him.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I agree that we should debate these things as they are in the public notice anyway and what we say won't change anything right or wrong.

I just hope that they are wrong with Cliff, I'd find it so hard to think he'd be like that. :sad:


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I take no interest in those threads anyway. I think it is quite comical how some people who feel these threads are not necessarily fair have participated in past ones, including labelling those proven innocent as guilty, even thought the law has found them otherwise.

What's that saying? Oh yeah. Nowt queer as folk...


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The more worldly wise of us would say that the motive for the BBC being involved was to get more viewing figures by making a huge story out of nothing.
> 
> And THAT'S the whole point of why these media-led witch hunts should be stopped. If he - or anyone else for that matter - is innocent, then why should they have to run the gauntlet like this? Fair enough if/when evidence has been found -imo criminals deserve all the media exposure they get. But why cause someone to go through this if they are innocent?
> 
> I'm all for freedom of information - but I want freedom of information about FACTS, not freedom of information that allows the media to stir up trouble for people who might well be innocent. That's not freedom of information. That's just plain gossip.


This ^^^ I completely agree with and I'll say something sensible for a change.:001_unsure:

It is a terribly desperate affair when one half of society finds it necessary to hang, draw and quarter a man long before he's been proven innocent. But it's an even more desperate affair attempting to piece that man back together again once the deed has been done, his life is torn apart and he is found innocent.

I doubt a full recovery comes easy, if at all, even for those hardened to the rigors of life and those who assisted in his fall from grace, not wanting the association, simply turn away without conscience and look for another victim.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Innocent till proven guilty...


yet ..if things were already in media , published - seems the source being police?and all town talks about it..does not make it any different which social media online people discuss it on?
I think it is horrible for anyone.. famous or not..to be a suspect of any crime...if you are innocent..
Any of us might be in such position by unpredicted circumstances...and we will be talked about..

we all have friends, families, career that would be affected...


Not all suspects are guilty obviously...so identity of suspect is usually protected?

Do media have rights to publish it without t police agreement - which must be for a good reason?


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2014)

Not sure how true it is, but i've read elsewhere that the media leak was due to the police wanting more victims to come forward to build a bulletproof case...look how the JS case snowballed as people got over the fear of opening up about incidents...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If the police are now manipulating the media to create witch hunts then it's gone well beyond debating whether it should be discussed on forums. We really have reached the point where we've degenerated into trial by media - initiated by the very agencies which should know better.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2014)

havoc said:


> If the police are now manipulating the media to create witch hunts then it's gone well beyond debating whether it should be discussed on forums. We really have reached the point where we've degenerated into trial by media - initiated by the very agencies which should know better.


But if you believe the stuff going about that the police were told to drop all charges against Cliff in the 80's from people 'higher up' than them, its pretty scary tbh...


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

This is an example 10years ago a man in our street was accused of rape of a young girl in a quite lane,it all went to Court and he was proved to be not guilty to this day people still say "the bloke that was accused of rape still there no smoke without fire"he has gone through hell for something he did'nt do.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

jon bda said:


> But if you believe the stuff going about that the police were told to drop all charges against Cliff in the 80's from people 'higher up' than them, its pretty scary tbh...


This really happens, as i mentioned in an earlier post[maybe on the thread that was closed] it has happened here re; JS and another man who was actually the mayor at one time, lots of complaints were made about JS and the other man, and because they were friendly with the police, and a celebrity and a mayor, nothing was done, 
Everyone knew about the mayor, lots of young boys were proposisioned and abused by him, there is an inquiry going on now into police behaviour at that time,and as to why nothing was done
Jimmy Savile was never popular in this town, he was creepy and not well liked,and expected people to kowtow to him always hung around young girls if he was in the same restaurant etc, made a fuss off them
If you look at the mes on the Elm guest house list there are even members of MI5 and MPs, Sinn Fein, Anthony Blunt, lots of famous andhigh ups, including CR and Jess Conrad


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

I find this whole thread hypocritical taking into account the numerous witch hunts on this forum (holding my hand up as someone who has lost perspective at times) - only difference is that these are "celebrities" being accused of stuff - as opposed to forum members who don't feed the right food, support the right charities etc.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I find this whole thread hypocritical taking into account the numerous witch hunts on this forum


Oh please. This forum can't put you behind bars. If evidence was suppressed in the past then we all know that's disgraceful. I see nothing less disgraceful in the notion that the police stage a raid having given the BBC 'rights' to coverage to manufacture evidence now. What they're effectively saying is that they don't have the evidence and they don't expect to find what they want in the search but they hope by staging a circus they'll get people coming forward to say what they want.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

havoc said:


> Oh please. This forum can't put you behind bars. If evidence was suppressed in the past then we all know that's disgraceful. I see nothing less disgraceful in the notion that the police stage a raid having given the BBC 'rights' to coverage to manufacture evidence now. What they're effectively saying is that they don't have the evidence and they don't expect to find what they want in the search but they hope by staging a circus they'll get people coming forward to say what they want.


Of course it can't - wasn't suggesting it could. But there does some to be an above average amount of vulnerable people who congregate on here - and in their limited world a sharp word is probably just as wounding. Fully agree that the police corruption is disgusting - just not sure this is the right place to be decrying it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> just not sure this is the right place to be decrying it


So where is? Where are we allowed to state an opinion and on what topics exactly?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Laurac said:


> Fully agree that the police corruption is disgusting - just not sure this is the right place to be decrying it.


You mean on this particular thread or in more general terms. :001_unsure:


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Laurac said:


> I find this whole thread hypocritical taking into account the numerous witch hunts on this forum (holding my hand up as someone who has lost perspective at times) - only difference is that these are "celebrities" being accused of stuff - as opposed to forum members who don't feed the right food, support the right charities etc.


Not being funny but you can not compare a rape/child molestation case to a forum tussle...

In fact I find even suggesting such a thing is an insult :frown2:


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Not being funny but you can not compare a rape/child molestation case to a forum tussle...
> 
> In fact I find even suggesting such a thing is an insult :frown2:


Of course I aren't comparing them - child abuse is the most horrific thing on earth. I just find it a bit bizarre how threads accusing a famous person are frowned upon (even though said famous person is very unlikely to read such threads and be impacted by them) whereas many mundane threads posted on here by some obviously vulnerable people are not treated in a similar fashion, (although the damage, on a relative level, is probably the same). It is just how I see it - not asking for anyone to agree.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Laurac said:


> Of course it can't - wasn't suggesting it could. But there does some to be an above average amount of vulnerable people who congregate on here - and in their limited world a sharp word is probably just as wounding. Fully agree that the police corruption is disgusting - just not sure this is the right place to be decrying it.


What does that mean" an above average amount of vulnerable people who congrgate on here," that we have no other life beyond this forum, or are mentally retrded? ? think thats quite insulting really
If yopu dont like what is being discussed you dont have to read it!!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Laurac said:


> Of course I aren't comparing them - child abuse is the most horrific thing on earth. I just find it a bit bizarre how threads accusing a famous person are frowned upon (even though said famous person is very unlikely to read such threads and be impacted by them) whereas many mundane threads posted on here by some obviously vulnerable people are not treated in a similar fashion, (although the damage, on a relative level, is probably the same). It is just how I see it - not asking for anyone to agree.


For me it has nothing to do with the person being famous. 
It is all to do with the crime being discussed.

As I said in a previous post. We are not discussing a crime such as shop lifting where if the defendant is found innocent it is forgotten in a week. We are discussing a crime where no matter the verdict the accused will be labeled for life.

IF they find something and IF they arrest him then debate away once the facts have been released. But until then everything is hearsay. Hearsay that could potentially ruin a mans career and life regardless of the verdict :frown2:

_Disclaimer:_ I am not saying he is innocent, I am saying no one knows yet.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> What does that mean" an above average amount of vulnerable people who congrgate on here," that we have no other life beyond this forum, or are mentally retrded? ? think thats quite insulting really
> If yopu dont like what is being discussed you dont have to read it!!


