Operation Yewtree & Other Historical Child-Abuse Allegations

[Swifty]

Hardcore Cliff fans are off the scale in fan worship ... I used to work with a woman called Janet who used to join an army of fans that were allowed to pitch tents, commune style, a few days before they were allowed to buy tickets outside of the larger venues he was performing at ....

 

[Heckler]

She still gets a Cliff calendar every Christmas which hangs proudly in the kitchen, much to Dad's chagrin.

Oh lord those calendars are dreadful, Mrs. Heckler buys one for her work every year and some of the pictures are :shock: .

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

The first gig I ever went to was.....

Cliff - The Event




I don't really count it though as I was only a child.

Err....

Hang on.....

 

[Cherrybomb]

The thought of it (if it did happen) happening at a Billy Graham event makes it worse. What is it about religious nuts that makes them want to abuse young uns?!

 

[Cherrybomb]

Well, that might be a bit back-to-front.

Popular thinking is that pedalos gravitate towards professions in which they will have a good 'cover' for getting up close and personal with children. Teachers, doctors, police officers, priests, that sort of thing.

Whether that perception is backed up by any empirical research, I do not know, but I don't find it unbelievable sadly.

 

[Mythopoeika]

More people contact police after Sir Cliff Richard's home searched

Police investigating a child sex assault allegation made against Sir Cliff Richard have said “a number of people” have come forward with information as a result of publicity surrounding a search of his home.

This isn't looking good.

Nope, all those people are after his wealth. It'll end badly.

I predict a future where everybody who is rich and famous will have accusations made against them.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I do think -- no offence to you intended -- that it's not on to pre-emptively dismiss other possible victims as gold-diggers. A number of reasons why, but it's (a) my opinion and (b) another debate entirely, so let's not go there.

Sorry, it was a moment of cynicism on my part.

It's just the way this gets played out time and time again. Read that article - the police were working with the BBC before this investigation, and they gave the BBC an exclusive story. The technique they employ is to trumpet it about in the media before it gets to court, so lots of other people can join in the fray.
There can be no way to distinguish the genuine accounts from the fake ones.
Doesn't this mean that the accused stands little chance of getting a fair trial?
And surely - it just feels wrong - the BBC shouldn't get an 'exclusive' out of this?

 

[Analogue Boy]

She still gets a Cliff calendar every Christmas which hangs proudly in the kitchen, much to Dad's chagrin.

What's behind door 25?

 

[Analogue Boy]

And has Jill Dando been mentioned much so far?

 

[Mythopoeika]

It's just the way this gets played out time and time again. Read that article - the police were working with the BBC before this investigation, and they gave the BBC an exclusive story. The technique they employ is to trumpet it about in the media before it gets to court, so lots of other people can join in the fray.

Well, I wouldn't describe it that way. It still sounds cynical. When photofits of muggers are shown on Crimewatch, or police issue an appeal for witnesses, is that inviting false allegations?

You're not comparing like with like, there. The photofits are there because the identity is as yet unknown. In this case (and cases like it), they are starting off by making accusations against an identified person.

Fact of the matter is that victims of sex abuse are often massively unsure about coming forward due to the high risk of being dismissed (very rarely are there witnesses to child sex abuse, obviously). Some of them may never have told a living soul.

It's a crime that silences its victims in a unique way. Not the same as murder, in that the victim's own fear of telling anyone becomes a sort of self-perpetuating prison sentence for them.

Yes, that is true - you're right there. But there are other ways that the police could find more evidence. This whole 'trial by media' scenario seems like they've given up on traditional detective/investigative methods.

There can be no way to distinguish the genuine accounts from the fake ones.

Well, that goes for any crime really. Not sure what the 'false allegation' rate is for child sex abuse, but for rape it's pretty damn low. Making a false allegation is a criminal offence, so those who make up stories (whatever proportion of allegations that is) run a high risk.

Anyway, we leave the filtering of chaff from wheat to the police, then the CPS, then to a jury. Which is as it should be.

There are still plenty of people who bring false allegations, in spite of the risk of being caught. But yes, that is entirely the job of the police, the CPS and the jury. Not the media.

Doesn't this mean that the accused stands little chance of getting a fair trial?

Not to my mind. I don't see how it could. Can you explain?

Because many people will have made up their minds about the accused based on hastily-cobbled rumours and opinions in the press and media. In the absence of any real evidence, it's down to the opinions of a jury and what they think of the defendant.

 

[Yithian]

Cliff may or may not be guilty (and for what it's worth I feel myself well-disposed towards him and hope he's innocent), but I have to agree with Mytho and others that this whole trial by media spectacle is odious. I for one have very little faith in the CPS, slightly more but not a surfeit in the police, and have seen too many false accusations and flimsy court cases accepted due to 'current climatic conditions': we've been told to crack down on this kind of thing/making up for poor statistics/restore the public trust/secure further funding/a high profile deterrent.

