Cliff owning an apartment in Ocean Club?

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:

interested wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:

interested wrote:If I may be permitted to intrude on the conversation of others - Did the investigation really lead to "nothing"?  My understanding is there was not sufficient evidence to go to court (which often means not enough evidence to get a conviction/a "win".  I often think prosecutors and defense lawyers are only concerned about a "win" for whichever side they may represent and not the truth of what actually occurred.

You are right interested, there was evidence but they thought not enough or imo had instructions from above not to pursue.

Insufficient evidence is not NO evidence.

Of 9 allegations I believe four were put through to the CPS. So we were not talking about one allegation here.

insuffient evidence means no evidence. period. end of. get over it.  

Insufficient evidence does not mean "NO EVIDENCE".  There was "evidence" but not enough to secure a conviction/a "win" for the prosecutor.

aka nothing. you have insufficient credit on your card. you have insuffient funds in your account. try buying a beer if you insuffient means to pay for it. see how far you get.

I have insufficient spuds left in the fridge for tonights meal but there is enough for me so Mrs Lion can go without ! Thats how it works in my World anyway.  

Well, I have the two grandsons coming to stay at the weekend. At the moment, if I don't remember to buy more ice cream, the supply will be insufficient for all three of us, so I will eat the ice cream today, just in case.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Marky wrote:

interested wrote:

Marky wrote:

insuffient evidence means no evidence. period. end of. get over it.  

Insufficient evidence does not mean "NO EVIDENCE".  There was "evidence" but not enough to secure a conviction/a "win" for the prosecutor.

aka nothing. you have insufficient credit on your card. you have insuffient funds in your account. try buying a beer if you insuffient means to pay for it. see how far you get.

I have insufficient spuds left in the fridge for tonights meal but there is enough for me so Mrs Lion can go without ! Thats how it works in my World anyway.  

Well, I have the two grandsons coming to stay at the weekend. At the moment, if I don't remember to buy more ice cream, the supply will be insufficient for all three of us, so I will eat the ice cream today, just in case.

and there you have it. the answer to that all important question. do you love anyone enough to give them your last rolo?

this is my last one I ate earlier and very yummy it was too!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sir-cliff-richard-abuse-claims-8737932

Sir Cliff Richard abuse claims twist as accuser challenges decision not to charge star

22:24, 30 Aug 2016
Updated 22:38, 30 Aug 2016
By Tom Pettifor


Evidence against the star is being reviewed two months after the case was dropped - he will learn whether that decision is upheld in weeks




Sir Cliff Richard’s abuse claims hell continues as one of his accusers has challenged the decision not to prosecute him.

Evidence against the star, 75, is being reviewed – two months after the case was dropped. He will learn whether that decision is upheld in the coming weeks.

It comes just days after the Mirror revealed the star, 75, has finally recovered from his two years of hell as the claims were investigated before being dropped in June.

Prosecutors announced in June that there was “insufficient evidence” to charge the star.

It took senior Crown Prosecution Service lawyers just a few weeks to reject the evidence collected by South Yorkshire detectives over 22 months, raising concerns over the handling of the investigation.
The CPS examined evidence from four men who claimed offences took place between 1958 and 1983.

But earlier this month one of the men asked for the decision to be reviewed.

Sir Cliff was told of the challenge a short time before the death of his sister Donna Goulden, 73, following a long illness.

With his other sisters Joan, 66, and Jacqui, 68, Donna was a rock to her famous brother.

Her death brought fresh heartache to Sir Cliff just a year after close friend Cilla Black died aged 72 after a fall at her villa in Spain.

Cilla had been another loyal supporter to the star during one of the toughest periods of his life.

Now his agony looks set to go on – just days after the Mirror told how Sir Cliff seemed to be bouncing back as he met adoring fans at his vineyard in the Algarve, Portugal.

The star said: “I’m back to my best. I’m OK, everything will be OK. I want to thank all my fans for being so amazing. They have been incredible.”

After the claims were dropped Sir Cliff said he was “obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close”.

But he said the fact he was named in the media, despite not being charged, meant he had been “hung out like live bait”.

He is reportedly considering taking legal action after the BBC televised live a police raid on his house in August 2014.

Sir Cliff, who was never arrested or charged, said his reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS have not said he is innocent.

He added: “How can there be evidence for something that never took place!”

Guidelines suggest that a review would normally take six weeks.

A CPS spokesman last night confirmed: “We have received a Victims’ Right to Review request.”