It means what it says.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Laurac said:


> Of course it can't - wasn't suggesting it could. But there does some to be an above average amount of vulnerable people who congregate on here - and in their limited world a sharp word is probably just as wounding. Fully agree that the police corruption is disgusting - just not sure this is the right place to be decrying it.





Laurac said:


> It means what it says.


Do you even know what Vulnerable People actually refers to? :huh:


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

As someone who has been, wrongly accused of abusing an elderly resident in her past job and proven innocent, I know how horrible it is having everyone look at you like you have done something wrong.

A colleague reported me for abuse and I had to go through all the procedures to see if I had done it or not (the colleague I believe was trying to reflect attention away from her recent bad behaviour at work) I got called into the office Monday, told the situation, had Tuesday as my day off and had to come into work Wednesday and I sweat through my shirt and underwear through sheer nerves and fear.

I was found to be innocent yet was still terrified to be around a certain resident. It's the most distressing thing to have people talk and speculate about you and I wouldnt wish it on anyone. If he's guilty then he will be punished, if he is innocent, I feel very sorry for him.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Do you even know what Vulnerable People actually refers to? :huh:


Maybe we need to call in POVA - "too much Pet forum use" ut:


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It is being discussed everywhere and anyone who thinks this forum will make a blind bit of difference is delusional. Anyone who truly doesn't want to take part will have looked at the thread once and then not opened it again. It's the ultimate hypocrisy to post on it saying it shouldn't be discussed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

havoc said:


> It is being discussed everywhere and anyone who thinks this forum will make a blind bit of difference is delusional. Anyone who truly doesn't want to take part will have looked at the thread once and then not opened it again. It's the ultimate hypocrisy to post on it saying it shouldn't be discussed.


*Just because it is being discussed elsewhere doesn't make it right or fair.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I think we should be able to discuss things like this, after all people are all over the internet.
> 
> I think there's a different reaction this time as it is THE Cliff Richard and his followers and fans are very loyal to him. The fact he could be wrapped up in any of this comes as a shock so some are quick to dismiss it.
> *The actual facts are that he went to the paedophile parties at elm guest house.* The other facts are that people in the police and MI5 also were part of the ring, so things have been covered up for many years. This isn't conspiracy.
> ...





jaycee05 said:


> This really happens, as i mentioned in an earlier post[maybe on the thread that was closed] it has happened here re; JS and another man who was actually the mayor at one time, lots of complaints were made about JS and the other man, and because they were friendly with the police, and a celebrity and a mayor, nothing was done,
> Everyone knew about the mayor, lots of young boys were proposisioned and abused by him, there is an inquiry going on now into police behaviour at that time,and as to why nothing was done
> Jimmy Savile was never popular in this town, he was creepy and not well liked,and expected people to kowtow to him always hung around young girls if he was in the same restaurant etc, made a fuss off them
> *If you look at the mes on the Elm guest house list *there are even members of MI5 and MPs, Sinn Fein, Anthony Blunt, lots of famous andhigh ups, including CR and Jess Conrad


How do we know that is a fact? Anyone can write a list of names on a bit of paper


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Just because it is being discussed elsewhere doesn't make it right or fair.


So what. I don't think I've ever heard a discussion on any topic - at work, in a pub, round a table in a restaurant, in the street where every comment was right or fair.

Those who are taking some implied moral high ground on this and, whilst contributing at every turn, are obviously following the topic with gusto. Are they turning the TV off when the subject comes up? Somehow I doubt it. Find the person who starts off a sentence with 'I don't like gossip' and you've found the biggest gossip in the street.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

havoc said:


> It is being discussed everywhere and anyone who thinks this forum will make a blind bit of difference is delusional.


No, it's just another one of the myriad places where it is being discussed. The thing is though, if every place where it was being discussed deleted all the fairy stories, all the suppositions, all the conspiracy theories, and just discussed the plain facts, then we wouldn't have a witch hunt of a possibly innocent person going on. But that's not nearly as entertaining to the sensationalist vampires, hence their need to spice things up with lies; so while ever each site allows free reign to the conspiracy theorists and those who present gossip as facts, then we have persecution of a possible innocent going viral.

Saying "we're just one of many so whatever we do will have no outcome" is false. It's because of that kind of mentality that net gossip *does* go viral.



havoc said:


> Anyone who truly doesn't want to take part will have looked at the thread once and then not opened it again. *It's the ultimate hypocrisy to post on it saying it shouldn't be discussed*.


Got to disagree. If you are saying it shouldn't be discussed, then you are not discussing it.

Where's the hypocrisy in that?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just because it is being discussed elsewhere doesn't make it right or fair.*


Janice, I think to ask 'should we be discussing it here' is the same as asking if police investigations/a potential criminal charge should be in the public domain of (and in) ANY form. Once it's out there, it WILL be discussed endlessly, everywhere.

I know little about the law but there's clearly a legal 'allowance' for that to happen. Trial by media, particularly in relation to high profile people, and how or whether it affects the outcome of a trial is one thing but all I know is that we can't have a free press (however ghastly and twisted their hunger for reporting seems to be at times) without the resultant speculation and gossip.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> No, it's just another one of the myriad places where it is being discussed. The thing is though, if every place where it was being discussed deleted all the fairy stories, all the suppositions, all the conspiracy theories, and just discussed the plain facts, then we wouldn't have a witch hunt of a possibly innocent person going on. But that's not nearly as entertaining to the sensationalist vampires, hence their need to spice things up with lies; so while ever each site allows free reign to the conspiracy theorists and those who present gossip as facts, then we have persecution of a possible innocent going viral.
> 
> Saying "we're just one of many so whatever we do will have no outcome" is false. It's because of that kind of mentality that net gossip *does* go viral.
> 
> ...


But you have to consider the only other option which is living in a highly censored society. The information is only out there as a result of the press being able to report it. You either have a free press or you do not. We cannot have the option of 'it' being reported but nobody is allowed to talk about it. However much twaddle is talked.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> The thing is though, if every place where it was being discussed deleted all the fairy stories, all the suppositions, all the conspiracy theories, and just discussed the plain facts, then we wouldn't have a witch hunt of a possibly innocent person going on


The witch hunt isn't happening here. The discussion is about a factual event - the very public police raid on a property. Why is it wrong to discuss a public event? Would there be such an outcry at the discussion if it were a Conservative MP?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> But you have to consider the only other option which is living in a highly censored society. The information is only out there as a result of the press being able to report it. You either have a free press or you do not. We cannot have the option of 'it' being reported but nobody is allowed to talk about it. However much twaddle is talked.


I'm not talking about the information - I'm talking about disinformation. It happens with everything, not just with this case. For everything that happens, and has facts reported about it, there are several more suppositions and lies springi up about it, fed by the media and perpetuated by the ghouls who prefer the nonsense to the facts because it's spicier.

As for a free press - do we really have that? I have grave reservations about how the press report things. We regularly watch different news channels - including Al Jazeera - in our house. It's amazing how one set of circumstances can be given different spins by different media. The one in particular that sticks in my mind is Thatcher's funeral. If you watched the BBC, you would have no idea of the extent of the protest during the funeral itself because the BBC showed very little of it. Al Jazeera showed footage of crowds with anti-Thatcher placards turning their backs to the coffin in protest in many places along the route. That's obviously something that the government and the BBC didn't want us to see or know about. So how free is our press really?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not talking about the information - I'm talking about disinformation. It happens with everything, not just with this case. For everything that happens, and has facts reported about it, there are several more suppositions and lies springi up about it, fed by the media and perpetuated by the ghouls who prefer the nonsense to the facts because it's spicier.
> 
> As for a free press - do we really have that? I have grave reservations about how the press report things. We regularly watch different news channels - including Al Jazeera - in our house. It's amazing how one set of circumstances can be given different spins by different media. The one in particular that sticks in my mind is Thatcher's funeral. If you watched the BBC, you would have no idea of the extent of the protest during the funeral itself because the BBC showed very little of it. Al Jazeera showed footage of crowds with anti-Thatcher placards turning their backs to the coffin in protest in many places along the route. That's obviously something that the government and the BBC didn't want us to see or know about. So how free is our press really?


