Cliff owning an apartment in Ocean Club?

I don't know why either the victim or the accused should be named until it after a guilty verdict.

George Spencer (c.1600 – April 8, 1642) was the first non-native person to be executed in Connecticut. Amongst his charges was sodomy after an alleged sexual act with an animal. George Spencer is described as an ugly, balding servant with a glass eye. He is believed to have lived for a time in Boston and while there was found guilty of receiving stolen goods. His punishment was a flogging. He then moved to the New Haven Colony, and continued to be a "habitual troublemaker". He was open about his lack of faith, never praying in the years of being in Connecticut and only reading the Bible when forced to by his master.

When a sow gave birth to a malformed, one-eyed piglet it was considered a manifestation of God's proof of Spencer's sins. Spencer was arrested, and the Puritan authorities deemed the birth a work of God. They believed that this was irrefutable evidence that an act of bestiality had taken place. He was charged with "prophane, atheistical carriage, in unfaithfulness and stubbornness to his master, a course of notorious lying, filthiness, scoffing at the ordinances, ways and people of God".

Spencer was told that "he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall finde mercie", but it was never made clear to him whether this mercy related to the proceedings of the court or those of God. Having witnessed a repentant child molester being whipped for his crime Spencer believed that his best option was to confess. On the realisation that this might lead to a death sentence he retracted his statement. He repeated this confession and retraction again, trying to find the best solution to his situation.

When the trial began the magistrates knew the necessity of having two witnesses to the crime. They used Spencer's retracted confessions as one witness and the stillborn piglet as the other, ruling that this was sufficient to determine his guilt. On April 8, 1642, the sow was put to death by the sword and Spencer was hanged.

Spencer's death was early in the history of Connecticut and is reported to be only the second execution to take place in Connecticut and the first of a non-Native American.

fred wrote:I don't know why either the victim or the accused should be named until it after a guilty verdict.

I agree. There was some kind of legal expert on BBC Radio 4 a few weeks ago talking about Cliff Richard's proposed legal action against the BBC for turning up when the police raided his house. The legal expert said that once a suspect had been name, especially when the suspect was high profile, it was in the public interest for the press and the media to publish information and so Cliff did not have a good case.

Claudia79 wrote:Sexual abuse claims are very serious and should always, always be investigated to the fullest extent, particularly when children or young people are concerned. That said, the 'guilty until proven innocent/where there's smoke there's fire/alleged victims never lie' mentality is very dangerous.

I completely agree with this. Unfortunately some people seem to be mistaking my belief that Cliff is innocent with the assumption that I think nothing happened at Haute de la Garenne or that Jimmy Saville's accusers were lying, or that sex abuse claims shouldn't be thoroughly investigated. That's absurd and quite insulting, which is why I am going to bow out of this thread now.

AnnaEsse wrote:

cherry1 wrote:All professionals who are honest and competent and have an understanding of child abuse would agree that victims of child abuse do not normally make it up so you start with the premise of believing the child every time before any investigation is even started. We have seen how time and time again those who have come forward to disclose have not been believed by the people they have turned to for help, often children left with their abusers to be abused again and sadly many of those who have let children down will have got away with it - children's home staff, social workers, medical profession, teachers, police, etc etc.  

Victims who have been fighting for justice for years who were not believed must despair when on social media they see the same kind of comments casting doubts on victims. On twitter we have seen so called barrister Barbara Hewson part of the false allegations brigade doing all she can to cast doubt on victims citing a minimum number of 'false allegations' - some of which she includes in that are VIP abusers who got let off - however she doesn't mention the thousands and thousands of kids who were abused in children's homes, SWales children's homes, Jersey, Magdalene Laundries, Kendall House, Elm Guest House, Grafton Close, and countless children's homes in local authorities throughout the UK. She also doesn't mention the children who committed suicide because they were not believed.

Children who disclose abuse must be believed every time, before any investigation is even started. A child has to know she/he is being believed otherwise it is a further abuse of that child.

I have done Child Protection training both as a teacher and as a Residential Social Worker, working with children in care and probably the most important part of that training is to accept without question what a child is saying when that child starts to disclose abuse. Always believe and never promise to keep what is said secret.

Exactly Anna x

Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, imo

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

SG - I completely agree with this. Unfortunately some people seem to be mistaking my belief that Cliff is innocent with the assumption that I think nothing happened at Haute de la Garenne or that Jimmy Saville's accusers were lying, or that sex abuse claims shouldn't be thoroughly investigated. That's absurd and quite insulting, which is why I am going to bow out of this thread now.
.


