Cliff Richard in court

[Paulo]

THE ELM GUEST HOUSE – LIST OF VISITORS .......maybe why the police have an interest in him?

WHL above is all you wrote in your first post, trying to imply there was good reason for him to be a suspect.

Your other posts since then have just been you back-peddling and trying to justify yourself.

[WHL]

If his name appears on a list of pedos, do you not accept that the Police have to investigate the matter, wheres tha back pedaling

[Dominic]

It was a fake list. You failed to mention that when you told people to google it.

Claims are challenged and discredited
In an edition of Panorama broadcast on 6 October 2015, a former Elm Guest House prostitute was interviewed who claimed that he was unaware of any MPs visiting the brothel. Journalist John Oakes told them he had investigated Chris Fay's claims, but had never been able to find any "solid" information nor trace of photos Fay said he had seen. Fay told Panorama that 17 or 18 children from Grafton Close had told him they had been trafficked to Elm Guest House; one of them, Mark, stated that he had been an abuse victim at Grafton Close but had never been to Elm Guest House nor spoken to Fay. Another person interviewed by Panorama said they named Brittan as their abuser only after being pressured by Fay.[18] The Daily Telegraph later reported that Fay had been jailed for fraud in 2011.[10] Fay said he regretted starting a "witch-hunt".[10]

In late 2015, Watson was criticised for consistently refusing to comment after it was revealed that the police had been pressured into investigating rape allegations against Brittan by Watson, who wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Police ultimately decided that Brittan would face no further action but Brittan was never told he would not be charged before his death in January 2015.[19] In November 2015, Watson apologized to Brittan's widow and her family for the distress caused by the investigation.[20] Metropolitan police commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe issued an apology of his own in February 2016 for mishandling the investigation.[21]

[WHL]

Dominic, people were asking why the Police were investigating Cliff Richard, so I said google Elm House as that was where the allegations first surfaced.

[William Morris]

Dominic, people were asking why the Police were investigating Cliff Richard, so I said google Elm House as that was where the allegations first surfaced.

No, WHL, that is untrue.

[WHL]

Dominic, people were asking why the Police were investigating Cliff Richard, so I said google Elm House as that was where the allegations first surfaced.

No, WHL, that is untrue.

The way I saw it, people on here were thinking Cliff Richard was being picked on by the Police /BBC... and the reason went back to Pedophile lists/( after several inquiries shown to be false) which had his name on, thats what started the investigation on him.

[Dominic]

Bull. If you cared about the truth you would have also mentioned that the Elm House List had been discredited.

[William Morris]

WHL, I understand that and I follow your reasoning. Howevere, the way that you see it is mistaken. The Telegraph has a decent write up on it.

It was just some chancer thought he might make a few bob. He has since been arrested himself.

Do you remember that old adage about being innocent until PROVEN guilty?

[WHL]

Bull. If you cared about the truth you would have also mentioned that the Elm House List had been discredited.

The reason the Police first took an interest in Cliff Richard was because of that list...that is not bull but fact... the list was later discredited, after an investigation.

[WHL]

WHL, I understand that and I follow your reasoning. Howevere, the way that you see it is mistaken. The Telegraph has a decent write up on it.

It was just some chancer thought he might make a few bob. He has since been arrested himself.

Do you remember that old adage about being innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Mate you are correct, but the Police had no option, but to investigate it, they didnt know it was fake until later.

[boycott]

A complaint was made to the Police and they are duty bound to investigate that complaint or allegation.

At that time there must have been enough credible evidence to investigate further.
The Police applied for a warrant and either a judge or magistrate thought that there was enough evidence to issue a search warrant at the suspects address, hence the search.

Some would say that what the BBC did was free speech and that they were reporting facts ie the Police were searching one of Richards addresses.
Of course as we now know he is an innocent person.
However if he wins the case against the BBC it has a lot of wider consequences, how many times do you hear on the news about a suspect called whatever arrested for murder etc and helping the Police with their enquiries only to be released a day or two later.

Should the man Richard Osbourne - Brooks have been named as arrested for murder of the lowlife that was burgling his home but later released without charge?
Should this man be named (British man arrested for allegedly killing his wife) - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... x-him.html

[Kili01]

My main gripe in this whole truly awful affair is with the BBC. I think that over the last few years their whole standard of news reporting has gone down. At one time they presented the news factually wth straightforward reporting of the facts. Sometimes interviews with a person who had something to add to the news report. These days they have young girls who sometimes try to turn the news into something akin to a magazine programme.
Also when something awful happens like a terror attack what they don ‘t yet know they seem
to engage in speculation instead of waiting.
With the Cliff Richard affair I was appalled when they pulled that stunt with the helicopter over flying his residence. I wonder why those at the senior and managment end of the BBC’s News Dept appear to have got away with organising such an intrusion of Cliff’s privacy?
I never thought that Cliff was guilty and said so, so am very glad that he has subsequently been cleared of any wrong doing. But at what personal cost to his reputation?

I hope that he wins his case against them and gets substantial damages. He doesn’t need the money, so I wouldn’t be surprised if his favourite charities will benefit from it.
Dee

[Dominic]

A lot of the BBC's news output is woeful these days. They have got sucked into the social media world and now post "Reaction" articles which are only of interest to 12 year olds.

[William Morris]

WHL, yes, that is correct. The POLICE had to investigate it.

However, the BBC had no right to broadcast it.

That is wht he is in court.

The police have already apologised and paid out but the BBC are saying that they did nothing wrong. In their opinion, it was in the public interest to lambast an innocent man.

[trevnhil]

WHL, yes, that is correct. The POLICE had to investigate it.

However, the BBC had no right to broadcast it.

That is wht he is in court.

The police have already apologised and paid out but the BBC are saying that they did nothing wrong. In their opinion, it was in the public interest to lambast an innocent man.

This is EXACTLY the reason I hope Cliff wins, in his claim against the BBC.

They had no right to publicise it the way they did with Helicopter filming everything as it happened.

[smudger]

Absolutely spot on Trev.

Jacs

[WHL]

WHL, yes, that is correct. The POLICE had to investigate it.

However, the BBC had no right to broadcast it.

That is wht he is in court.

The police have already apologised and paid out but the BBC are saying that they did nothing wrong. In their opinion, it was in the public interest to lambast an innocent man.

I agree with you 100%, I never mentioned the BBC in any of my posts, for what its worth I think the BBC should be privatized, its the last place I would go to listen to any news.

[memory man]

Sir Cliff Richard wins privacy case against BBC

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-18/sir- ... ainst-bbc/

[trevnhil]

Good, I am pleased at the result, but not the miserly amount.
But I see he is likely to get more later on

[memory man]

South Yorkshire Police, who tipped off the BBC about the raid, has already paid the star £400,000 in damages in an out-of-court settlement.