I think you've just perfectly illustrated that, yes, within certain legal bounds we do have a free press/media.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

havoc said:


> So what. I don't think I've ever heard a discussion on any topic - at work, in a pub, round a table in a restaurant, in the street where every comment was right or fair.
> 
> Those who are taking some implied moral high ground on this and, whilst contributing at every turn, are obviously following the topic with gusto. Are they turning the TV off when the subject comes up? Somehow I doubt it. Find the person who starts off a sentence with 'I don't like gossip' and you've found the biggest gossip in the street.


I don't have TV (shocking I know).. Idol gossip in a pup or where ever does not immortalize that opinion as fact forever more...
Just because others do something does not make that something right!

Saying that these discussions shouldn't happen is not partaking in the discussion, nor is it gossip so hypocrisy is the wrong word to use there 



gskinner123 said:


> But you have to consider the only other option which is living in a highly censored society. The information is only out there as a result of the press being able to report it. You either have a free press or you do not. We cannot have the option of 'it' being reported but nobody is allowed to talk about it. However much twaddle is talked.


Free press?? :lol:
Funniest thing I have heard in a while...

Why is it so hard report the crime whilst emitting the actual name UNTIL there is actual proof, due to the nature of the crime?

We really haven't come far from the "witch burning" gangs of yesteryear at all :nonod:

I find it interesting that many get uppity when a forum tussle happens, almost jumping over themselves to try to play the protector role, reminding people that jumping to conclusions isn't the best way to have a conversation...yet it's A-OK to run down a man because OMG his house has been raided... Because the police and the press are completely infallible, and have never made a mistake...ever ut:

Now THAT is hypocrisy :001_tt2:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

havoc said:


> The witch hunt isn't happening here. The discussion is about a factual event - the very public police raid on a property. Why is it wrong to discuss a public event? Would there be such an outcry at the discussion if it were a Conservative MP?


The factual event is exactly as described above. So any discussion abut that should therefore run along the lines of, "The police have raided CR's property and will disclose facts about why if and when there are any facts to disclose.

Everything else being discussed about it is not facts - it is suppostion and people adding two and two together to make 22 because, unlike the very boring fact, all that sort of thing is nice and juicy. Now your definititon of witch hunt may be different to mine - but to me that sure sounds like a witch hunt. Never mind the solitary boring fact - let's gossip ourselves into stringing someone up without a trial.

And tbh I'm getting a tad fed up of all the "it's only because its Cliff" or "what if it were someone not so popluar" arguments - it doesn't matter who the person is, our how famous they are, in this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty because people endlessly perpetuate gossip and conspiracy theiories until they are believed despite the facts.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> I think you've just perfectly illustrated that, yes, within certain legal bounds we do have a free press/media.


Sorry, I don't understand your reply. How can the BBC not showing the truth be an illustration of fre press?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Free press?? :lol:
> Funniest thing I have heard in a while...


Which organisation or individual would you like to nominate then as the sole source for disseminating information with their take on the "facts" ?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

The news we recieve is heavily filtered and heavily politicised - all you have to do is compare the news coverage of what is going on in Ferguson at the moment against reports from journalists that are attempting to get on the spot coverage (as opposed to what is being fed out by the police) - Twitter is providing a live news feed of what is happening but the information we see is not the same as what we see on the TV or papers.

I would not be suprised if the BBC's eagerness to publicise actions regarding Operation Yewtree is a ploy to distract from their own failings surrounding their presenters and entertainers of the 70s. They have their agenda behind the way in which they report these cases, and sadly I do not feel it is "for the victims". It is the government and BBC saying "LOOK LOOK... We are doing something NOW! OMG LOOK"

..."no no dont look over there..ignore the destroyed dosiers, and definately dont look under that carpet or in that closet..."


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry, I don't understand your reply. How can the BBC not showing the truth be an illustration of fre press?


I said it is free. Not necessarily an entirely accurate portrayal of events. You on the other hand are free to choose, from multiple sources of media coverage, which you prefer to believe.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> Which organisation or individual would you like to nominate then as the sole source for disseminating information with their take on the "facts" ?


There isn't one - that's the whole point.

The old sixties saying springs to mind:

We are all treated like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed a load of bulls---t

It was true then and it's true now.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> I said it is free. Not necessarily an entirely accurate portrayal of events. You on the other hand are free to choose, from multiple sources of media coverage, which you prefer to believe.


hmm. So your definition of a free press is one that is free to promote untruths. Interesting.

How can we ever believe such a press? How do we therefore know that what they are printing about this case - or any cse for that matter - is true?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> Which organisation or individual would you like to nominate then as the sole source for disseminating information with their take on the "facts" ?


Out of my whole post you picked up on that 

There isn't a sole source, I found the statement funny, nothing more, nothing less :idea:


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> There isn't one - that's the whole point.


There are plenty of them around the world representing (or rather NOT representing) many many millions of people. My only point is that given the choice of that and what we have in the UK I would opt for the latter every time. It is far from perfect, granted, but surely preferable?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Now your definititon of witch hunt may be different to mine - but to me that sure sounds like a witch hunt.


Where have I shown the slightest bias as to guilt or innocence on here? I don't fall into the 'I love him so he must be innocent' camp nor have I subscribed to the idea that he must be guilty because Mistletoe & Wine wasn't exactly a work of musical genius. There are some very strange aspects of this particular police action and to suggest we cannot discuss them is a step down a dangerous road.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Out of my whole post you picked up on that


As you seem to want me to comment on your other points and, very fortunately, I have the freedom to do so, I will. I don't really understand this...

"Idol gossip in a pup or where ever does not immortalize that opinion as fact forever more... Just because others do something does not make that something right!"

... so I won't comment on that at all.

Taking part in a specific discussion (for example the threads here re high profile people) simply to say 'we shouldn't be discussing it', does, in my opinion, fuel that discussion and prompt even greater input from those who are keen to convince us of their wacky notions. And just to be clear - I've NO interest whatsoever in discussing (nor do I even barely skim read news articles) such things. I am though pretty interested in the law, how cases are reported and so on which is why I contributed to Janice's thread in the first place.

You said "yet it's A-OK to run down a man because OMG his house has been raided... Because the police and the press are completely infallible, and have never made a mistake...ever. Now THAT is hypocrisy".

Who is saying it's A-OK to... etc? Not me, nor anyone else as far as I can see. I would however defend anyone's right to do so. That I might think they're talking claptrap, being a hypocrite, etc, is neither here nor there.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> There are plenty of them around the world representing (or rather NOT representing) many many millions of people. My only point is that given the choice of that and what we have in the UK I would opt for the latter every time. It is far from perfect, granted, but surely preferable?


It's better than some, but it's much worse than others. ANY media that does not report bald facts, or that reports a slanted version of the facts, is not to be trusted. Just because it's "our" version of the facts does not make it any more correct - or morally right - than any "other" version of the facts.

I realise that we will never attain absolute honesty in the press - each individual part of our media is goverened by the owner's politics and the need to attract viewers/readers rather than reporting bald facts. What I am saying is that we sould not be blind to the dishonesty, and we should not trust "our" media just because it is "our" media.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

havoc said:


> *Where have I shown the slightest bias as to guilt or innocence on here?* I don't fall into the 'I love him so he must be innocent' camp nor have I subscribed to the idea that he must be guilty because Mistletoe & Wine wasn't exactly a work of musical genius.


Where have I said you have?

The comment you quoted from me about a witch hunt was about the people who prefer to believe the lies rather than the facts - what made you attribute that to yourself?



havoc said:


> There are some very strange aspects of this particular police action and to suggest we cannot discuss them is a step down a dangerous road.


But are the strange aspects facts or supposiitions?