It's very easy to exonerate a man in court but destroy his life by raking through his personal affairs and making them public. A decent (unfortunate adjective) barrister could portray most of us as monsters given the fruits of a forensic sweep of our life histories and a fertile imagination. This risk must be balanced very carefully against the need to discover corroborating witnesses.

As for the police 'working with the BBC' - bloody well not. The extent of their communication should be the complete and immediate disclosure of everything the journalists have discovered as soon as they believe a serious crime has been committed. No deals for first dibs on the photos.

 

[Yithian]

Where's the "trial by media"?

That's coming. And the innocence or guilt of the individual isn't the point - it's the public perception. The raid should not have been made public and the press should not have been notified (before the accused!).

We've seen it with Saville, those chaps from Coronation Street, Rolf Harris, stuart Hall, Nigel Evans & Lord McAlpine, and that's off the top of my head: first there's the steady drip of information - always with the legal caveats that nonetheless bear the ubi fumus, ibi ignis motif. And look, there's more smoke discovered every few days! Then when the trial comes (there must be a trial or you've wasted public funds, persecuted a celebrity and short-changed an accuser), we get weeks of lurid headlines and speculation: X used me as a sexual plaything!' claims alleged victim . And the TV sofa merchants go into overdrive: "When - forgive me - If X is found guilty, what will it means for organisation Y?"; "Is X merely the tip of the iceberg?"; "In the light of X's arrest, is it time to tighten up the law?"; "How to tell if there's a potential X in your child's life - and Philip Schofield waving around his list of sick nonces that he has turned up on the Internet. It's the very definition of blackening somebody's name because the innocent and guilty alike will for ever be associated with those 'unproven' accusations, accusations of the blackest crimes. We've already had it on this thread with puns, oblique references and dark hints - I'm probably guilty of it myself up-thread with my joke. That's why the accused should have anonymity until there's a plausible case to answer.

 

[Cochise]

Wealthy people such as Sir Cliff also have the libel laws and the use of special ' super injunctions' to defend themselves.

There are also alleged uses of 'switch and bait' by the wealthy and powerful - get a false accusation widely publicised and then discredited in order to prevent serious investigation of genuine accusations. Such behaviour would be hardly surprising since its only a gnat's wing away from the methods politicians and other members of the international elite have been using to distract us from anything they think might get us angry or discontented enough to disturb the status quo.

Nevertheless, it becomes increasingly comment-worthy that the relentless pursuit of celebs is not matched by equally enthusiastic action against politicians against whom certain accusations have been in the public domain.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

...But there are other ways that the police could find more evidence.....

Not with historical allegations - I think that's the main issue.

No CCTV, DNA, computer records, fingerprints, fibres etc.

It really is one word against another, and the only way I can see to build a case is by gathering as much corroborating evidence as possible.

With this type of case, that evidence is voices. The more the better, if the police and the CPS want a case to stick.

Worth remembering that a search warrant is extremely difficult to get authorised these days, and no copper or judge wants to be the one that got it wrong with Cliff.

So, there must be a decent pile of evidence already, or the house wouldn't have been searched in the first place.

The fuzz don't just turn-up after one allegation.

 

[markrkingston1]

EDIT: In fact, I have just read that the tip-off came from the BBC to SYP, which stands the situation on its head WRT 'media leaks'.

It does not: The police would still have had to tip off the BBC about when and where the raid was to take place.

As far as I can see the only reason to do this is to generate publicity and encourage more 'victims' to come forward. This in turn means that I think it is realistically impossible for the accused to get a fair trial. Even before a trial, even before anyone has been charged, any resultant trial has been biassed.

Justice has gone out of the window already.

 

[markrkingston1]

All the police will say at present is that they "worked with" the BBC. Perhaps the facts will come to light if someone complains.

What is known already is that the media, specifically the BBC, were tipped off by the police as to when and where a raid was going to take place. This inevitably results in coverage that is prejudicial to any subsequent trial.

One might presume that the BBC were tipped off as a thank you for what was apparently their tip to the police, but whether or not this is the case doesn't change any of the above.

As far as I can see the only reason to do this is to generate publicity and encourage more 'victims' to come forward. This in turn means that I think it is realistically impossible for the accused to get a fair trial. Even before a trial, even before anyone has been charged, any resultant trial has been biassed.

Justice has gone out of the window already.

I think this is a bit melodramatic, personally.

No. It is merely an observation of how things work in reality. This is how trial by media works. It is a demonstration of how to colour people's opinions.

Being raided does not imply guilt (or shouldn't, to the average person).

