goldfinger
- 09 Jun 2005 12:25
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.
Clocktower
- 09 Jul 2018 15:26
- 81031 of 81564
Now Boris has done the right thing, it now just needs that dirty back stabing weed Gove to walk down the same path.
Cerise Noire Girl
- 09 Jul 2018 16:30
- 81032 of 81564
I do miss gammon.
Fred1new
- 09 Jul 2018 17:42
- 81033 of 81564
Do you?
I would have thought you are a black coffee girl.
Dil
- 09 Jul 2018 18:46
- 81034 of 81564
Well done Boris now go kick some arse and get the numbers needed to get a proper Brexit leader.
Cerise Noire Girl
- 10 Jul 2018 06:24
- 81035 of 81564
Very good Fred, but I'm more a Bombardino or Vodka Red Bull girl actually. But that's not the type of
gammon I was referring to.
:o)
Clocktower
- 10 Jul 2018 12:42
- 81036 of 81564
Need a energy drink like Red Bull laced with Vodka I note CNG, unlike any good Scot who would only add more whisky to whisky and keep going.
required field
- 12 Jul 2018 19:12
- 81037 of 81564
I think the Trump balloon is a bit petty if I can call it that.....is that thing something to do with Pink Floyd or what ?...(no offense love that group)…..perhaps it's another brick in the Wall !.....hey ! teacher/inflater leave the Kids alone !.....
Fred1new
- 13 Jul 2018 08:22
- 81038 of 81564
Clocktower
- 13 Jul 2018 17:11
- 81040 of 81564
I guess TM will want to blame Trump for her demise before long but she will not be able to stake it to the lawn at Chequers - being a vicars daughter, she is more likely pass the hat around.
KidA
- 17 Jul 2018 12:18
- 81042 of 81564
Waiting for Schumer and McCain to announce the opening of McCarthy Park; the DNA of Joseph used to recreate the creatures of McCarthyism.
ExecLine
- 18 Jul 2018 12:00
- 81043 of 81564
Sir Cliff Richard has this morning been awarded £210,000 damages from the BBC for the "general effect" on his life.
The judge said he is entitled to recover further sums for the financial impact on the star, which will be decided at a later date.
Sir Cliff says he isn't able to make much of a comment on this yet, explaining he is still 'emotionally' under shock from the whole situation.
He did seem to come across to me as being 'more sensitive and also more camp than usual' this morning than usual. IMHO, it is this sort of 'slightly camp personality thing' which affects one's assessment, that he is quite possibly a 'closet gay'. 'Closet' in the sense, that he has never seemed to deny or defend on this aspect of his personal life or say anything 'open about it'.
He has made many extremely successful, 'seemingly heterosexual' hit records. One has to wonder, if in doing this his position might just be a bit hypocritical. Hmmm?
I do wonder why the BBC seem to hate Cliff so very much? eg. At one time, the BBC DJ, Chris Evans, even refused to play any of his records on his very popular lengthy morning show.
Cliff does still retain a very youthful appearance even into his old age and he has been famous for it. Surely to goodness, this BBC 'hate thing' isn't merely jealousy about his musical success and looks?
The police raid and BBC collusion in it was completely out of order and I believe it is perfectly reasonable for Cliff to receive substantial damages, not only from the police but also the BBC. Good luck to him for that.
Now you can't knock Sir Cliff Richard's looks or his singing ability and success or his popularity.
Is it possible people think he is a sexual hypocrite? I wonder? Hmmm?
Anyone know anything for certain about Cliff's relationship with the BBC?
Clocktower
- 19 Jul 2018 17:31
- 81044 of 81564
Nobody should be named before convicted - the accuser gets away scot free even if they have made false claims, and the victim suffers even if completely innocent.
Just look at those that claimed rape against that young man that suffered because the police failed in their duty to review all the evidence or withheld it just to get a false conviction.
Cliff is entitled to a lot more damages than he has already received, how much work would he have been able to do, let along the long term metal damage done.
The BBC and Police owe him several million, not that will ever compensate him for what they put him through. Good job he at least had some good friends that stuck by him.
iturama
- 20 Jul 2018 07:21
- 81045 of 81564
What is a "sexual hypocrite" EL? Everyone still has the right to privacy provided no harm is done to others. No ifs, buts, or maybes.
The hypocrisy is for the BBC to complain about press freedom when it has clearly overstepped its reporting mandate, at great expense to the taxpayer, and done harm to an innocent person. The heads involved should be sacked without compensation.
Clocktower
- 20 Jul 2018 08:36
- 81046 of 81564
iturama, Agreed, the first they should sack is that woman the directors of news, who even even came out trying to justify their position suggesting the ruling was a "significant shift against press freedom" - and not only shoul they sack them without compensation but they should be forced to pay a small part of the damages, as they have abused the tax payers.