There is nothing wrong in discussing facts. The most dangerous road is allowing the suppositions to be discussed so much that people start to believe they are facts and forget to challenge them.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> The most dangerous road is allowing the suppositions to be discussed so much that people start to believe they are facts and forget to challenge them.


How would one disallow discussion? Would you even really want to? You included the words "so much" - does this mean we allow a certain amount of discussion with some kind of cut off point? Or a time limit? Or some form of stupidity-o-meter to filter out what you or I or the next person (bearing in mind we'll see things differently) believes to be the most ridiculous?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> The most dangerous road is allowing the suppositions to be discussed so much that people start to believe they are facts and forget to challenge them.


How do you decide what's discussed then? How do you decide what is fact? Discussion is the very challenge you desire. Without it there is no questioning of what we're told.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Or some form of stupidity-o-meter to filter out what you or I or the next person (bearing in mind we'll see things differently) believes to be the most ridiculous?


Now you're talking :lol:


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> As you seem to want me to comment on your other points and, very fortunately, I have the freedom to do so, I will. I don't really understand this...
> 
> "Idol gossip in a pup or where ever does not immortalize that opinion as fact forever more... Just because others do something does not make that something right!"
> 
> ...


Considering this thread is titled "*Should* these threads be allowed*?*"your point is a bit moot.
I did not take part in the thread that was closed because I am not a hypocrite, so will not partake in idol gossip THAT COULD RUIN A MANS LIFE. But as this thread is posing a question I decided to put my point across....

Just by joining in with the "He's guilty" threads many *are* implying it is ok to ruin a man with nothing more than hearsay from tabloids that have proved they will stretch the truth just to get a story out there...

But as it is everyone's right to say as they wish, who cares right?

FWIW: I couldn't care less if you had replied to my post, I found it interesting that me finding something funny was the only thing you did pick up on.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> Now you're talking :lol:


I think electricity should be involved. Or at the very least a slap round the head with a rolled up Sun newspaper. No, that's out of print isn't it. Electric then.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> But as it is everyone's right to say as they wish, who cares right?


Just as it's everyone's right to agree or disagree with what someone says. You don't have to agree with a viewpoint to want to defend the individual's right to hold it and voice it.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Once it's out in the media why shouldn't we talk about it, the really thing about this sort of thing is they shouldn't be named until there are charges made, what ever happens now mud sticks.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> so will not partake in idol gossip THAT COULD RUIN A MANS LIFE


Should it come to it, I don't think anything from Petforums will be used in evidence. But I completely accept your right to express the opinion that idle gossip may affect the outcome of any prosecution should there be one.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

havoc said:


> Just as it's everyone's right to agree or disagree with what someone says. You don't have to agree with a viewpoint to want to defend the individual's right to hold it and voice it.


I was being sarcastic.

Just because someone has a "right" to do something, does not make it right.
With rights comes responsibilities, but no one cares about that because they have a "right" to talk about what they want 

I think some (generally, not aimed at anyone) need to take a step back and work out how they would feel if one of their own was effected by claims such as child molestation or rape. They need to have a long hard think about how they would feel when say 10 years down the line that family member is STILL known as "that person that was accused of -insert crime-"

I will be honest and say 10 years ago I had no opinion on this, I too felt that people had a right to say what they wished...And then my BIL and best friend was falsely accused of rape and even tho he has been proved to be innocent (100%) he is still facing backlash today and he isn't famous or interesting to anyone outside the family...

I am not saying that the crime should not be reported on, what I am saying is names should be emitted until there are actual facts pinning the person of the crime, that is all!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> Should it come to it, I don't think anything from Petforums will be used in evidence. But I completely accept your right to express the opinion that idle gossip may affect the outcome of any prosecution should there be one.


I did not say that and you know I did not say that


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> I did not say that and you know I did not say that


What ARE you saying then?

Come on, otherwise I'll have to go find my mini generator and electrodes


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> What ARE you saying then?
> 
> Come on, otherwise I'll have to go find my mini generator and electrodes


Maybe reading my posts in there entirety might help there :idea:


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Maybe reading my posts in there entirety might help there :idea:


I really did (read them entirely). I'm struggling. You said you would not partake in idle gossip that could ruin a man's life. I assumed you meant that you believed idle gossip could (either in itself or by the addition of, I'm not sure) ruin a man's life.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Wait! I gotcha.

ETA: I was reading your comments in relation to what this thread was about, i.e. should we be talking (gossiping, discussing, call it what you will) about potential criminal charges and what surrounds it/them until a court case has taken place and a guilty verdict reached. Hence I thought you were suggesting that discussion would impact that.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Now, Now, calm down, this is getting a little out of hand.:yikes:


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> As for a free press - do we really have that? I have grave reservations about how the press report things. We regularly watch different news channels - including Al Jazeera - in our house. It's amazing how one set of circumstances can be given different spins by different media. The one in particular that sticks in my mind is Thatcher's funeral. If you watched the BBC, you would have no idea of the extent of the protest during the funeral itself because the BBC showed very little of it. Al Jazeera showed footage of crowds with anti-Thatcher placards turning their backs to the coffin in protest in many places along the route. That's obviously something that the government and the BBC didn't want us to see or know about. So how free is our press really?


I think that is probably not so much related to freedom of the press as _bias_ in the press. If there were no freedom of the press, then only state approved coverage would be allowed and doled out, and no non-govenment news agecies would be permitted on pain of arrest etc. Think China or North Korea, that kind of thing.

Bias in a particular agency is another thing entirely, from which political party they support to their stance on popular issues of the day. Taking the Thatcher footage (an event I didn't bother wathcing at all), I don't for an instant doubt that either the BBC or alternative news outlets presented an accurate representation of the protests - one under-representing the other over representing. And neither is better, but it is the way it is.

As to the main thread issue, the problem with censorship is, once you start, where do you stop? Do you have a blanket ban on any alleged criminal of any type being named before conviction? Only certain offences? If so, which ones? Do you go so far as to allow no police appeals for witnesses/victims which may be crucial in abuse cases but also involve naming a suspected individual? Can you arrest anyone talking seen talking about it? Very big can of worms indeed, is censorship.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I think that is probably not so much related to freedom of the press as bias in the press


Bias I'm not so bothered about. People choose their news quite deliberately. Manipulation is a different matter altogether.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> Manipulation is a different matter altogether.


And not only of but by - unless that's what you meant anyway. It'll be interesting to see, if (as we seem to now be talking specifically about Cliff Richard) the BBC maintain they had prior knowledge, whether they are forced to disclose their source.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I don't understand how omitting a name from a case until actual proof is found suddenly jumps to censorship..

Having the empathy to know that saying someones name linked with certain crimes means that for the rest of their life they are forever known as "that person that did" innocent or not does not equate to wanting or agreeing with censorship.


JMHO of course.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> And not only of but by


Both but 'of' is more important. We know the media are biased and will attempt to manipulate opinion. When the media is being manipulated then we don't know who is pulling those strings or why.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> I think that is probably not so much related to freedom of the press as _bias_ in the press. If there were no freedom of the press, then only state approved coverage would be allowed and doled out, and no non-govenment news agecies would be permitted on pain of arrest etc. Think China or North Korea, that kind of thing.
> 
> Bias in a particular agency is another thing entirely, from which political party they support to their stance on popular issues of the day. Taking the Thatcher footage (an event I didn't bother wathcing at all), I don't for an instant doubt that either the BBC or alternative news outlets presented an accurate representation of the protests - one under-representing the other over representing. And neither is better, but it is the way it is.
> 
> As to the main thread issue, the problem with censorship is, once you start, where do you stop? Do you have a blanket ban on any alleged criminal of any type being named before conviction? Only certain offences? If so, which ones? Do you go so far as to allow no police appeals for witnesses/victims which may be crucial in abuse cases but also involve naming a suspected individual? Can you arrest anyone talking seen talking about it? Very big can of worms indeed, is censorship.


*The only thing i say again is this. I do not believe it is fair to name anyone of anything until they have been proved guilty.
Are we so shallow we can't wait until the police or courts have dealt with these people? If we are, it says a lot about the human race.*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Are we so shallow we can't wait until the police or courts have dealt with these people?


