Cliff owning an apartment in Ocean Club?

cherry1 wrote: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."

As you seem to have difficulty understanding me, I'll try different words: a testimony without further proof cannot, in a civilized society and in a democratic setting, be enough to convict and/or soil someone's reputation. A testimony should generate an investigation. Always. If that investigation comes up with nothing, zero, nada, the person investigated should be seen as innocent and suggesting he or she is nothing but innocent is unfair, undemocratic and immoral as far as I'm concerned. Hope that's clearer.

ETA:
This could well be a question of English not being my native language but since Anna clearly understood what I meant, I assume it's not.

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

Why stop at Cliff? Why not the Pope? The Queen's husband? The Prime Minister? It's ridiculous. The world would be a better place if we all put ourselves in other people's shoes. Instead of Cliff it could be our father, our husband, our son. How would we feel about this kind of gossip?
I have no idea what type of person Cliff is. I know what type of singer he is but even so he doesn't deserve being accused of horrible crimes and living with that stigma after an investigation which led to nothing.

People don't get named for no reason - police have known about Cliff for some time, its all part of the VIP coverup.

As you mention the Pope, various Popes have for decades been instrumental in the coverup of child abuse in the Catholic church

as for Prime Ministers perhaps research Edward Heath and also Operation Ore

Also Prince Andrew has had allegations levelled against him in relation to under age girls, his best friend of course being paedophile Epstein.

You may not be aware of the closeness of Charles to Jimmy Savile - makes you wonder why Royals decided to speak out in McCann case

Think you will find it not so ridiculous

Claudia79 wrote:

cherry1 wrote: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."

As you seem to have difficulty understanding me, I'll try different words: a testimony without further proof cannot, in a civilized society and in a democratic setting, be enough to convict and/or soil someone's reputation. A testimony should generate an investigation. Always. If that investigation comes up with nothing, zero, nada, the person investigated should be seen as innocent and suggesting he or she is nothing but innocent is unfair, undemocratic and immoral as far as I'm concerned. Hope that's clearer.

ETA:
This could well be a question of English not being my native language but since Anna clearly understood what I meant, I assume it's not.

Im not talking about anything to do with investigations or convictions or testimonies, I am talking about you saying how victims must be given a voice and trusted then make a comment saying

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

This is the attitude which has caused so much damage to victims, so you say they must be trusted but doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly........

So a child discloses, trusts in you to disclose but you don't one hundred per cent give that child your trust - because it has to be investigated, so you think maybe the child is telling the truth, maybe not - cos it has to be thoroughly investigated, which gives the feeling you don't trust the word of the child, and the child can pick that up and in many cases children will withdraw the allegation when they pick up someone doesn't believe them, so its like you seem to be saying I will give you a voice but I'm not going to believe you cos there has to be an investigation!

Children have to be believed, one hundred per cent they have to be believed. When they are not believed they withdraw statements, when they are not believed they commit suicide, they have to be believed. the investigation is a completely separate issue nothing to do with a child disclosing abuse.

You've said that doesn't mean taking their word for granted without investigating thoroughly

The person a child discloses too should be taking their word for granted, what comes after is separate, when a child discloses you should believe. It is nothing to do with the investigation that comes after.

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.

Cherry, I will no longer exchange opinions with you because it is my belief that you are, on purpose, distorting my words which I find dishonest and insulting. You might not have been talking about convictions but I was. And you do not teach me about children victims of sexual abuse. I could explain why to you but I won't because you don't deserve it. Go on with your Taliban witch hunt. Like others, I'm out.

Regarding false allegations, research has shown the number of false allegations made is miniscule, and in fact very rarely made by a child, false allegations are sometimes made by a parent, normally female, in divorce, custody cases where a mother will sometimes make up that the father has abused the child and got the child to say that, rarely does a child make up an allegation of child abuse.

The false allegations movement I believe is backed up by the establishment, we have one of the main people driving this on social media Barbara Hewson barrister, who regularly engages on social media with sex offenders, who wants the age of consent lowered to 13, who puts out false information about false allegations, who believes that historical cases of abuse should not be looked into, who defends abusers, who laughs at victims of childhood abuse, who ridicules them and makes fun of them. She is also there to ridicule any suggestion of ritual/satanic abuse, the last taboo which the establishment are desperately trying to cover up. Some of those in the false allegations movements have themselves been charged with abuse.

Sometimes victims will retract statements, for example through fear - the false allegations brigade will then scream - false allegation cos the victim withdrew their statement, which happened in a recent high profile case. However what the media are not going to tell anyone is that the victim who changed their statement did so due to threats made, not only against himself but against his daughter.

Victims are often threatened to change statements, some are pressured by family members when the abuser is a family member or involving a family ring -again the false allegation brigade will scream - false allegation!

The number of false allegations in relation to child abuse is so miniscule it cannot be used as a reason to cast doubt on the word of victims and say - oh we are not going to believe you because there has to be a thorough investigation, that is entirely the wrong message to send out to victims of abuse.

A child comes to you to disclose you believe them one hundred percent, society cannot continue to let down children by not believing and you do take their word for granted.

Claudia I have not twisted anything - I was very clear in what I said - and you chose to quote something completely different when I first made reference to your comment. I quoted exactly what you said -


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


that is not a helpful thing for someone to say, that is the mentality that has let children down for decades - you are clearly saying you are not believing them without investigating thoroughly...... THAT is what lets kids down again and again and again.

