General Chat

Never did get a straight answer did we

:-D :-D

Have one emptied over him maybe.

Not called to the judges chambers :-D

You keep on like this and, the next thing you know, you will be getting a solicitor's letter!

Entrapment. Hahaha. Well, there we go. Another legal concept not quite grasped.

What about this judge buddy of yours who reveals confidential information? I'm deafened by the silence :-D :-D

"People do not usually saw off the branch which they are sitting on."

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people think they know everything about everything and do actually do stupid things like that... :-D

Well they're not, he's not suing them as already discussed and the police dropped charges against him and not pursuing them from what I gather.

Absolutely, but that just leaves the little problem as how those who were claiming they were abused are provided with £500,000 to fight their cause.

But isn't everyone meant to be equal in the eyes of the law therefore they're entitled to the same treatment...in theory....

So here we have someone who is allegedly worth over £50,000,000 suing us taxpayers, presumably on the advice of his lawyers who have already been paid in the region of £500,000.

What a tosser.

But couldn't the greater good be argued here?

But still....sources should be named

Googled some more....there were at one time nine people accusing him and it looks like it was all dropped so the only issue is the privacy aspect and the police making sure the BBC were there to broadcast it live.

As I thought, Eldrick. Difficult to prove, one person's word against another, no assets.

You are right, though, but there will be two sides to the story and I really think it is wrong to go after the BBC and the Police without including the accuser.

Perhaps Sir C is only going for trespass charges or such like?

Since it is not at all clear to the reader who told whom, who stood where filming etc. It is to be hoped that all will be made clear to the general public. However, settlement out of court is a distinct possibility unless Auntie has a trick up her sleeve.

Well, the person who made the allegations wasn't he arrested? He won't be named though I assume.
As far as the BBC wasn't Lesley Card the South Yorkshire press officer alleged to have talked to the BBC as it was happening?
Yes I googled it I admit it :-D

I am not sure who you mean as the person who pointed the finger.

Do you mean the person who made allegations against Cliff Richard or the person who old the BBC there was a raid imminent?

The original complainant will likely not be worth suing as I suspect that he will have no assets. It makes it a pointless exercise. That's not to say that he hasn't committed a criminal offence relating to a malicious allegation, but it would be difficult to prove and also meet the test of public interest prosecution. It may also be thought that it might discourage genuine complainants from coming forward, I suppose.

On the other hand the BBC and the Police have plenty of money and assets and a public duty for impartiality.

Only one person knows the full story here, and he won't tell us.

:-D

Civil or criminal, Sharron, I'd still have the finger-pointer in my sights first.

It seems more logical to me, after all everything must have happened as a result of that.

Just a thought.

Is this not a civil matter?

So the police and legal aid scheme are not actually relevant to the theme anyway.