Are we so shallow as to believe all convictions are secure and all acquittals a true picture?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

havoc said:


> Are we so shallow as to believe all convictions are secure and all acquittals a true picture?


*I don't think i have said anywhere, any different. The best we have in this country is the justice system.*


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> The only thing i say again is this. I do not believe it is fair to name anyone of anything until they have been proved guilty.
> *Are we so shallow we can't wait until the police or courts have dealt with these people?* If we are, it says a lot about the human race.


In my experience, for a significant number of people, car park puddles are deeper. It's the only way to explain the popularity of gossip rags! 

For example, suppose it WAS the case that for abuse/molestation charges you withold the name of the alleged offender.

Now, as an obvious example, Cliff Richard's apartment is raided, not a location or event you can easily disguise. And you can't announce WHY you raided the apartment, so 'for undisclosed reasons' is the standard fallback.

Problem is, people aren't easily fobbed off, and are perfectly capable of making the jump from 'for undisclosed reasons' to 'something involving abuse and possibly kiddy fiddling' - even if that's not the actual case. So you're not really any better off than in the first place, except the wild speculation will be unconfirmed rather than confirmed reasons.

So, what do you do? If the incident is reported in the media, then the speculation is going to kick off no matter what. So the logical conclusion is to put out an injunction preventing reporting of the incident in the media.

Of course, that still doesn't help if even one person facebooks/tweets "Just seen the plods searching Cliff Richard's apartment!"

And hey, I'm not saying I have the answers. But I do know human nature is such that short of censoring certain crime investigations from the public domain completely, you're not going to reduce speculation in the slightest. Which is where you start exploring the realms of censorship.


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

I agree with Stormy Thai, they should not release names until the case is done. A man's life could be ruined, career ruined, as well as not being able to get over something like that, look at Kevin from Corrie. People always remember negative comments about someone over positive ones, give a dog a bad name and it sticks. 

For the record, I don't believe Cliff is guilty regardless of what they say (personally don't believe Rolf Harris is really either that much), something just doesn't sit right, IMO people are jumping on the bandwagon either because they've seen how easy it is to accuse someone for something, revenge or for compo payout. What are they going to do? Lock up everyone famous from the 70's/80's? It's 20-30 years ago, things were done differently then and time's moved on. It's like going to a shop today and demanding they recompense something that stopped working when it was bought two decades ago! Its actually quite scary how easy it is to get someone into trouble, what if you had a grudge against your neighbour? How easy it would be for some messed up mindsets to accuse them of something and suddenly your neighbour will never be looked at the same way again. Awful.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

Cruella De Vil said:


> For the record, I don't believe Cliff is guilty regardless of what they say (personally don't believe Rolf Harris is really either that much), something just doesn't sit right, IMO people are jumping on the bandwagon either because they've seen how easy it is to accuse someone for something, revenge or for compo payout. .


Believe me it's not easy to accuse someone of rape/abuse. They questioning by the police goes on for days, there is a physical examination if recent. You then wait weeks for the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to take it to court.

It's a degrading horrible experience and tears you apart


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

cloversmum said:


> Believe me it's not easy to accuse someone of rape/abuse. They questioning by the police goes on for days, there is a physical examination if recent. You then wait weeks for the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to take it to court.
> 
> It's a degrading horrible experience and tears you apart


If they physically examine you, how on earth are they getting anywhere with cases going back to the 80's? That means they've literally only got what people say to go on, and if they think there's a big payout at the end of it, some people will say anything.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

Cruella De Vil said:


> If they physically examine you, how on earth are they getting anywhere with cases going back to the 80's? That means they've literally only got what people say to go on, and if they think there's a big payout at the end of it, some people will say anything.


The CPS need a 70/80% chance of conviction to proceed with a case, so lots of evidence. Not all victims are in it for the money. It's about been heard and believed . and i did say if it was recent a examination is done


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cloversmum said:


> Believe me it's not easy to accuse someone of rape/abuse. They questioning by the police goes on for days, there is a physical examination if recent. You then wait weeks for the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to take it to court.
> 
> It's a degrading horrible experience and tears you apart


You are right, it isn't a nice experience and one that many don't wish to be put through.

It is sickening that some will go through the process as a form of revenge, I know of one person (my sister, well only in paperwork, we no longer speak after this) that has accused 3 men of rape with 2 cases going all the way to court. 2 were boyfriends and 1 was her husband, she appears to use it as a way of escaping relationships.
Thankfully the police seem to be waking up to her and are viewing the latest accusation with great scepticism 

Personally I think that people that are found to make this stuff up should have very, very hard punishments because for every false case there is a legitimate one getting passed over


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> You are right, it isn't a nice experience and one that many don't wish to be put through.
> 
> It is sickening that some will go through the process as a form of revenge, I know of one person (my sister, well only in paperwork, we no longer speak after this) that has accused 3 men of rape with 2 cases going all the way to court. 2 were boyfriends and 1 was her husband, she appears to use it as a way of escaping relationships.
> Thankfully the police seem to be waking up to her and are viewing the latest accusation with great scepticism
> ...


Dear lord that is horrific. I juried a rape case, not a pleasant experience.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Dear lord that is horrific. I juried a rape case, not a pleasant experience.


She still to this day does not realise why she lost her sister and many friends after actions even after many people trying to spell it out to her 

She was even sick enough to use word for word what happened when I was raped :nonod:

I suppose she is the main reason why I think that names shouldn't be announced until actual proof has been found.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> She still to this day does not realise why she lost her sister and many friends after actions even after many people trying to spell it out to her
> 
> She was even sick enough to use word for word what happened when I was raped :nonod:
> 
> I suppose she is the main reason why I think that names shouldn't be announced until actual proof has been found.


Oh my god. There really should be some sort of penalty for crying rape. Interestingly we found the chap not guility. Her story simply did not add up


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Oh my god. There really should be some sort of penalty for crying rape. Interestingly we found the chap not guility. Her story simply did not add up


They can be arrested for wasting police time, but that is quite hard to prove.
The police have to be careful, because just because the defendant was found not guilty that does not mean that the victim was lying.

So yeah, many that do lie will just get away with it yet the person they accused will always have the label hanging around them


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

This hasnt just popped up out of the blue, police have been investigating Cliff Richard for a year, but i agree that people who are accuse of sexual crimes should be granted anonymity, i have felt so sorry for people who have been accused then found to be innocent in my local paper, but if they are going to name the accused then they should also name the accuser
I somehow cant imagine him doing anything like this, but if he has been under investigation for so long it does make you wonder ,


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> This hasnt just popped up out of the blue, police have been investigating Cliff Richard for a year, but i agree that people who are accuse of sexual crimes should be granted anonymity, i have felt so sorry for people who have been accused then found to be innocent in my local paper, but if they are going to name the accused then they should also name the accuser
> I somehow cant imagine him doing anything like this, but if he has been under investigation for so long it does make you wonder ,


So, OK, let's just say the accused (any accused) did do the crime they're accused of. Let's just say that the crime was recent (as per Clover's Mum's post). Do you REALLY, think it's fair that the victim goes through extremely rigorous questioning, spelling out EXACTLY what happened to them (saying the accused touched a private area doesn't cut it for the courts, or the police - they want to know where the incident took place, when, where the accused touched, what they did, how it made you feel), reliving every little bit of the ordeal, going through an extremely invasive exam - and then having their names plastered all over the tabloids?

Do you really think that's fair? Have you ever actually sat there when someone's gone through all that, when the accused was a close relative of theirs and had the accused's name plastered all over the papers, and then again on FB? Have you actually seen them crumble and break before your eyes when it's not even their own name in the papers?