The Right to Review scheme, introduced in 2013, victims can appeal against a decision not to bring charges or to discontinue a case once a prosecution has begun.

The CPS appeals unit is currently examining the case papers.

In June South Yorkshire Police apologised “wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused” to the star by their “initial handling of the media interest” in its investigation.

It said nine men had made allegations but five of the cases did not reach the threshold necessary for them to be considered by the CPS.

A spokesman for Sir Cliff declined to comment tonight.

cherry1 wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sir-cliff-richard-abuse-claims-8737932

 
It said nine men had made allegations but five of the cases did not reach the threshold necessary for them to be considered by the CPS.

A spokesman for Sir Cliff declined to comment tonight.

So that leave four that did have enough evidence then!

I had the same thought fred. are there 4 that do have sufficient evidence its the wording that raises the question

fred wrote:

cherry1 wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sir-cliff-richard-abuse-claims-8737932

 
It said nine men had made allegations but five of the cases did not reach the threshold necessary for them to be considered by the CPS.

A spokesman for Sir Cliff declined to comment tonight.

So that leave  four that did have enough evidence then!

nope, five men tried to ride the bandwagon and the other four were looking for a dollar. they got nowhere. well, what a surprise.

Marky that's rather offensive comments in relation to victims of abuse, they don't ride a bandwagon and are not in it for money

The reason they don't get anywhere is due to the cover up of VIP abuse

Marky - That was a derogatory and disrespectful comment about abuse victims.

cherry1 wrote:Marky that's rather offensive comments in relation to victims of abuse, they don't ride a bandwagon and are not in it for money

The reason they don't get anywhere is due to the cover up of VIP abuse

interested wrote:Marky - That was a derogatory and disrespectful comment about abuse victims.

never mind that the post is case specific, they are 'alleged victims' my little snowflakes, 'alleged'. nothing has been proven. however, i do find your 'outrage' somewhat amusing when one considers your own comments.

Marky yes they are alleged victims but victims of this kind of crime rarely make it up - and certainly would not put themselves through everything they have to just for money. When they report a past crime they have to be interviewed by strangers about every detail of the abuse. This in itself can be so traumatic it can take many sessions for this to be done. It can be so traumatic to the extent where victims will be physically sick in the interviews, many will feel traumatised all over again and many will be having flashbacks with all the horror that entails. Then if the matter goes to court again they often feel once again they are being abused having to relive the memories of what happened, feeling like they are on trial and knowing that in some cases and especially in cases of VIP abuse because of the protection to the abusers that their abuser may walk free leaving people to point the finger at them and say they made it up.

Child abuse is often kept secret for many many years, it is a massive thing for someone to open up about it and then to face the ignorant remarks by people accusing them of jumping on bandwagons, being in it for money, being a liar, fantasist, etc. only compounds their pain and suffering and also prevents other victims from coming forward. The abuse doesn't stop with the actual abuse which happens at the time, it can and often does reach far into adulthood with victims struggling with their lives due to the trauma they have been through. They have been through enough pain, why people want to add to it is beyond me by some of the remarks I see being made. As I said before if its a question of who do you believe, the alleged victim or the alleged abuser I would believe the alleged victim every time as we know this is rarely made up inspite of what the false allegations movement would like people to believe.

cherry1 wrote:Marky yes they are alleged victims but victims of this kind of crime rarely make it up - and certainly would not put themselves through everything they have to just for money. When they report a past crime  they have to be interviewed by strangers about every detail of the abuse. This in itself can be so traumatic it can take many sessions for this to be done. It can be so traumatic to the extent where victims will be physically sick in the interviews, many will feel traumatised all over again and many will be having flashbacks with all the horror that entails. Then if the matter goes to court again they often feel once again they are being abused having to relive the memories of what happened, feeling like they are on trial and knowing that in some cases and especially in cases of VIP abuse because of the protection to the abusers that their abuser may walk free leaving people to point the finger at them and say they made it up.

Child abuse is often kept secret for many many years, it is a massive thing for someone to open up about it and then to face the ignorant remarks by people accusing them of jumping on bandwagons, being in it for money, being a liar, fantasist, etc. only compounds their pain and suffering and also prevents other victims from coming forward. The abuse doesn't stop with the actual abuse which happens at the time, it can and often does reach far into adulthood with victims struggling with their lives due to the trauma they have been through. They have been through enough pain, why people want to add to it is beyond me by some of the remarks I see being made. As I said before if its a question of who do you believe, the alleged victim or the alleged abuser I would believe the alleged victim every time as we know this is rarely made up inspite of what the false allegations movement would like people to believe.

proof must be an annoying inconvenience for you.

