If the State says you're going down, then you're going down...........your life is a bit like a Car that you're buying on HP, stop making the payments and see how long you keep it. That's as close to freedom as anybody is going to get, even in this wonderful Country of ours. It's the same the whole World over, with some places being better than others..................the answer is to stay under the Radar.

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:
I was thinking they must have had a search warrant to enter his property,what grounds did they give to the magistrate to obtain that warrant considering this alleged offence took place so long ago,what I wonder were they hoping to find?

---

Possibly diaries, memoirs etc.

No more worries for a week or two!,fun and laughter?. I always imagined Cliff Richard would be a good priest,,maybe not me thinks. We"ve seen it in the movies!, now lets see if its true?????.

Succinctly put, Sir Arthur.

It is interesting to to see that some who, quite rightly, criticise others for assuming guilt at the first sign of a police investigation, are happy to assume that anyone coming forward is only doing so in order to claim compensation before there is any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that is their intention.

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

It is interesting to to see that some who, quite rightly, criticise others for assuming guilt at the first sign of a police investigation, are happy to assume that anyone coming forward is only doing so in order to claim compensation before there is any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that is their intention.

---

Fair point in principle, but why else would a number of other people come forward saying "oh yes, I've just remembered, he touched me thirty-five years ago as well"? And why does it only seem to happen when the alleged offender is rich?

This comment is not just about the latest case.

I was walking down Cheshunt High Street...must have been some thirty-odd years ago - and Cliff Richard bumped into me. Have I a claim do you think ?

---

@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

It is interesting to to see that some who, quite rightly, criticise others for assuming guilt at the first sign of a police investigation, are happy to assume that anyone coming forward is only doing so in order to claim compensation before there is any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that is their intention.

---

Fair point in principle, but why else would a number of other people come forward saying "oh yes, I've just remembered, he touched me thirty-five years ago as well"? And why does it only seem to happen when the alleged offender is rich?

 

This comment is not just about the latest case.

---

Not always the case though - publicity over historical cases involving teachers, clergy and sport coaches have brought forward 'new' complainants.

---

@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

It is interesting to to see that some who, quite rightly, criticise others for assuming guilt at the first sign of a police investigation, are happy to assume that anyone coming forward is only doing so in order to claim compensation before there is any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that is their intention.

---

Fair point in principle, but why else would a number of other people come forward saying "oh yes, I've just remembered, he touched me thirty-five years ago as well"? And why does it only seem to happen when the alleged offender is rich?

 

This comment is not just about the latest case.

---

I would agree that the police handling of the search, and subsequent media circus, has been highly questionable.

That said, to say all accusers in cases of historical abuse are compensation seekers who target the rich, is clearly not true.

One of many current examples is Chris Denning,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716571/Former-Radio-1-DJ-Chris-Denning-admits-29-sex-offenc...

fairly high profile to those of a certain age, but as he lived in a council house in Basildon, unlikely that he is worth a vast fortune.

#3 Computers.

---

@i-am-legion-too wrote:

---

@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

It is interesting to to see that some who, quite rightly, criticise others for assuming guilt at the first sign of a police investigation, are happy to assume that anyone coming forward is only doing so in order to claim compensation before there is any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that is their intention.

---

Fair point in principle, but why else would a number of other people come forward saying "oh yes, I've just remembered, he touched me thirty-five years ago as well"? And why does it only seem to happen when the alleged offender is rich?

 

This comment is not just about the latest case.

---

I would agree that the police handling of the search, and subsequent media circus, has been highly questionable.

 

That said, to say all accusers in cases of historical abuse are compensation seekers who target the rich, is clearly not true.

One of many current examples is Chris Denning,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716571/Former-Radio-1-DJ-Chris-Denning-admits-29-sex-offenc...

fairly high profile to those of a certain age, but as he lived in a council house in Basildon, unlikely that he is worth a vast fortune.

 

#3 Computers.

 

---

Ah... but celebrity usually means money.

In this instance, it may not be the case   However even I did not know that, so I assume others did not too.

BBC in crisis over Cliff Richard raid: Corporation accused of blackmail after police say they were FORCED to let TV screen live the dramatic swoop on star's house... 

And why does it only seem to happen when the alleged offender is rich?

On what grounds would you make that assumption?

Changing the word 'rich' to 'well known' and it becomes apparent, you don't hear what happens where the suspected person is not newsworthy, you don't know how many people have come forward.

So Beeb slammed for silence over abuse

now slammed for showing raid on alleged abuser

they can't win

I think it shows questionable judgement and all things considered that the BBC is brimming with questionable people.