General Chat

"Deciding not to prosecute

If the crown prosecutor decides that a prosecution should not go ahead, the case will be stopped, usually by what is called 'discontinuance'. Unless there are special circumstances which mean that it is not appropriate to do so, you will be told the reasons for the decision to stop the case."

source: CPS web site

so what are the reasons in the case of C.R.? It is no good Richards being left out to dry with a bland decision not to prosecute and the world and its dog left to speculate. Whoever decided on the appointment of Alison Saunders must be somewhat miffed a safe pair of hands she is not.

ah well

another post RR'd by an unknown person


2 in one week is getting to be a record :-)


I was only asking IF she thought him guilty, as otherwise I see no reason to raise the fact that the Public Prosecutor said "for insufficient evidence"

It is interesting that CR himself in his print interview said that people would us that clause as a reason not to believe him.

Kay has stated the facts quite correctly.

Just over a month after receiving a file of evidence from police on the singer, lawyers for the CPS said on Thursday that there was insufficient evidence from the police investigation to charge Richard and no further action should be taken against him.

I am saying no such thing or implied it......I dont have any opinion about it,.

stick to facts and the facts are.

it was dropped because lack of evidence.

CR is stating he is not guilty.

Kay is just stating the facts

She has not said if she thinks he is guilty or innocent

CR case was dropped because there was lack of evidence only

,,,,not that he wasnt guilty or guilty , nor has it been stated,,,,,,,,,



Hes saying hes not gulity.

I started work in the Civil Service when I was 17 (1962) & was very innocent.
It was several months before I realised what the other staff meant when they said "If Mr X says he´s having you on the carpet, he really means it"
It was horrible, as he was in his 60s, but I would never have dreamed of reporting him. I was far too shy.
There´s a world of difference between "groping" & rape although both are equally unacceptable.
Not that I am suggesting for one moment that Cliff Richard has been guilty of groping.

Some good points have been made on here. I too was shocked when I first heard that CR was being questioned, but decided not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

To find out that he has been cleared but that his reputation will have inevitably been damaged, brings mixed feelings.

If allegations have been made, then yes, they should be investigated, but not in full public gaze. The media frenzy on this sort of thing needs to be controlled. Those investigating should be more circumspect and everything should be kept under wraps until guilt is proved. If not proved, then nothing need ever come out.

None of us have 'the right' to know about these cases. Our curiosity should be curbed.

It is not usually in 'the public interest' for sordid details to be published, it is more in the financial interest of the media which feeds on salacious gossip, and which a certain percentage of the population enjoy.

For those making accusations, again, all should be under wraps until the case is proved (or not). If the accused is proved guilty, then appropriate steps should be taken. If the accused is cleared, then the accuser should be dealt with accordingly, maybe with a fine and a police caution.

There should be a time limit on these cases - it's ridiculous seeing these doddery old folk who were at the height of their fame in the swinging but admittedly permissive 60's, being vilified rightly or wrongly, 50 years later.

I do know quite a few female victims abused as children
only come forward after they have a child Themselves

So maybe a time limit wouldn't work for them

The reason why people are named when charged is primarily for the protection of those charged. It is part of habeas corpus. The British state has a dark history of people "disappearing". By making arrest and charge public those who wish to assist the charged person may do so far more easily.

That the British state shares with China the desire to "disappear" people can be seen in the ongoing treatment of terrorist suspects and the revelations of rendition to the CIA in Guantanamo.

However when it comes to cases of a sexual nature the situation is catch 22. It should be bloody obvious that the police / DPP tactic of arresting a person and then using the arrest as bait for a fishing expedition is wildly incorrect in law as it denies the accused any chance of a fair trial.

C.R., who can afford a decent lawyer, has no e doubt put this point before the DPP with some vigour. There is a mechanism to deal with the matter which is to enforce tight reporting restrictions with heavy penalties on those who ignore them.

As to the BBC;'s involvement. Crass, way outside of its charter responsibility and illegal. They may well find themselves forking out a large sum if C.R. should sue. I hope he does.

I'm conflicted. I can see the reasons on both sides. I think the problem lies with the "no smoke without fire" types who seem to want to believe the worst even when no charges are brought.

I do believe there should be a cut off for historic charges. Who can remember where they were on a specific date 20 years ago? People don't keep diaries any more.