I certainly don't think anyone thinks that about you SG x

saloongirl wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Sexual abuse claims are very serious and should always, always be investigated to the fullest extent, particularly when children or young people are concerned. That said, the 'guilty until proven innocent/where there's smoke there's fire/alleged victims never lie' mentality is very dangerous.

I completely agree with this. Unfortunately some people seem to be mistaking my belief that Cliff is innocent with the assumption that I think nothing happened at Haute de la Garenne or that Jimmy Saville's accusers were lying, or that sex abuse claims shouldn't be thoroughly investigated. That's absurd and quite insulting, which is why I am going to bow out of this thread now.

don't blame you for bowing out and yes, it was absurd and insulting.

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

cherry1 wrote:You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

i know how to read thank you very much and the word officer is used in its generic form.

I wasn't referring to anyone investigating anything Marky, a shame you have misunderstood what I have been saying - I wasn't talking about the investigation stage at all, my comments were in relation to the dangerous mentality in not totally believing at the point of disclosure. As I said its that mentality which has led to abusers being given free reign to continue abusing, leads to victims withdrawing allegations and victims committing suicide.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

saloongirl wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Sexual abuse claims are very serious and should always, always be investigated to the fullest extent, particularly when children or young people are concerned. That said, the 'guilty until proven innocent/where there's smoke there's fire/alleged victims never lie' mentality is very dangerous.

I completely agree with this. Unfortunately some people seem to be mistaking my belief that Cliff is innocent with the assumption that I think nothing happened at Haute de la Garenne or that Jimmy Saville's accusers were lying, or that sex abuse claims shouldn't be thoroughly investigated. That's absurd and quite insulting, which is why I am going to bow out of this thread now.

Thank you.
I have no idea if Cliff is innocent or guilty. It's not up to me to decide or even have an opinion. He was investigated, I assume, by professionals. If they found nothing there are two possibilities: there was nothing to find; there was but for whatever reason it wasn't found. What I do know is that's extremely unfair for someone to be publicly a suspect of such a heinous crime and even when nothing is found to have to live with that stigma. I think it's unfair and I believe that neither alleged suspect nor alleged victim should be publicly named before there's a certain degree of certainly.

cherry1 wrote:You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

So do you. I've said several times that all alleged victims should be given a voice and trusted. If they aren't, there are no investigations. However, their word cannot be enough to convict someone or even ruin their reputation forever. That's not how law works in democracies. If someone falsely accused me of something, I would die trying to clear my name. However, I think that it would be heartbreaking for people to look at me with the 'there's no smoke without fire' look even if nothing had been proven.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

aka giving the impression of belief.

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

aka giving the impression of belief.

Someone, at some point has to believe that there is a case to present and an allegation to be answered to.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

aka giving the impression of belief.

Someone, at some point has to believe that there is a case to present and an allegation to be answered to.

yup, the CPS.

Claudia79 wrote:

cherry1 wrote:You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

So do you. I've said several times that all alleged victims should be given a voice and trusted. If they aren't, there are no investigations. However, their word cannot be enough to convict someone or even ruin their reputation forever. That's not how law works in democracies. If someone falsely accused me of something, I would die trying to clear my name. However, I think that it would be heartbreaking for people to look at me with the 'there's no smoke without fire' look even if nothing had been proven.

I agree with everything you say here, Claudia. I also think that there should be no publicity until a case goes to court. Once the court process begins, then I think it should be open to public scrutiny. We should have no court proceedings behind closed doors. In Cliff's case, there was an investigation, as there should have been, and the CPS decided that there was "insufficient evidence" to proceed to trial. Because this was all over the media, Cliff will live with the "no smoke without fire," suspicions. Whether he actually committed the crimes for which he was under suspicion or not none of us has any way of knowing. He should, though, have had the right to anonymity until he was tried before a court.

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

aka giving the impression of belief.

Someone, at some point has to believe that there is a case to present and an allegation to be answered to.

yup, the CPS.

I think that is what I have said above, but to get as far as the CPS, someone has to trust what the victim is saying for it to get as far as the CPS. If no one ever trusted what someone claiming abuse was alleging, no case would get to the CPS and there would be no prosecutions.

Claudia I have read things properly and was referring to this comment you made

Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."

and this was my reply -

Wrong, imo

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all victims and abuse survivors.



You cannot use the premise of the miniscule number of false allegations to use that as a reason for doubting victims when they disclose - victims must be believed at disclosure.