I'm not saying it's right for the accused to be named and shamed before the verdict, but it's hard enough for a victim of sex crimes to go through the whole process of going to the police and hopefully collecting evidence in the first place, without having the media flashing cameras in their faces and plastering their names all over the papers.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Maybe i worded it wrongly, i was thinking more of after the accused has been found not guilty, the accuser should be named, and usually they are not, so i am sorry if it sounded as if i wanted the victim to go public with all that had happened to them, although i believe the victim does have to go through all that happened to them
What should happen is the accused shouldnt be named unless found guilty, but again there would always be someone who knew the person and leaked the name,


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> Maybe i worded it wrongly, i was thinking more of after the accused has been found not guilty, the accuser should be named, and usually they are not, so i am sorry if it sounded as if i wanted the victim to go public with all that had happened to them, although i believe the victim does have to go through all that happened to them
> What should happen is the accused shouldnt be named unless found guilty, but again there would always be someone who knew the person and leaked the name,


So what if they were found not guilty and actually DID do the crime? Not guilty doesn't mean Innocent. It means the defence council did a better job at persuading the jury, or their witnesses were more believable, or (as happened to someone I know) relatives of the victim made the story about themselves when it had nothing whatsoever to do with them.

What you _believe _about what the victim has to go through to get their case to court is neither here nor there to me. I've done it. I've gone through the process, and in the end the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Last year/this year I had to relive that again, read the words my 13y/o self said in the statement and say to the police officer, again, that it's as true as I can remember all these years later.

Now, if and when the alleged victim is found out to have made it all up, THEN they should have their names plastered across the tabloids, and hauled over the coals, taken to court and convicted of slander/libel and wasting police time.

No wonder genuine victims find it hard to come forward if people out there think they should be named and shamed if the attacker simply does a better job than them of persuading the jury :frown2:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> I agree with Stormy Thai, they should not release names until the case is done. A man's life could be ruined, career ruined, as well as not being able to get over something like that, look at Kevin from Corrie. People always remember negative comments about someone over positive ones, give a dog a bad name and it sticks.
> 
> For the record, I don't believe Cliff is guilty regardless of what they say (personally don't believe Rolf Harris is really either that much), something just doesn't sit right, IMO people are jumping on the bandwagon either because they've seen how easy it is to accuse someone for something, revenge or for compo payout. What are they going to do? Lock up everyone famous from the 70's/80's? It's 20-30 years ago, things were done differently then and time's moved on. It's like going to a shop today and demanding they recompense something that stopped working when it was bought two decades ago! Its actually quite scary how easy it is to get someone into trouble, what if you had a grudge against your neighbour? How easy it would be for some messed up mindsets to accuse them of something and suddenly your neighbour will never be looked at the same way again. Awful.


abuse is abuse is abuse and victims from 20 to 30 years ago are still suffering and their lives have been damaged.

you can't compare somebody's wrecked life with some trinket bought in a shop .


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> abuse is abuse is abuse and victims from 20 to 30 years ago are still suffering and their lives have been damaged.
> 
> you can't compare somebody's wrecked life with some trinket bought in a shop .


So true my life has been wrecked by the abuse/rape I went through


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> So true my life has been wrecked by the abuse/rape I went through


It must be a horrendous thing to live with. I really hope you don't mind me asking, ignore me if you do, but do you think finite resources are being best used in these historical cases? In an ideal world of course no abuser would get away with it but I am increasingly starting to feel that these high profile cases are diverting attention (and precious resources) from what's happening to children right now.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> So what if they were found not guilty and actually DID do the crime? Not guilty doesn't mean Innocent. It means the defence council did a better job at persuading the jury, or their witnesses were more believable, or (as happened to someone I know) relatives of the victim made the story about themselves when it had nothing whatsoever to do with them.
> 
> What you _believe _about what the victim has to go through to get their case to court is neither here nor there to me. I've done it. I've gone through the process, and in the end the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Last year/this year I had to relive that again, read the words my 13y/o self said in the statement and say to the police officer, again, that it's as true as I can remember all these years later.
> 
> ...


So if you dont believe in the justice system, whats the alternative?


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

havoc said:


> It must be a horrendous thing to live with. I really hope you don't mind me asking, ignore me if you do, but do you think finite resources are being best used in these historical cases? In an ideal world of course no abuser would get away with it but I am increasingly starting to feel that these high profile cases are diverting attention (and precious resources) from what's happening to children right now.


I tried to take my abusers to court in my late 30's so it would have been seen as historic abuse. However it didn't go to court as my support were worried my mental health wouldn't cope. So I was relocated by the police and had my surname changed.

So to answer your question, I believe all survivors have a right to be heard and believed how ever long ago it was. Most survivors have been told not to tell, been threatened, so it's only many years later they feel strong enough, or when they see others telling

The people who cry rape are a minority compared to the many victims out there, who deserve support however long ago it happned


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

I think these historical cases are important - they are showing abusers, and abused, that you cant always run and hide and buy your way out of your crimes. Abuse the trust of a child and your not safe from the law until the grave.
And for the abused - its never too late to get the courage to speak up.


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> abuse is abuse is abuse and victims from 20 to 30 years ago are still suffering and their lives have been damaged.
> 
> you can't compare somebody's wrecked life with some trinket bought in a shop .


No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

But discipline in schools was legal back then....to my knowledge child abuse has never been legal, certainly not in our lifetimes! That arguement is like saying if you murdered someone 20 yrs ago then its best forgotten about!
These cases need to be heard to give the victims some kind of closure. Whats scary though is how pervasive abuse (children and casual sexism type abuse) seemed to be back in the 70s.
I dont agree with naming and shaming people before the evidence is in though. If you are going to destroy someone life with that kind of accusation then you need to be sure it is warranted...


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


child sex abuse is out there on its own at the top of the tree and it wrecks lives and for whatever reason, some victims keep quiet. I am not and never have been a victim but I have seen with my own eyes how devastating it is.

Just because child molesters get old, it doesn't mean that they stop abusing children. In the past it was so much more difficult for victims to report abuse and be believed and many suffered in silence.

I agree, times change, people's attitudes to some things do change....its never going to change where children are raped and abused.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


You seem to be confusing what is and always was a criminal offence with what is and isn't socially acceptable.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


even back in your nan's day, some people would have been outraged at her wearing a fur coat


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Its worth remember that the historic cases are being sentanced according to the time it was committed...

So physical punishment of a child in the 60s would not be convicted of a crime, as it was not a crime when it was carried out...


Also comparing wearing a mink coat to abusing a child sexually in terms of social acceptance is ridiculous, and frankly an insult to those who are victims of abuse.


----------



## LDK1 (Oct 1, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> Just because child molesters get old, it doesn't mean that they stop abusing children.


... or other adults. ^^^ This is a very good point!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> So if you dont believe in the justice system, whats the alternative?


I never said I didn't believe in the justice system, but it's a fact - not all people who are found Not Guilty are actually innocent, and I stand by what I said - victims or alleged victims, don't deserve to be named and shamed because the defence council did their job.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Cruella De Vil said:


> I agree with Stormy Thai, they should not release names until the case is done. A man's life could be ruined, career ruined, as well as not being able to get over something like that, look at Kevin from Corrie. People always remember negative comments about someone over positive ones, give a dog a bad name and it sticks.
> 
> For the record, I don't believe Cliff is guilty regardless of what they say (personally don't believe Rolf Harris is really either that much), something just doesn't sit right, IMO people are jumping on the bandwagon either because they've seen how easy it is to accuse someone for something, revenge or for compo payout. What are they going to do? Lock up everyone famous from the 70's/80's? It's 20-30 years ago, things were done differently then and time's moved on. It's like going to a shop today and demanding they recompense something that stopped working when it was bought two decades ago! Its actually quite scary how easy it is to get someone into trouble, what if you had a grudge against your neighbour? How easy it would be for some messed up mindsets to accuse them of something and suddenly your neighbour will never be looked at the same way again. Awful.


I'm sorry but how do you know what Cliff Richard does in his private life? Why would you not believe it 'regardless of what they say'? Do you not believe that he signed into the Elm guest house? A known paedophile party.

Why do you not believe Rolf Harris? His letters all but confessed it to one girls father.