As I said .................. it is a conundrum


The false accusation that leads to a person's life being destroyed vs the right of a victim to make a true allegation.

I know that if I were a victim, I would probably remember (or recover the memory of) what happened 40 or 50 years ago, but I couldn't give you details of an event that happened that length of time ago ................ and that is what the accused faces.

53 years ago on this approximate date, I walked across a stage in a theatre in Liverpool to get my degree, and 1 year later, on this approximate date, I walked across that same stage to get another degree.

All I can remember of those 2 events is that I nearly missed the first one because brother drove us there and he was always late for everything. I literally made it into my seat with 30 seconds to spare!

I have no intention to dismiss the memories or the fear of a true victim ................ but there has to be a way for a falsely accused person to not be smeared for life.

Agrees with Sue Victims dont always have the courage to come forward

it is a conundrum ...............

but I do think that the public naming of someone accused BEFORE any evidence has been found or charges been laid is wrong ................

there has to be some way that wrongful accusations can be determined, without an "accused" but innocent person's life being destroyed.

Cliff Richards' was particularly egregious, and wrong, on the part of the police and the BBC, IMHO

We sat here open-mouthed watching that "breaking news item"

Some victims cannot find the strength to report an assault at the time or indeed for years or decades.

Should they just be ignored? You cannot put a time limit on accusations nor investigations, neither should we conclude there is no case to answer when the police are asked to investigate and state that finding. Recent history has proved that sadly. Far too late for the victims when the abuser is dead.

A proviso to my views - those who are abused as young children - I agree with Kathleen.

Sylvia, I know someone who came across an extremely drunk young woman.
He took her home, for safety, and for her to sleep it off.
She accused him of rape - his name was all over the papers.
The case fell apart.
Why?
In the morning, she was fully clothed - and still wearing tights!!
Absolutely no DNA evidence - nothing.
Yet he was still regarded as a 'potential rapist' - when all he'd done was to look after this (now scum) woman.

Women who falsely claim rape should be named and shamed - not only are they scum, and ruining the lives of innocent men they're making it harder for survivors of abuse/rape to report it.

Joy :-D :-D :-D

I was once racially abused.
Walking home one night, leather coat, thick black tights, huge afro hair.
I felt a blow to the back of my head,(thankfully cushioned by my afro) told to 'go back home n*****', then this numpty on a bike turned to spit in my face, realised his mistake, and fell off.
Well, I, in my platforms, rushed forward to........
put my foot on his head, and inform him, I was on my way home, when some a***hole hit me on the head, and fell off his bike (also, no lights - against the law of this fine British Isle).

I was now demanding an apology from said plank and a promise he would never do it again, to anyone, or I'd set 'the boys' on him - oh and who the hell did he think he was anyway? :-D :-D :-D

I started to feel a bit sorry for him, as, by now he was a quivering wreck.
Funny how perpetrators of nastiness can't take their own medicine :-D

QUOTE
My own personal response to these unwanted 'advances' tended to be a slap on the face or a knee in the groin. I never had to resort to my dad's advice - 'pull then twist'.
Can I look forward to being accused of common assault?

Maggie your a Woman who thinks the same as me on this point
I start by saying If your joking maybe we can still be friends
And if they don't back of I Knut them

I came across a flasher on the Bridge to the hospital
It was him that ran off crying
When I laughed at his tiny Parts :-D :-D :-D

I think there should be a time limit on reporting such alleged crimes. The time limit has to be long enough for a child to become an adult, so say 20/25 years, but some of these crimes are reported after 30/40/50 years and I really can't see why anyone would wait that long.

I think Cliff Richard has been treated terribly and I think the police and the BBC has a lot to answer for.

Kath. x

Surely victims know to report it!!

I'm also dubious about some 'historical' victims - I'm not talking about rape here, but historical sexual assault cases.
In the 1970's, I didn't 'go with it' - but it seems the groping of women was commonplace, and a 'bit of a laugh' - you just have to listen to comedians of the time, and the 'Doctor' comedy programmes, yet this is now considered sexual assault.
Should we compare today's morals and ideals to those of 40 years ago, and punish those who were 'going with the flow' of the times?

My own personal response to these unwanted 'advances' tended to be a slap on the face or a knee in the groin. I never had to resort to my dad's advice - 'pull then twist'.
Can I look forward to being accused of common assault?