Fred1new
- 20 Jul 2018 10:43
- 81047 of 81564
If three little boys have been “abused” individually by another person but not made any complaint to the “authorities”, because they are frightened and don’t think they will be believed by others. see that a 4th little boy is similarly abuse and has complained to the authority and the “problem” starts to be investigated, should the name of those who may be involved are questioned be revealed.
This may allow the first three to be prepared to present “evidence” to enable further investigation and prosecutions if the evidence is substantiated.
I am fully aware of “false” complaints.
Think about Jimmy Saville’s cases.
The perpetrators in this sort of problem often depend or rely on the “victims” being frightened or “ashamed” and that no investigation will be verifiable.
-=-=-=-=-=
The problem for Cliff Richard is that he has lived in the light of the media and benefitted from it and that sometimes there is a price to be paid for doing so.
Reporting the “facts” on any “investigations” such as Richard's, should be no different to that of reporting the apprehension of an individual on similar “evidence” in the back streets of London for similar reasons.
KidA
- 20 Jul 2018 11:50
- 81048 of 81564
No. The failure of authorities isn't a reason to name in the media.
ExecLine
- 20 Jul 2018 13:17
- 81049 of 81564
iturama
"Everyone has the right to privacy".
I agree. But not all the time and about every aspect of their lives, particularly if they make a highly paid living from sales of things to the general public and become a star.
I think just about everyone agrees the BBC overstepped the mark involving themselves with the police in the raid on Cliff's home, when he wasn't even in residence. The police were also out of order including the BBC in the raid too.
I hope the judge's 'privacy verdict element' does get revised.
Fred makes some very excellent points in his comments in 81047.
Naming the accused prior to trial does seem to flush out witnesses beneficial to the prosecution.
Naming the accused prior to trial does greatly harm the accused if he is then subsequently found to be innocent.
Finding a balance solution between the two has to greatly help those who are found to be innocent. It doesn't seem do this and for far too long a period of time.
Naming accusers seems to be an anathema. Malicious and false accusations and innocence of the accused are not properly catered for either. And if someone brings out an accusation which is true but cannot be proved, well, this is sad too.
There have to be better 'legal minds' out there than my 'non-legal one' who can come up with better solutions to these problems than I can.
But it is my own opinion, that Cliff may well be gay but by not admitting to it, even if it was a part of his personal history which is now well in the past, then this is not 'being open' to his followers and fans.
During Cliff's 'reign', the law changed and homosexuality is not now illegal. Indeed, it is now legal to be a homosexual and well accepted because society knows and understands much more about it. There is now no shame in it either.
I remember him on TV in "Oh Boy!" back in the late 1950s when he was a supposed rebellious rock and roll singer in the style of Elvis and Little Richard and often backed by Hank Marvin and the Shadows. This was in the pre-Beatles period of the late 1950s to early 1960s. His 1958 hip swinging hit single "Move It" is often described as Britain's first authentic rock and roll song. Back then his real name was 'Harry Webb' and he had an Elvis snarl (disguising a bad front tooth? Hmmm? Maybe?).
That was Cliff then. My! Hasn't he changed?
Homosexuality was definitely illegal back then. My! Hasn't that changed too?
Is his sexual preference private? Yes. Certainly. In his position as a very big star, think how he has had to cope with the law and its changes if he has always been gay? How very, very difficult for him!
If he is gay but doesn't ever admit to it, than is this being hypocritical? Well, yes. But there's not a lot of harm in it because as you say and as most agree, he is entitled to his privacy. Nevertheless, it is an hypocrisy. One cannot say that it is not.
Sorry and all that. I really do prefer people who are not hypocrites and are 'open'. So although I like a lot about Cliff I guess I do have certain reservations about him. I doubt I could ever be friends with him. But that wouldn't be the only reason. We don't have the same tastes in many things or even move in the same circles!
I would guess, that's the score sheet for many other people too. Even those who do move in the same circles. Why? Well, surely it has to do with this sort of hypocrisy stuff. Indeed, some out there really hate his guts. Chris Evans is one of them. Perhaps the leadership of the BBC is another group who feel the same and thus acted as they did in concert with the police on this raid in a quite guiltless manner. I dare bet, they know a great deal more than me about him.
What very difficult topics! It is so easy to have cognitive dissonance about aspects and elements of the singer, Cliff Richard. And also concerning the privacy elements of the law concerning accusations about sex attacks of varying sorts on individuals.
Fred1new
- 20 Jul 2018 13:21
- 81050 of 81564
That is often advanced by some with vested interests.
The Mafia and Krays were ambivalent to the media, depending on whether it was useful or a hindrance.