Is it the image that they have projected as a celebrity? Do you feel you somehow know them because you have seen them on tv? Because if so you need to re-evaluate how you see things. What you see of these people is a projected image that they want people to see. Why would a celebrity admit to the general public they are aroused by children? They want the fame and admiration so what they project to the public is what they want you to believe and you know absolutely nothing about these people and what makes them tick.

If a man down the street can be a sex offender so can the beloved Cliff Richard.



Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. *Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop?* Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


What does time matter. A wrong deed is a wrong deed and raping a child is completely wrong and the person should be brought to justice.

Do you think the Nazi's should not be brought to justice any more as time has past? The ones who placed young children and thousands of people into a gas chamber to die? Does it not matter what they did any more as it was a long time ago?

My Grandfather was the same age as Cliff, he never thought it acceptable to molest children. It wasn't a different time back then and wrong is wrong, no matter when it happened.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> I never said I didn't believe in the justice system, but it's a fact - not all people who are found Not Guilty are actually innocent, and I stand by what I said - victims or alleged victims, don't deserve to be named and shamed because the defence council did their job.


This is so true. Not guilty just means they couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt, guilty people walk free everyday. OJ Simpson was found not guilty.

It has happened in a case of my family, someone has got free because of technicality. The person is obviously guilty, but is now walking free.


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> I never said I didn't believe in the justice system, but it's a fact - not all people who are found Not Guilty are actually innocent, and I stand by what I said - victims or alleged victims, don't deserve to be named and shamed because the defence council did their job.


That's true, but it works the other way too, that people found guilty can be innocent. Look at those who were wrongly given the death penalty years ago. Two sayings come to mind, 'there's three sides to ever story, yours, mine and the truth' and 'believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see'.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Cruella De Vil said:


> That's true, but it works the other way too, that people found guilty can be innocent. Look at those who were wrongly given the death penalty years ago. Two sayings come to mind, 'there's three sides to ever story, yours, mine and the truth' and 'believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see'.


If you really believe this saying how can you be so sure that Cliff Richard is innocent?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


If I had done what you are suggesting and left the past in the past then the lowlife that spent many years abusing me would have gone on to abuse many others. As it was it took me over 15 years before I was brave enough to report the crime... For many years I was led to believe that no one would believe me, especially as the man was a family friend..

As it was he did abuse two other children after me, and to this day I feel guilty as hell because IF I had been able to come forward sooner then maybe, just maybe he wouldn't have ruined 2 other peoples lives :nonod:

You can not under any circumstances compare a mink coat or canning at school with sexual abuse...It's not even in the same ball park let alone the same town.

It's not as easy as just running to the nearest adult in these situations, the mental torment is just as bad if not worse than the physical abuse.. you are left as an empty shell


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Does it not matter what they did any more as it was a long time ago?


Of course it matters but that isn't really what I was asking in my post. In a world of finite resources it's a question of what 'matters' more, stopping/preventing current abuse or getting justice for historical abuse. In a perfect world I know the answer would be both but we don't live in a perfect world.


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> I'm sorry but how do you know what Cliff Richard does in his private life? Why would you not believe it 'regardless of what they say'? Do you not believe that he signed into the Elm guest house? A known paedophile party.
> 
> *Why do you not believe Rolf Harris?* His letters all but confessed it to one girls father.
> 
> ...


BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Cruella De Vil said:


> That's true, but it works the other way too, that people found guilty can be innocent. Look at those who were wrongly given the death penalty years ago. Two sayings come to mind, 'there's three sides to ever story, yours, mine and the truth' and 'believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see'.


Totally agree that innocent people are sent down too, but, just to play devil's advocate here, that doesn't mean CR or RH are innocent. The jury are human and we humans are fallible creatures.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


To quote you 'believe half of what you see'!

Its a facade, an act for people to let their guards down and let them into their lives and you know who are the best at that? Paedophiles. They are usually the most charming and charismatic people around and they worm their way in to peoples lives.

The people on tv are acting, even the ones who are only presenting, it's not real.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Cruella De Vil said:


> I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you


Do you really believe that the two are, necessarily, mutually inclusive? I'm not going to get dragged into a conversation about specific events and people but you do realise that all kinds of people have all kinds of jobs (including TV presenters working with cute kittens and pups) that they actually don't like that much? It's a living, particularly for TV presenters whose public image may suit a particular genre of TV work.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


plenty Psychopaths.....or people without empathy and like violence to put it very in a nutshell.....love animals and are unbelievably cruel towards people and show no compassion there at all.

I grew up in the 60s watching Rolf Harris, then he was on TV all the time in the 70s and again 80s....a household name...who hasn't heard of Rolf Harris? and I agree, plenty innocent people get convicted for stuff they didn't do but in RH case, I think he did.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


I know of a man that treats animals/pets very well, but is manipulative, abusive and violent when it comes to people(including his own mother and partners). Treatment of animals is not indication of a good person. And strange to take that "gut feeling" above the fact that he wrote an actual letter to explain his actions to the victims father.....

(Read the psychopath test for examples of how one can be selfish, cruel and manipulative whilst outwardly appearing charismatic, or kind to animals etc)


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


maybe its because Rolf Harris and several more were part of your childhood and growing up....put a smile on your face and gave you something good to think about and now admitting that these people did terrible things is a betrayal and rocks your world a bit about what was really going on back then and smiling for the camera at the same time.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> I know of a man that treats animals/pets very well, but is manipulative, abusive and violent when it comes to people(including his own mother and partners). Treatment of animals is not indication of a good person. And strange to take that "gut feeling" above the fact that he wrote an actual letter to explain his actions to the victims father.....
> 
> (Read the psychopath test for examples of how one can be selfish, cruel and manipulative whilst outwardly appearing charismatic, or kind to animals etc)


so agree with this one...but people being cruel to animals too also indicates who they really are and shouldn't be trusted around people.

tests done on psychopathic prisoners as a part of a huge study showed many people who were cruel to people started off being cruel to animals and upped it a few gears.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


I was shocked when Rolf Harris was arrested, didn't seem credible but now look at the evidence and it wasn't just him nipping some gooey eyed teenagers bum.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


I guess you've heard of a dog named Blondi? She and several other pet dogs were much loved and pampered by their owner according to all historical accounts. If you're not familiar, ask Google who owned Blondi.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

lilythepink said:


> so agree with this one...but people being cruel to animals too also indicates who they really are and shouldn't be trusted around people.
> 
> tests done on psychopathic prisoners as a part of a huge study showed many people who were cruel to people started off being cruel to animals and upped it a few gears.


My point was more that just because someone *isnt* cruel, doesnt mean they are a good guy. 
Animal abuse and people abuse are undeniably linked, however you can easily have one without the other and people can be awful human beings whilst still being an animal lover


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> My point was more that just because someone *isnt* cruel, doesnt mean they are a good guy.
> Animal abuse and people abuse are undeniably linked, however you can easily have one without the other and people can be awful human beings whilst still being an animal lover


yes....you put it so much better than I did. thank you


----------



## Cruella De Vil (Sep 25, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> maybe its because Rolf Harris and several more were part of your childhood and growing up....put a smile on your face and gave you something good to think about and now admitting that these people did terrible things is a betrayal and rocks your world a bit about what was really going on back then and smiling for the camera at the same time.


Maybe there's something in that Lily.

Though I genuinely think that those who love animals can't be truly evil (unless their deranged somehow). Its a scientific fact that people who do terrible things to others usually start off doing sick things to animals first. If you can't harm an animal, why would you want to harm a person? If you value the life and feelings of a (and I use this term loosely, personally I believe were equal) 'dumb animal' surely you hold the life and feelings of anther human in even higher regard?



gskinner123 said:


> I guess you've heard of a dog named Blondi? She and several other pet dogs were much loved and pampered by their owner according to all historical accounts. If you're not familiar, ask Google who owned Blondi.


