Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

He did say that he was happy to cooperate with the police, so he may have given permission. However, they could have entered anyway if they had a warrant. I would think a warrant would be easily obtained with sufficient evidence. My father was a magistrate and the police would knock on our door sometimes at 3 o'clock in the morning to get a warrant signed. For drug warrants all police attending the search have to be listed. He would sometimes refuse to sign warrants with too many police for a simple drug bust.

Interesting Hays, so in effect we are saying here THEY have got some very good concrete evidence in their opinion.

Credible accusations are sufficient. Unlikely to be actual evidence after all these years unless there are witnesses.

Indeed, indeed.

More accusers seem to be coming forward now.

When you see a band wagon, be sure to jump on.

Geoffrey Robertson


Saturday 16 August 2014


The way the police have treated Cliff Richard is completely unacceptable



Due process has been subverted in a case that raises urgent questions on civil liberties




People believe that where there’s smoke there’s fire, but sometimes there is just a smoke machine.


By treating Cliff Richard as though he were a bank robber or a mass murderer, the police from Thames Valley and South Yorkshire, aided and abetted by the BBC and a Sheffield lay justice, have blasted his reputation around the world without giving him the first and most basic right to refute the allegation.

Last year, apparently, a complaint was made to police that the singer had indecently assaulted a youth in Sheffield a quarter of a century ago. The police had a duty to investigate, seek any corroborating evidence, and then – and only if they had reasonable grounds to suspect him of committing an offence – to give him the opportunity to refute those suspicions before a decision to charge is made.


But here, police subverted due process by waiting until Richard had left for vacation, and then orchestrating massive publicity for the raid on his house, before making any request for interview and before any question could arise of arresting or charging him.

Police initially denied “leaking” the raid, but South Yorkshire Police finally confirmed yesterday afternoon that they had been “working with a media outlet” – presumably the BBC – about the investigation. They also claimed “a number of people” had come forward with more information after seeing coverage of the operation – which leads one to suspect that this was the improper purpose behind leaking the operation in the first place. This alone calls for an independent inquiry.



The BBC and others were present when the five police cars arrived at Richard’s home, and helicopters were already clattering overhead. Police codes require that “searches must be conducted with due consideration for the property and privacy of the occupier and with no more disturbance than necessary” – here, the media were tipped off well ahead of time, and a smug officer read to the cameras a prepared press statement while the search was going on.



Long but interesting article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-way-the-police-have-treated-cliff-richard-is-completely-unacceptable-9672367.html

Definitely not good how the police and the BBC have acted with this investigation and as, 'Sir Cliff Richard', he does surely deserve better.

He has lots of support and if his only sex crime is sex with a 15 yr old boy, then he will earn his forgiveness for it easily I would think.

if his only sex crime is sex with a 15 yr old boy, then he will earn his forgiveness for it easily I would think.

So do you think having sex with a underage boy by a man is a trival crime ?

A great white shark is getting ready to bite dave's arse...



Double poll boost for Boris Johnson's attempts to return to Parliament

More than half of voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip would vote for Boris Johnson if he chose to stand there in May’s general election, while more than half of voters think the Tories have a better chance of winning in May with Mr Johnson as an MP





By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent

1:45PM BST 16 Aug 2014




Boris Johnson would almost certainly be elected as an MP if he is adopted by Tories in a prime London constituency, according to a poll.


More than half of voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip would vote for the Mayor of London if he chose to stand there in May’s general election, according to survey by Lord Ashcroft.


The news came as a second survey by Ipsos Mori for The Sunday Telegraph found that more than half of voters think the Tories have a better chance of winning the general election with Mr Johnson as an MP.


Lord Ashcroft's survey was conducted in Uxbridge and South Ruislip after the London Mayor confirmed his desire to return to Parliament showed he could significantly boost Tory support.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11038623/Double-poll-boost-for-Boris-Johnsons-attempts-to-return-to-Parliament.html

aldwickk 16 Aug 2014 16:30 - 45057 of 45058

Q. So do you think having sex with a underage boy by a man is a trivial crime ?

A. My first reaction to your question is that it somehow seemingly communicates, that the asker, namely yourself, has most probably got an obtuse, intransigent narrow minded attitude to these topics. You also seemingly communicate to me, that you most likely also have a 'holier than thou' approach to life too.

You do not define what you mean by the word, "sex" for a start.

I believe that some certain young kids are extremely 'street wise' and know what to do to earn quite a bit of money. At quite a young age some of them have even determined what their own morality is to be for the rest of their life. And also they some of them are sure of their sexuality preferences.

