This is not how justice is applied.

[Stillhomewardbound]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11038267/Sir-Cliff-Richard-investigation-police-defend-televised-raid-on-singers-home.html

Apparently the South Yorkshire Police and the BBC have coseyed up on an investigation into allegations of a 'sex with a minor' nature against a certain one time Peter Pan of Pop. Between them they've been all over his apartment and hovered over his Sunnigdale home in a helicopter beaming its pictures straight back to Media City. Oh, and they've told the whole world what they are at and precisely why they are at it.

Their defence? New allegations have since been made due to the media exposure. Yes, and astonishingly, when notices of unclaimed fortunes appear in the classified columns all manner of people are brought out of the woodwork. Who would have thought?

Now, I thought our legal system still worked on the basis of a presumption of innocence. Well, in this instance both the police and the BBC have cocked up royally because even if there are grounds for charges they've presented a picture to the world of a suggestion of guilt before even even a single question has been asked of this person or a single charge applied.

Heads really need to roll for this because we have a relationship between the police and the media that has been clearly highlighted by the likes of the Leveson Inquiry as injurious to our system of justice and that it continues in this blatant fashion beggars belief.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...gers-home.html

Apparently the South Yorkshire Police and the BBC have coseyed up on an investigation into allegations of a 'sex with a minor' nature against a certain one time Peter Pan of Pop. Between them they've been all over his apartment and hovered over his Sunnigdale home in a helicopter beaming its pictures straight back to Media City. Oh, and they've told the whole world what they are at and precisely why they are at it.

Their defence? New allegations have since been made due to the media exposure. Yes, and astonishingly, when notices of unclaimed fortunes appear in the classified columns all manner of people are brought out of the woodwork. Who would have thought?

Now, I thought our legal system still worked on the basis of a presumption of innocence. Well, in this instance both the police and the BBC have cocked up royally because even if there are grounds for charges they've presented a picture to the world of a suggestion of guilt before even even a single question has been asked of this person or a single charge applied.

Heads really need to roll for this because we have a relationship between the police and the media that has been clearly highlighted by the likes of the Leveson Inquiry as injurious to our system of justice and that it continues in this blatant fashion beggars belief.

I agree with every word of this. I think the police also trotted out their earlier spiel to the effect that publicisation of the raid could bring any accusers that might otherwise wish to stay schtum out into the open; but that is a mighty assumption for the police or anyone else to make, way beyond any call of duty.

[Stillhomewardbound]

The BBC seem to go from one error to next. Not being on the ball about the whole Saville thing and then by way of reflex being too far ahead of the ball in this case.

If charges are forthcoming then counsel for the accused would be well placed to argue that they should be dismissed because the media exposure had made a fair trial impossible, and we do in fact have the opinion of a distinguished QC to hand from Geoffrey Robertson QC writing in today's 'Independent':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lawyers-and-mps-criticise-televised-raid-on-sir-cliff-richards-home-which-police-defend-9673123.html

[amateur51]

The BBC seem to go from one error to next. Not being on the ball about the whole Saville thing and then by way of reflex being too far ahead of the ball in this case.

If charges are forthcoming then counsel for the accused would be well placed to argue that they should be dismissed because the media exposure had made a fair trial impossible, and we do in fact have the opinion of a distinguished QC to hand from Geoffrey Robertson QC writing in today's 'Independent':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9673123.html

Bravo shb and bravo Geoffrey Robertson.

Meanwhile the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry continue to rot in the long grass. Leveson had some penrating things to say about the relationship between Press and police and it's time the spotlight was turned back onto them.

So where is the Home Secretary/ Or indeed her opposite number Yvette Cooper? Ah it's August, they're all on their hols, of course. And this is the traditional silly season when the Press print garbage to sell their copy. But should anyone's reputation and liberty potentially be put up for grabs by this avoidance of due process?

[Stillhomewardbound]

Am 51 ... as you say, 'it's August' and tonight/tomorrow South Yorkshire Police have launched an offensive to get their story out and suggest they were blameless in the actions of the media. Indeed, so cross are they that they've written a letter to the BBC to complain.

Let's hope the Station Sergeant had stamps sufficient in his top drawer tray to get the letter posted in time.

Meanwhile, yesterday, here's what they were saying about THAT raid:

“since the search took place a number of people have contacted police to provide information”, adding: “The media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.”

So, SYP, which is going to be in the next few days? Are you going to be Happy Glad, or Sorry Sad??

[Petrushka]

I couldn't agree more with SHB and Geoffrey Robertson. The behaviour of police here is outrageous - and Cameron talks about repealing the Human Rights Act.

It's about time the witch hunt of celebrities regarding 'historic' sex allegations was brought to an end. It's all completely out of control.

[Dave2002]

The behaviour of the BBC is dubious, whether or not the police have acted with propriety. At present the police are claiming, possibly correctly, that they did not alert the media, and that they are simply setting up what may be a valid enquiry. There are several issues. Firstly, if the BBC was tipped off by some dodgy process, it might have been better to act as if it had not been tipped off - that is do not report the case at all, at least until a clearer picture emerged. Secondly, why should celebrities be singled out for such close attention? If things proceed in certain ways it may be appropriate to report on the progress/process later on, but at this stage surely this behaviour is seemingly a return to the bad old days of speculation and News of the World tactics.