I'd never heard of Blondi, got a bit of a shock when I googled it.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Cruella De Vil said:


> No obviously you can't, but the idea is still the same. Complaining about something decades after it's happened. Where does it stop? Your obviously going to find things out about people from years back as the way things were done then wasn't the same. My nan had a full length mink coat in her closet when the house was sorted out, you'd probably outrage someone by walking around in it now as it'd be seen as cruel and unsavoury but when she would have worn it, the were what everyone had, the fashion of the time. It'll be people next, saying of the 'trauma' they suffered at school because teachers used to give them the cane and putting in complaints against the school and the teacher that walloped them. Even though it happened decades ago in a time when that was the done thing with different rules to today. Nowadays, it would be classed as abuse, but back then it was discipline and nobody batted an eyelid. There's enough crimes about today, focus on those and leave the past where it belongs - in the past.


Personally I find it incredibly crass comparing child sex abuse to wearing a fur coat or caning. Can you not imagine the devastation and ruined lives it causes - it doesn't go away simply because it was a long time ago



Cruella De Vil said:


> BIB: I don't know why, I just don't for some reason. It doesn't add up to me, I (like millions of others) remember him on Animal Hospital, I loved him on it. *I don't believe that anyone who genuinely loves animals is truly evil*. How can they be? If you love, care for and have compassion for a defenceless animal there has to be good and compassion for other beings in you. He loved the pets bought into the programme and was sickened by cruelty cases. That to me is not the actions of someone doing what he's been accused of. Like I said, the two don't add up for me.


Wasn't Hitler an animal lover - can't see much good or compassion for others there


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Hitler had Blondi at least maybe others, she died in the bunker with him. Napoleon had briards. Alexander the great held full funeral rites for his mastiff and the grief over losing his horse probably contributed to his death. Loving animals doesn't make you a good person


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I thought the cat poo in the garden thread was an eye opener, some of the comments on here are jaw droppingly awful


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Cruella De Vil said:


> Maybe there's something in that Lily.
> 
> Though I genuinely think that those who love animals can't be truly evil (unless their deranged somehow). Its a scientific fact that people who do terrible things to others usually start off doing sick things to animals first. If you can't harm an animal, why would you want to harm a person? If you value the life and feelings of a (and I use this term loosely, personally I believe were equal) 'dumb animal' surely you hold the life and feelings of anther human in even higher regard?
> 
> I'd never heard of Blondi, got a bit of a shock when I googled it.


There is a link between animal abuse and human abuse but they are not perminantly linked and each one can and does exist in its own right.

In psychopaths they cannot empathise, and some see animals as "property", they do not care for animals because they empathise with them; they care for them because they value property above anything else.

The fact is, RH was found guilty of abusing his young daughters friend. He wrote a letter of apology to her father. He admitted, in court, to having a darker side to his public face. These are things that cannot be denied, as they came from his own mouth.. regardless of his public face and work on some animal TV show, he did act selfishly, and manipulatively for his own desires and with total disregard for the welllbeing of others.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes Hitler loved his dog, but tested cyanide capsules on it which killed the dog
So did he love it that much?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Can I please be the first to say...

"should we openly talk about alleged crimes before its been convicted in court"
.
.
.
.
.
\/
"Hitler had a dog"










Sorry Jan


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

403 Forbidden


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> Can I please be the first to say...
> 
> "should we openly talk about alleged crimes before its been convicted in court"
> .
> ...


*One of the best posts on this thread. lmao.:thumbup::lol::lol:*


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

havoc said:


> 403 Forbidden


Godwins Law?!?! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Crikey, this thread's moved on a bit while I've been at work! Just catching up ...



gskinner123 said:


> How would one disallow discussion? Would you even really want to? You included the words "so much" - does this mean we allow a certain amount of discussion with some kind of cut off point? Or a time limit? Or some form of stupidity-o-meter to filter out what you or I or the next person (bearing in mind we'll see things differently) believes to be the most ridiculous?


No matter how differently people see things, there is still a line to be drawn between facts and suppositions. One or two people self-righteously pulling someone to pieces over the garden fence when there is no factual basis for them to do so is a whole different ball game than internet sites allowing thousands of people to do the same.

When it was just a couple of locals doing the gossip, it could be managed. People knew not to believe gossips. Gossips were avoided and derided. When the gossip goes viral on the net, it can't be managed. For some reason, different rules are applied to gossip seen in this way. People seem to want to believe what they see on dodgy sites and even more dodgy videos when they wouldn't believe the same thing if it were just Mrs so-and-so down the road saying it. Somehow, it gains kudos and people suddenly want to give it the credence the would never have given non-internet gosssip. It escalates to such an extent that innocent people's lives can be ruined.



havoc said:


> How do you decide what's discussed then? How do you decide what is fact? Discussion is the very challenge you desire. Without it there is no questioning of what we're told.


Discussion of suppositions and conspiracy theories serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the gossip. You can't find out the truth by discussing lies, no matter how hard you try. You can question whether or not something is fact; you can question what you are being told, all without discussing, giving credence to, and perpetuating nonsense.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> I think that is probably not so much related to freedom of the press as _bias_ in the press. If there were no freedom of the press, then only state approved coverage would be allowed and doled out, and no non-govenment news agecies would be permitted on pain of arrest etc. Think China or North Korea, that kind of thing.
> 
> Bias in a particular agency is another thing entirely, from which political party they support to their stance on popular issues of the day. Taking the Thatcher footage (an event I didn't bother wathcing at all), I don't for an instant doubt that either the BBC or alternative news outlets presented an accurate representation of the protests - one under-representing the other over representing. And neither is better, but it is the way it is.


Whether it is a freedom of press issue or a biased press issue is not really the point with regards to this thread (although I do agree that the distinction is very important in other issues). Regarding this thread, the point is that when we are arguing for the freedom of information, we are never going to get that when we can't trust the press - for whatever reason.



Jesthar said:


> As to the main thread issue, the problem with censorship is, once you start, where do you stop? Do you have a blanket ban on any alleged criminal of any type being named before conviction? Only certain offences? If so, which ones? Do you go so far as to allow no police appeals for witnesses/victims which may be crucial in abuse cases but also involve naming a suspected individual? Can you arrest anyone talking seen talking about it? Very big can of worms indeed, is censorship.


It is a very big can of worms indeed, and there is a very fine line to walk in order to balance freedom of information with a person's right to be innocent until proven guilty. I wish it were enough to think that only idiots will believe the rubbish and discount it - but, sadly, that's not true at all. Thanks to the internet the lies are repeated so often they almost take on their own "truth", and innocent lives can be, and are, destroyed in the process. That is as bad as having freedom of information stifled.

So what is the answer? Wish I knew!


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *The ones i'm talking about, are those like the Cliff Richard thread. No offence to the poster of that thread.
> I cannot see how they are fair, and only lead to speculation and idle gossip.
> As a forum, i personally believe we should not have such threads until a person has been found guilty.
> Just my opinion.
> Your thoughts?*


Totally agree Janice what IS to discuss ..police raided cill Richards house and ........ That's it. Personally I'm bored of it now there's been so many accissed lately it's same old same old..but if people want to discuss with speculation and guesses I guess they can.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

cloversmum said:


> So true my life has been wrecked by the abuse/rape I went through


Same here bought I refused to be a victim I was terrible and terrified for a long time but I'm over it because I forced myself to be bigger than him in pride and self worth.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

LinznMilly said:


> So what if they were found not guilty and actually DID do the crime? Not guilty doesn't mean Innocent. It means the defence council did a better job at persuading the jury, or their witnesses were more believable, or (as happened to someone I know) relatives of the victim made the story about themselves when it had nothing whatsoever to do with them.
> 
> What you _believe _about what the victim has to go through to get their case to court is neither here nor there to me. I've done it. I've gone through the process, and in the end the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Last year/this year I had to relive that again, read the words my 13y/o self said in the statement and say to the police officer, again, that it's as true as I can remember all these years later.
> 
> ...


Meaning the people who accuse and are not raped but falsely accusing someone, their name should be plastered all over the papers, some have been but not all


----------