And your comments - as so many miscarriages of justice prove - there are not so many miscarriages of justice in child abuse cases, so why would you even write something like that, perpetuating the propaganda about false allegations of abuse which I have explained above.

I don't need you to explain anything, I have seen enough thank you and not sure what the Taliban has to do with this.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

allow me to amplfy my comment. the CPS decide if it's a case they can win. a jury has the last word on the truth.

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.

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.

question. do you believe in the death penalty?

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

allow me to amplfy my comment. the CPS decide if it's a case they can win. a jury has the last word on the truth.

Marky, you are just repeating in a very simple way what I have been saying. Apart from the fact that someone who claims to have been abused has the right to be taken seriously. I have worked in Child Protection and with Child Protection police on investigations. I know how these things work. In our legal system, both the accuser and the accused have the right to be taken seriously. I do know who makes the decisions about charging...YES I DO KNOW WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS ABOUT CHARGING.

cherry1 wrote:People don't get named for no reason - police have known about Cliff for some time, its all part of the VIP coverup.

RUDE COMMENT DELETED.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

allow me to amplfy my comment. the CPS decide if it's a case they can win. a jury has the last word on the truth.

Marky, you are just repeating in a very simple way what I have been saying. Apart from the fact that someone who claims to have been abused has the right to be taken seriously. I have worked in Child Protection and with Child Protection police on investigations. I know how these things work. In our legal system, both the accuser and the accused have the right to be taken seriously. I do know who makes the decisions about charging...YES I DO KNOW WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS ABOUT CHARGING.

so then, we both agree but from different directions.

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.

".....instructions from above not to pursue". That brings us back to Madeleine's case. My conviction is that the McCanns are guilty, at the very least, of being involved in the concealment of her little body. I believe she bled and died, based on what I consider to be the alerts of the dogs (which I know is not considered evidence as such). Knowing she was dead, the McCanns are also guilty of fraud for soliciting and accepting donations to find their "missing" daughter. For whatever reason, I believe instructions came from "above" (the British government) not to pursue these matters.

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

allow me to amplfy my comment. the CPS decide if it's a case they can win. a jury has the last word on the truth.

Marky, you are just repeating in a very simple way what I have been saying. Apart from the fact that someone who claims to have been abused has the right to be taken seriously. I have worked in Child Protection and with Child Protection police on investigations. I know how these things work. In our legal system, both the accuser and the accused have the right to be taken seriously. I do know who makes the decisions about charging...YES I DO KNOW WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS ABOUT CHARGING.

so then, we both agree but from different directions.

I am not agreeing, simply saying what the regulations are regarding Child Protection. Under law, the child has the right to be taken seriously. That is the first part of a lengthy process.

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.

question. do you believe in the death penalty?

No I don't Marky because if someone has done something terrible and ruined a person's life or been responsible for someone committing suicide I believe being put to death is too easy for them, I would take away their freedom for life for the most serious crimes.

interested 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.

".....instructions from above not to pursue".  That brings us back to Madeleine's case.  My conviction is that the McCanns are guilty, at the very least, of being involved in the concealment of her little body.  I believe she bled and died, based on what I consider to be the alerts of the dogs (which I know is not considered evidence as such).  Knowing she was dead, the McCanns are also guilty of fraud for soliciting and accepting donations to find their "missing" daughter.  For whatever reason, I believe instructions came from "above" (the British government) not to pursue these matters.

I would certainly agree with that interested, the level of political involvement is unprecedented in this case and as Amaral said the case will be solved when there is the political will to do so.

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.

cherry1 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.

question. do you believe in the death penalty?

No I don't Marky because if someone has done something terrible and ruined a person's life or been responsible for someone committing suicide I believe being put to death is too easy for them, I would take away their freedom for life for the most serious crimes.  

thought so.

Sorry you are wrong there, they would have said No evidence, they said insufficient evidence which means there was evidence put to the CPS - the CPS remember who let Janner off among others - and insufficient evidence means there is evidence.

We haven't heard the last of this one.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 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.

question. do you believe in the death penalty?

No I don't Marky because if someone has done something terrible and ruined a person's life or been responsible for someone committing suicide I believe being put to death is too easy for them, I would take away their freedom for life for the most serious crimes.  

thought so.

Do you believe in it then?

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.  

No, it doesn't mean no evidence. It means what it says, "insufficient." not enough.



Simple Definition of insufficient

: not having or providing enough of what is needed : not sufficient

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insufficient

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

allow me to amplfy my comment. the CPS decide if it's a case they can win. a jury has the last word on the truth.

Marky, you are just repeating in a very simple way what I have been saying. Apart from the fact that someone who claims to have been abused has the right to be taken seriously. I have worked in Child Protection and with Child Protection police on investigations. I know how these things work. In our legal system, both the accuser and the accused have the right to be taken seriously. I do know who makes the decisions about charging...YES I DO KNOW WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS ABOUT CHARGING.

so then, we both agree but from different directions.

I am not agreeing, simply saying what the regulations are regarding Child Protection. Under law, the child has the right to be taken seriously. That is the first part of a lengthy process.

yes, you are agreeing but from the liberal side of the fence which is typically yes but no but yes. the allegation is made, it's investigated, there's no substance, it's over, move on.

you okay?