[Serial_Apologist]

The behaviour of the BBC is dubious, whether or not the police have acted with propriety. At present the police are claiming, possibly correctly, that they did not alert the media, and that they are simply setting up what may be a valid enquiry. There are several issues. Firstly, if the BBC was tipped off by some dodgy process, it might have been better to act as if it had not been tipped off - that is do not report the case at all, at least until a clearer picture emerged. Secondly, why should celebrities be singled out for such close attention? If things proceed in certain ways it may be appropriate to report on the progress/process later on, but at this stage surely this behaviour is seemingly a return to the bad old days of speculation and News of the World tactics.

In other words, two fingers to Leveson. Or one.

[P. G. Tipps]

It is nice and refreshing to see virtual unanimity here ...

Both the police and the media (sadly including the BBC) seemed to have lost any sense of responsibility in such matters.

The police certainly appear to be becoming more 'Americanised' as with so many other facets of British society. Was is it really necessary to have all these vehicles packed with police employees descending in a convoy on Sir Cliff's home when he was on holiday unaware what was happening? I find it difficult to believe that the cameras weren't part of the whole carefully-planned operation. I also well remember the ridiculous spectacle of the octogenarian Stuart Hall being taken from court in handcuffs escorted by two burly female officers. Did they expect him to do 'a runner'? No sense of proportion ...just everything geared for the media cameras! Maybe we'll be treated to the sight of a ball and chains attached to the next convicted senior citizen?

I also find it astonishing that this action was sanctioned over a single allegation of sex-abuse that was said to have happened decades ago. Apparently this was 'to encourage' more people to come forward. This is entirely different from what we were led to believe before ... that, because of the inevitable false accusations, there had to be 'a pattern' of abuse alleged by supposed victims before the police took action, which seemed to me to be eminently sensible and correct.

If Sir Cliff is proven to be innocent of any 'historic' sex-abuse claims I do hope legal redress is considered in order that we don't see any more of these ridiculously OTT police actions.

[Serial_Apologist]

I also find it astonishing that this action was sanctioned over a single allegation of sex-abuse that was said to have happened decades ago. Apparently this was 'to encourage' more people to come forward. This is entirely different from what we were led to believe before ... that, because of the inevitable false accusations, there had to be 'a pattern' of abuse alleged by supposed victims before the police took action, which seemed to me to be eminently sensible and correct.

If Sir Cliff is proven to be innocent of any 'historic' sex-abuse claims I do hope legal redress is considered in order that we don't see any more of these ridiculously OTT police actions.

The falsity or otherwise of any allegation will be dealt with in court if it comes to it. You're not saying that because it's just one allegation the law should not deal with it now, are you?

[P. G. Tipps]

The falsity or otherwise of any allegation will be dealt with in court if it comes to it. You're not saying that because it's just one allegation the law should not deal with it now, are you?

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying and was the official position of the police until the raid on Sir Cliff's home. One single allegation of sexual assault decades ago is impossible to prove unless there were witnesses to the alleged offence. However, if there is a 'pattern' of similar alleged offences then the police have something solid to investigate.

A person should only be taken to court if the prosecuting authorities are confident they have enough material to back-up their case and secure a conviction. That has always been the case, hasn't it?

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone alleged to have committed an offence should be taken to court and charged and have their house searched whilst they are away on holiday, irrespective of any proper evidence?

I would add that the police might know more than they are revealing which, of course, would be another matter altogether. I'm only going on what we have been told by the police themselves.

[amateur51]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying

No it's not you old wriggler.

I also find it astonishing that this action was sanctioned over a single allegation of sex-abuse that was said to have happened decades ago.

I took it for granted that S_A was referring to a single case with sufficient evidence that warranted bringing the action

[Serial_Apologist]

I took it for granted that S_A was referring to a single case with sufficient evidence that warranted bringing the action

Um, so did I...

[P. G. Tipps]

I took it for granted that S_A was referring to a single case with sufficient evidence that warranted bringing the action

So that's your way of saying that, somewhat reluctantly, we are in rare agreement concerning the single case we are all supposed to be discussing? Or, alternatively, you believe that in the case we are all supposed to be discussing there was already sufficient evidence to raid the alleged miscreant's house in front of the TV cameras, whilst the occupant was on holiday and without even the simple courtesy of informing him in the process? I have to say that, if the latter, your sudden support for such police action would be most out of character ...?

Um, so did I...

If you re-read your original post it does question my own remarks and suggest that police should act 'now' on a single sex-assault allegation and any person's innocence should only be established following court action. I accept that is not what you meant but now obviously wonder what you really did mean by questioning my remarks in the first place? :-)

[Serial_Apologist]

If you re-read your original post it does question my own remarks and suggest that police should act 'now' on a single sex-assault allegation and any person's innocence should only be established following court action. I accept that is not what you meant but now obviously wonder what you really did mean by questioning my remarks in the first place? :-)

Well, it was by simple reason of questioning your questioning of the idea that a single alleged offense in any category should be enough to warrant police enquiry.