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Claudia - "That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!!

It is exactly this attitude and mentality that has led to victims of child abuse not being believed, has led to abusers going free to continue their abuse, has led to children withdrawing their allegations, has led to suicides.


You always believe the child who discloses abuse - investigation comes afterwards - you most certainly do take their word for granted when they disclose and to do otherwise is an insult to all abuse survivors.

someone's wrong and that someone cherry, is you. it's not within the remit of the investigating officer to believe or otherwise but to conduct an equiry and present a case for further consideration.

It is, though, up to those working in residential social care, teaching etc, to follow Child Protection guidelines which mean believing what is said. As in the investigation of any crime, it is, of course, not up to the police to decide on innocence or guilt. The CPS makes a decision, based on the case presented by the police, whether there is sufficient evidence to present with a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Just as the police do not ultimately decide on guilt or innocence, Child Protection professionals do not make that decision either. For any case where there is a victim, someone at some point has had to believe the victim for there to be a case to take to court. Because Child Protection professionals do not decide on the guilt of an accused person, this is the reason that no questions must be asked of a child who discloses and the child must be told that the information will be passed on to a specialist.

aka giving the impression of belief.

Someone, at some point has to believe that there is a case to present and an allegation to be answered to.

yup, the CPS.

Under our legal system, a person who makes an allegation of abuse has the right to be taken seriously and the accused has the right to be able to present a defence. If a child victim does not trust enough to disclose, then they probably wouldn't.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

cherry1 wrote:You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

So do you. I've said several times that all alleged victims should be given a voice and trusted. If they aren't, there are no investigations. However, their word cannot be enough to convict someone or even ruin their reputation forever. That's not how law works in democracies. If someone falsely accused me of something, I would die trying to clear my name. However, I think that it would be heartbreaking for people to look at me with the 'there's no smoke without fire' look even if nothing had been proven.

I agree with everything you say here, Claudia. I also think that there should be no publicity until a case goes to court. Once the court process begins, then I think it should be open to public scrutiny. We should have no court proceedings behind closed doors. In Cliff's case, there was an investigation, as there should have been, and the CPS decided that there was "insufficient evidence" to proceed to trial. Because this was all over the media, Cliff will live with the "no smoke without fire," suspicions. Whether he actually committed the crimes for which he was under suspicion or not none of us has any way of knowing. He should, though, have had the right to anonymity until he was tried before a court.

And since he was never tried, the public shouldn't have known about the suspicions. The truth is that even after his death he will be called a sexual abuser by many people although in the eyes of the law he is as innocent as I am. I think that's horrible. For me, the prospect of a victim of sexual abuse not being believed and not being legally vindicated is as heartbreaking as an innocent citizen living with the stigma of having committed one the most heinous of the heinous crimes.

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

cherry1 wrote:You need to read things properly Marky, I wasn't talking about an investigating officer!

So do you. I've said several times that all alleged victims should be given a voice and trusted. If they aren't, there are no investigations. However, their word cannot be enough to convict someone or even ruin their reputation forever. That's not how law works in democracies. If someone falsely accused me of something, I would die trying to clear my name. However, I think that it would be heartbreaking for people to look at me with the 'there's no smoke without fire' look even if nothing had been proven.

I agree with everything you say here, Claudia. I also think that there should be no publicity until a case goes to court. Once the court process begins, then I think it should be open to public scrutiny. We should have no court proceedings behind closed doors. In Cliff's case, there was an investigation, as there should have been, and the CPS decided that there was "insufficient evidence" to proceed to trial. Because this was all over the media, Cliff will live with the "no smoke without fire," suspicions. Whether he actually committed the crimes for which he was under suspicion or not none of us has any way of knowing. He should, though, have had the right to anonymity until he was tried before a court.

And since he was never tried, the public shouldn't have known about the suspicions. The truth is that even after his death he will be called a sexual abuser by many people although in the eyes of the law he is as innocent as I am. I think that's horrible. For me, the prospect of a victim of sexual abuse not being believed and not being legally vindicated is as heartbreaking as an innocent citizen living with the stigma of having committed one the most heinous of the heinous crimes.

Well said, Claudia. Some people are pointing to the Elms Guest House list on which there is someone called "Kitty," who is said to have been Cliff Richard. That is as maybe, but I have not seen proof that it is so.

Claudia - "I've said several times that all alleged victims should be given a voice and trusted"

So how does that equate to this........

""That, however, doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly as so many miscarriages of justice prove."