Cliff Richard

[Scott Brehaut]

Read this today and thought it was worthy of linking it here. An excellent article.

I wonder how many people out there have already decided that Sir Cliff is guilty....

[AustrianAndyGull]

Anyone who changes their name from a dull old fashioned names like Harry Webb to OTHER dull old fashioned names like CLIFF RICHARD should be under suspicion. Harry Webb could have been anything, he could have become a pretentious tit like EXAMPLE. He could have called himself MR HAPPY or HAZY SUMMER. Even PEACE BROTHERS. NO. He chose CLIFF RICHARD. In no way am I casting aspersions on his character but THAT is weird!

[Scott Brehaut]

So says the man who changed his "name" from AustrianAndyGull to DerbyshireGull....

[Gullscorer]

The witch hunt continues, fuelled by feminist-inspired sex abuse hysteria. It follows on from the debunked Satanic Ritual Abuse scandal of a few years ago, and the disgraced (but unpunished) female gynaecologist who saw signs of abuse in every child she examined. This latest is an open invitation for false accusers to try their luck. The authorities know that the more of them they can muster then the better chance there is of a conviction, and to hell with the fact that there is no actual evidence. No man in the public eye who is perceived to have some money in the bank is safe.

One swallow does not make a summer, and one real abuser does not make abusers of a whole class of men. Cliff Richard is innocent. Rolf Harris is innocent (his behaviour may have been abhorrent but was not criminal and there was no evidence, not even in the letter he wrote, to prove his guilt - see the relevant thread). And practically all the previously accused men were innocent. There's no way any of them had a fair trial. A basic principle of justice has always been that people are innocent until proven guilty. But not any more. Evidence has been replaced by rumour, innuendo, and imputation. Such is the whipped-up politically-correct hysteria that the accused in such cases are deemed guilty (and can be found guilty by juries) simply by reason of the accusations.

Excellent article by Geoffrey Robertson.

[happytorq]

Ah, yes, the "feminist-inspired sex abuse hysteria".

The police have an obligation to follow up on allegations. That's their job. The biggest issue with the Cliff Richard stuff was that there was a leak - which the police should also be investigating.

[Gullscorer]

Ah, yes, the "feminist-inspired sex abuse hysteria".
The police have an obligation to follow up on allegations. That's their job. The biggest issue with the Cliff Richard stuff was that there was a leak - which the police should also be investigating.

Yes that's their job. But when studies show that between 40% and 60% of allegations of rape and sexual abuse are false, that's an awful lot of people wasting police time.

[Dave]

Yes that's their job. But when studies show that between 40% and 60% of allegations of rape and sexual abuse are false, that's an awful lot of people wasting police time.

For a start between 40-60 % is a massive variance, so I would suggest more that a little bit of guess work in what ever study it was you've chosen to highlight. Also before we go on accusing 'so' many people of wasting police time, actually how many cases turned out to be false, 10,100,1000 or more.

[Dave]

Police unhappy over the leak as well....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

[happytorq]

Yes that's their job. But when studies show that between 40% and 60% of allegations of rape and sexual abuse are false, that's an awful lot of people wasting police time.

That's why it should be a legal requirement to keep the accused's names confidential, even if it gets to trial. Should only be released upon conviction. I remember Craig Charles' trial about 20 years ago hen his name was all over the papers even though he as acquitted - that sort of mud sticks (which I think is probably your point) so ensuring that names of the accused are kept quiet not only upholds the spirit of 'innocent until proven guilty' but also prevents people's lives being ruined through false accusation.

As a counterpoint to your 'statistics' that 40-60% of allegations are false, (source?), what about the assertion that 60% of cases aren't even reported to police? (source here - https://www.rainn.org/statistics). If you starting hollering about 'wasting police time' and put fear into victims who then don't report it, then you're essentially making it easier for rapists and sexual abusers to get away with their crimes.

[Dave]

That's why it should be a legal requirement to keep the accused's names confidential, even if it gets to trial. Should only be released upon conviction. I remember Craig Charles' trial about 20 years ago hen his name was all over the papers even though he as acquitted - that sort of mud sticks (which I think is probably your point) so ensuring that names of the accused are kept quiet not only upholds the spirit of 'innocent until proven guilty' but also prevents people's lives being ruined through false accusation.

As a counterpoint to your 'statistics' that 40-60% of allegations are false, (source?), what about the assertion that 60% of cases aren't even reported to police? (source here - https://www.rainn.org/statistics). If you starting hollering about 'wasting police time' and put fear into victims who then don't report it, then you're essentially making it easier for rapists and sexual abusers to get away with their crimes.

Something none of us should want or allow to happen in this country.

[Gullscorer]

As a counterpoint to your 'statistics' that 40-60% of allegations are false, (source?), what about the assertion that 60% of cases aren't even reported to police? (source here - https://www.rainn.org/statistics). If you starting hollering about 'wasting police time' and put fear into victims who then don't report it, then you're essentially making it easier for rapists and sexual abusers to get away with their crimes.

Regarding the 40% - 60% figures for false allegations, The CPS are now making the preposterous claim that the percentage of allegations which are false could be as low as 1%..!! I cannot find my original source; there are sources via these links:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 312AAhaLCV
http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_f ... ations.php
http://straightstatistics.org/article/h ... chestrated

As to the claims that 60% of such alleged assaults go unreported, these figures emanate from the link you provided, RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, an American anti-sexual assault organization, which supplies many feminist statistics. I remember reading an article which convincingly debunked these figures but, again, I lost the link; will post it when I find it.

The problem with all these statistics, both for false allegations and for unreported cases, is that they are at best educated estimates.
A recent Mumsnet survey claimed: 80% of women don’t report rape or sexual assault: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... laims.html
Well, yes, by careful selection of the groups you question and by appropriate methodology you can arrive at any conclusion you want. And those with political or ideological agendas are very good at this. http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/22/a ... tics-bogus http://www.angryharry.com/Incredible-Ra ... istics.htm
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/ho ... -research/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... tatistics/ http://straightstatistics.org/article/c ... -or-common

As for your accusation that by saying false accusers are wasting police time I am putting fear into victims who then don't report it, thereby making it easier for rapists and sexual abusers to get away with their crimes, this is offensive bullshit. A Government review by Baroness Stern also claimed that some women are put off reporting attacks to the police because of a “misleading” figures used by campaigners that only 6 per cent of rapes lead to convictions! What you are really saying is that you are quite happy for any number of false accusers to put innocent men through hell in order to encourage more alleged victims to make accusations. This kind of twisted logic ignores the fact that the more false accusers there are, the more likely it is that real victims will be regarded with suspicion.

More on false allegations:
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/tag/false-allegations/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/05/02 ... n-thought/
http://falseallegations.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/4/
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/tag/false-allegations/

http://straightstatistics.org/article/h ... chestrated
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-poli ... re-common/

[Southampton Gull]

You have too much time on your hands..............

[Gullscorer]

You have too much time on your hands..............

That's a serious charge; but I don't have as much energy as the young ones, so expresso bongo is not my style, and I can't afford a summer holiday.

Anyway, he did ask: (source?), and I'm on sick leave..

[Southampton Gull]

Anyway, he did ask: (source?), and I'm on sick leave..

Lightweight! Need a nurse?

[Gullscorer]

Lightweight! Need a nurse?

Yes, please...!! Send Florence...