It should not but to the average person I think it almost certainly does. It colours their perceptions and creates prejudgments. "No smoke without fire" the average person says, or the classic "they wouldn't raid him unless he'd done something wrong"

What are the police meant to do, keep details of raids,, searches secret?

I would certainly expect such things to not be publicised, and especially not before the fact. To take actions that will generate significant publicity in relation to them, such as allowing the media to be there beforehand, is inherently prejudicial in very high profile cases like this one.

and arrests

Again, there is no need and no benefit in publicising such things.

Then we would be anxiously discussing "Britain's Secret Police" or something like that.

No, we would not. Lack of unnecessary and prejudicial publicity is not the same as secrecy.

Like I say, this sort of televising of police activities has quite a history, and I'll be surprised if any form of complaint (about this raid) made against SYP is made to stick.

Sure. Bad and prejudicial practices abound. A history of inappropriate publicity and playing the media trial game does not change the fundamental, real world nature of it. It clearly was at best massively inappropriate and at worst apparently (using the Occam's Razor test) intended to create a bias against the suspect.

 

[rynner2]

It clearly was at best massively inappropriate and at worst apparently (using the Occam's Razor test) intended to create a bias against the suspect.

How the ruddy heck do you drag Occams Razor into this?! I don't follow your logic.

"...apparently intended to create a bias against the suspect" That's the sort of vague statement that O.R. is intended to weed out, an unsupported assumption on your part.

Anyhow, the whole thing is moot, as it's NOT part of Operation Yewtree anyway, and by rights it should be struck from this thread!

 

[markrkingston1]

It clearly was at best massively inappropriate and at worst apparently (using the Occam's Razor test) intended to create a bias against the suspect.

How the ruddy heck do you drag Occams Razor into this?! I don't follow your logic.

Occam's Razor, as I am sure you know well, is a principle which suggests that the most likely (or least unlikely) possible scenario is probably the correct one.

Thus in this case it seems to me that, at worst, the least unlikely scenario is that the leak to the media was intended to create a bias against the suspect. At best, the leak was merely inappropriate.

"...apparently intended to create a bias against the suspect" That's the sort of vague statement that O.R. is intended to weed out, an unsupported assumption on your part.

I see nothing vague about it; the meaning is surely quite clear. As for being an assumption: Yes, it is an assumption but it would be absurdly naive to say that it is not without reasonable cause.

 

[Yithian]

Occam's Razor relates to ontology not probability.

 

[ramonmercado]

Occam's Razor relates to ontology not probability.

Best approached with a clean Shavian wit.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Cut it out, the lot of ya.

 

[escargot]

The police and the media are hand-in-hand and always have been. If anyone didn't know that before the phone-hacking scandal they surely do now.

The police constantly tip off the hacks, sometimes for money, sometimes for fun, sometimes because they approve or disapprove of an investigation and want it publicised.

(This is well-known enough to be written into realistic police procedure fiction and drama. Even in The Bill, a journalist infiltrated the force as an officer, and informed her boss on upcoming operations! :lol:
The question of where her loyalties lay became an important plotline.)

So control of information is a constant headache for chief constables, especially the more authoritarian or secretive ones. Sometimes they have to speak urgently to the media, if only to barter information for a few days' stay on the publication of a big story that might ruin an ongoing operation.

They do speak to the media formally though and forces have their own press offices. How much is told and how much is leaked, we'll never know. I have no doubt that there are journalists out there who know a huge amount that they'll never make public, at least until the time is right.

 

[Analogue Boy]

For fuck's sake. Discussion on sites associated with the media - and the FT is a media publication, could be regarded as screwing up the trial...

Couldn't it?

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Oh hang on.....is it Cliff Richards?

They've got the wrong man!

 

[escargot]

Phew, that was a close one! :lol:

 

[Analogue Boy]

Anyone catch 'Summer Holiday' on ITV today?
I cannot begin to think about the scheduling meeting that got that through. I mean.... it's got Melvyn Hayes in it for fuck's sake.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

The first film he made was called Serious Charge!

I think the timeless - yet oddly leathery - one sings Living Doll in it.

I am the ashamed owner of a complete set of the Cliff Richard Films.

I want to plead Newspaper Freebies in mitigation and I got them in Oxfam, honest, so the Daily Mail never made a penny . . .

 

[Vardoger]

What do they call Cliff fans? "Cliff Heads", "Cliffers" or something?

 

[Mythopoeika]

What do they call Cliff fans? "Cliff Heads", "Cliffers" or something?

Cliffophiles.

 

[GNC]

The first film he made was called Serious Charge!

I think the timeless - yet oddly leathery - one sings Living Doll in it.

Not only that, but it's about a religious man who is maliciously accused of a sexual assault!

I am the ashamed owner of a complete set of the Cliff Richard Films.

Even Finders Keepers? That's the only one I haven't seen. Seems to have vanished (as its brethren may soon be doing).