1. Oral sex? Given?
2. Oral Sex? Taken?
3. Mutual masturbation?
4. Masturbation given?
5. Masturbation taken?
6. Any of the above forcibly?
7. Any of the above for money or a gift?
8. Anal sex? Given?
9. Anal sex? Taken?
10. If anal and taken? Was it aggressive rape or consensual?
11. If taken? Was it consensually taken?
etc, etc, etc. Need I go on?

I am well aware, that it is against the law to have sex of any kind with a person under the age of consent.

Funnily enough, I belong to that peculiar group of people who believe that morality, justice and the law should be very closely related to each other. Accordingly, I think there are lots of things to be taken into consideration when sentencing, even when the perpetrator of a crime is technically guilty.

And the victim isn't always completely blameless, even if the victim was under age at the time. And there are 'degrees of being under age' too.

However, with obviously narrow minded people like you, I'll keep most of my opinions to myself.

It depends on the age of the other person. Where someone is a lot older there is a possibility of being in a controlling position. If the two people are of a similar age; say 15 and 16 or 17, then the police rarely do anything.

Exec this is what you posted........

ExecLine 16 Aug 2014 16:07 - 45056 of 45060

Definitely not good how the police and the BBC have acted with this investigation and as, 'Sir Cliff Richard', he does surely deserve better.

He has lots of support and if his only sex crime is sex with a 15 yr old boy, then he will earn his forgiveness for it easily I would think.............Ends....... good grieve man Aldwick is 100% right.

Would you like some old man playing around with your son or daughter??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Look Ive just got freinds with you again but your post sounds SICK.

I ask you to re-think your post and aplogise to the board.

I think you may just have had a relapse , it happens to us all as we get older, but for god sake say you were wrong about your earlier post and apologise.

Your a decent man.

Execline

Your long winded reply say's it all , Namely you thought you had to justify your remark and make a personel attack on me.

All things said and done, nobody has been charged with anything yet, and it might be prudent to wait until Cliff Richard has been convicted by a court of law before deciding that he should be tarred, feathered, and forced to watch Tottingham Hotspur play for a month of sundays.

But, any bloke in their 70's 80's who's been nipped, tucked, and wears a dodgy syrup like that has gotta be guilty. Right?

And there was Sue Barker just gagging to have sex with him all these years ago and he wouldnt because he was celebate - so she dumped him.

I'll have you know that Spurs played an excellent game today beating West Ham!

hilary, now come on, just think how you would feel if an old man had been fettling about with your kids, Im sure youd blow your top and kick the sh-t out of them like me.

Its human nature.

I dont hold anything against Exec, perhaphs thats how things were in the hippy days etc etc, but I dont like it. My mother actually says it was.

But still dont agree with it.

Tory strategist Lynton Crosby aims to keep Cameron out of TV debates

Australian strategist says he cannot see any advantage in prime minister taking part in leaders' election debates



Daniel Boffey, policy editor


The Observer, Sunday 17 August 2014





Lynton Crosby, the Australian strategist paid £500,000 by David Cameron to help win him the general election, is determined to block the staging of leaders' debates on television.

Downing Street sources say Crosby has made clear in private talks with aides that he cannot see any advantage in Cameron taking part in the debates.

It is understood Crosby hopes that by complicating negotiations between the parties and the broadcasters over the number, style and timings of the debates, the debates can ultimately be avoided.

A source said: "The public think Ed Miliband is weird so why give him a chance to dissuade them of that opinion through the debates. Miliband might even be quite good at them – surely much better to have weeks of pictures of Cameron on industrial sites and factories talking about economic growth. There may be a few blokes dressed in chickens chasing him around but no one votes on whether a TV debate has been staged or not. That's Crosby's position."



More: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/17/lynton-crosby-veto-leaders-debates-cameron



from the comment section:

Sickbag Strummered

17 August 2014 8:49am


Crosby's a genius isn't he? I'm starting to think this man is secretly working for the Labour Party, if this highly paid 'guru' can't fathom that Cameron will look like an absolute coward and gift his opponents with a massive stick to beat him with, then he's thick as pig shit

OK. Aldwyck and Goldfinger, you have changed my mind.

I apologise to the board.

I am completely wrong about this and I think unmarried 'pop star' Cliff Richard must surely has done something so depraved to some underage kid, that the BBC are perfectly right in what they did and film the 8 police in a convoy of 5 new cars, gaining entry into his home to search for evidence.

Sex is wrong. It is depraved. It is animalistic. Anyone who does 'it' is sick. It should be outlawed. And any kind of sex whatsoever, if it's between anyone over 16 with anyone under 16 is even worse.

Phew! I feel much better. I think I should now finish it off with a prayer too.

Now I can't live without posting on the MoneyAM bulletin board. I hope you will now all see your way clear to accept me back again?