The fact is there is evidence - if there wasn't the Police would not have pursued it and CPS deem it insufficient - the same CPS who protected Janner and others - that is annoying and a total disgrace and they frequently let down victims of abuse who have already been through enough.

cherry1 wrote:The fact is there is evidence - if there wasn't the Police would not have pursued it and CPS deem it insufficient - the same CPS who protected Janner and others - that is annoying and a total disgrace and they frequently let down victims of abuse who have already been through enough.

'alleged' victims.

and as has been said before people who have been abused do not normally make it up! - FACT

I THINK I SAW A HEADLINE SAYING BBC WILL CONTEST CASE BY CLIFF RICHARD,DIDN'T READ WHAT WAS IN LINK.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:The fact is there is evidence - if there wasn't the Police would not have pursued it and CPS deem it insufficient - the same CPS who protected Janner and others - that is annoying and a total disgrace and they frequently let down victims of abuse who have already been through enough.

'alleged' victims.

Until it goes to court and a conviction is secured, they will always be "alleged" victims. So unless the victims do report and make complaints it cannot proceed can it?
It is like the people who evade justice, then get stopped 20 years later for speeding, a DNA swab is put into the data base it comes up positive and hey the result it linked positive to the DNA of a murder victim.

Yes, they are "alleged" victims but as "cherry1" has pointed out, people who do report these crimes are often traumatized all over again by just going through the process of reporting and knowing they will have to testify in court about the crime they have experienced. Not something anyone but a true victims would put themselves through for any amount of money. In fact, it is for this reason that many abuse crimes are not reported. The fact is that the police explored the evidence and deemed it sufficient to pass along to CPS, who in turn appear to have considered it insufficient to get a conviction in court.

fred wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:The fact is there is evidence - if there wasn't the Police would not have pursued it and CPS deem it insufficient - the same CPS who protected Janner and others - that is annoying and a total disgrace and they frequently let down victims of abuse who have already been through enough.

'alleged' victims.

Until it goes to court and a conviction is secured, they will always be "alleged" victims.  So unless the victims do report and make complaints it cannot proceed can it?  
It is like the people who evade justice, then get stopped 20 years  later for speeding,  a DNA swab is put into the data base it comes up positive and hey the result it linked positive to the DNA of a murder victim.  

really? seriously?

interested wrote:Yes, they are "alleged" victims but as "cherry1" has pointed out, people who do report these crimes are often traumatized all over again by just going through the process of reporting and knowing they will have to testify in court about the crime they have experienced.  Not something anyone but a true victims would put themselves  through for any amount of money.  In fact, it is for this reason that many abuse crimes are not reported.  The fact is that the police explored the evidence and deemed it sufficient to pass along to CPS, who in turn appear to have considered it insufficient to get a conviction in court.  

ever considered that the police shot their bolt from the get go and had no choice but to go forward in order to save face? no, probably not. the expression 'no smoke without fire' is for people who think they're too clever to admit they were wrong. in the meantime, innocent people cleared of everything have to live under the cloud of suspicion by people to stupid to admit they may be wrong. i believe in the death penalty which most of you don't. and that's the difference.

It would be very difficult to say he is innocent with the allegations against him and he hasn't been cleared of everything, he had a number of allegations against him and it was confirmed there was evidence - just what they called insufficient - if there was no evidence they would have said no evidence.  If I didn't know what I know, and just looked at it on the balance of probabilities it is a fact victims don't normally make this up so for all those people to have made it up would go against the balance of probability.

You seem to have a problem accepting the FACT Marky that a crime of this nature is rarely made up!

cherry1 wrote:It would be very difficult to say he is innocent with the allegations against him and he hasn't been cleared of everything, he had a number of allegations against him and it was confirmed there was evidence - just what they called insufficient - if there was no evidence they would have said no evidence.  If I didn't know what I know, and just looked at it on the balance of probabilities it is a fact victims don't normally make this up so for all those people to have made it up would go against the balance of probability.

You seem to have a problem accepting the FACT Marky that a crime of this nature is rarely made up!

he has no case to answer. get over it. you are beginning to sound both malicious and vindictive. and very sad. sleep well.

anyways, that's me done for a while lest miss anna comes along to tell me off.

Oh so its vindictive, malicious and sad to want justice for victims of child abuse is it!

I would remind you that you have insulted victims of abuse Marky and its this kind of shameful behaviour which prevents victims coming forward.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.