Sir Cliff Richard

Satsuma wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:There wasn't enough evidence for the Crown to prosecute.

Put more correctly, and without the CPS  spin, there was no evidence. If there had been, it would have led to a prosecution.  You can't have "not enough" evidence or "insufficient" evidence. Evidence is evidence

What they really mean is that they found  nothing that implied, let alone proved, Cliff's guilt. I wish they would be honest enough to say that

Don't police get the 'evidence' then the CPS gets involved to see if they can prosecute i.e. if there is enough.  The CPS would not get involved unless the police thought they had some sort of case/evidence surely?  I thought that is how it worked, perhaps I am wrong then.

Yes that's exactly how it works, candyfloss, and it appears that the police handed the CPS a great big file full of nothing but unsubstantiated accusations. Insufficient evidence = no evidence

" Insufficient evidence = no evidence"
***
Let's agree to disagree & no offense meant.

Not meaning that Sir Cliff is innocent or not, but that c'est le ton qui fait la musique ...
Insufficient in my vocabulary is: there seems to be some, but not enough to be sure ...

And ... just as I indicated before, this counts [may count] for some others we've been discussing here before.

Satsuma wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:There wasn't enough evidence for the Crown to prosecute.

Put more correctly, and without the CPS  spin, there was no evidence. If there had been, it would have led to a prosecution.  You can't have "not enough" evidence or "insufficient" evidence. Evidence is evidence

What they really mean is that they found  nothing that implied, let alone proved, Cliff's "guilt". I wish they would be honest enough to say that

Like with Janner and Saville and Smith,easy isn't it,Glitter,Harris,Hall,Clifford not a title amongst them some how go down,titled people don't.

Heisenburg wrote:

Satsuma wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:There wasn't enough evidence for the Crown to prosecute.

Put more correctly, and without the CPS  spin, there was no evidence. If there had been, it would have led to a prosecution.  You can't have "not enough" evidence or "insufficient" evidence. Evidence is evidence

What they really mean is that they found  nothing that implied, let alone proved, Cliff's "guilt". I wish they would be honest enough to say that

Like with Janner and Saville and Smith,easy isn't it,Glitter,Harris,Hall,Clifford not a title amongst them some how go down,titled people don't.

Good point Heisenburg, interesting indeed....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1720620/sir-cliff-richard-vows-not-to-let-shock-sex-abuse-review-break-his-spirits/

Snipped:

It said nine men had made allegations but five of the cases did not reach the threshold necessary for them to be considered by the CPS.

What about the other 4 cases though?

insufficient
ɪnsəˈfɪʃ(ə)nt

adjective
not enough; inadequate.
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
synonyms: inadequate, not enough, too little;

Some breaking news about the Cliff on Sky. Can't copy it over though...

Freedom wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37321023

A second alleged sexual abuse victim of Sir Cliff Richard has challenged a decision not to bring charges against him, prosecutors have said.
The Crown Prosecution Service said last month it was reviewing one case after a request by a male complainant, and another has now requested a review.
In June it said there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute Sir Cliff over sex abuse claims made by four men.
A spokesman for the singer said: "Sir Cliff reaffirms his innocence."
Both cases are expected to be reviewed together, with the outcome expected this month, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said.
Alleged victims of crimes are entitled to a review of decisions not to charge suspects under a scheme set up by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales in 2013.
A spokesman for Sir Cliff said: "Sir Cliff reaffirms his innocence and has every confidence the CPS will come to the right conclusion as soon as possible."
On Tuesday, in reply to a question about Sir Cliff's case, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said reviews would be looked at within 28 days.
"We only overturn these decisions if we think that the original decision was wrong," she told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.
"We look at it again, and it must still be that there is sufficient evidence and it's in the public interest to prosecute. It must still satisfy the tests."
The four men alleged the sex offences had taken place between 1958 and the early 1980s.
When the CPS decided not to bring charges against Sir Cliff in June the singer said he was "thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close".


A lesson here in "don't count your chickens..... ?

No love lost between the beeb and Cliff.

Interesting that Alison got a mention. Her of going off to Portugal Re: the McCann stuff.

Needs to buck up on both fronts, imo.

Andrew wrote:insufficient
ɪnsəˈfɪʃ(ə)nt

adjective
not enough; inadequate.
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
synonyms: inadequate, not enough, too little;

In general terms, Chatelaine is correct to say "Insufficient in my vocabulary is: there seems to be some, but not enough to be sure ..."

but regarding evidence in crime cases,  the word "insufficient" isn't appropriate. The CPS is playing with the  English language to cover the fact that they don't have anything
if there was one piece of tangible evidence (rather than just one person's word against another)  it would be enough, as it would be in any case
so there can't be any "evidence" at all (like fingerprints on the handle of a knife in a murder case)

It's shocking that they use the word "insufficient", because it implies they think he's guilty. Bordering on libel if you ask me

Deleted Andrew as we have absolutely no proof of anything just website gossip and accusations, .

As soon as Cliff is 6 ft under then all sorts will come out of the woodwork. IMO.

But probably not before.

That was certainly what happened with Jimmy Savile - with all the stuff that came out about him - and, more recently Clement Freud.

I'm still not convinced myself about Cliff Richard though. There have a few accusations and I feel that, if he was a serial abuser, this would have given all the others the courage to speak out.

If all the existing allegations are as believable as the roller-skating into a shop one, no wonder that none of them have been considered to be strong enough to pursue.

I thought that there would be a deluge of horror stories after the death of Lord McAlpine - who had been accused on the Internet of just about everything, including murder - but there hasn't been a peep.

It could be the same with Cliff.

Satsuma wrote:

Andrew wrote:insufficient
ɪnsəˈfɪʃ(ə)nt

adjective
not enough; inadequate.
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
synonyms: inadequate, not enough, too little;

In general terms, Chatelaine is correct to say "Insufficient in my vocabulary is: there seems to be some, but not enough to be sure ..."

but regarding evidence in crime cases,  the word "insufficient" isn't appropriate. The CPS is playing with the  English language to cover the fact that they don't have anything
if there was one piece of tangible evidence (rather than just one person's word against another)  it would be enough, as it would be in any case
so there can't be any "evidence" at all (like fingerprints on the handle of a knife in a murder case)

It's shocking that they use the word "insufficient",  because it implies they think he's guilty. Bordering on libel if you ask me

Interesting perspective of the CPS you have there Satsuma

I think until his alleged connection with Elm guest house, aka Kitty, is cleared up, people will doubt. And no one seems to be clearing the air round that. If there is an innocent explaination why isn't he singing it from the roof tops. I know I would. It was a brothel where under aged boys were passed around, an innocent man would want to clarify that, in my opinion.

His choice of friends leave a lot to be desired. Kray twins, Saville, the Blairs, the royals, MI5 connections allegedly, to name but a few. Google his friendships.

As for not being charged, yet, it doesn't mean no evidence as far as I'm aware, I believe it means they don't have enough to be sure of a prosecution. That certainly does not mean no evidence. In a lot of historical cases it's a case if he said she said, there won't be physical evidence, as in finger prints, DNA etc. it will come down to little details, but still, most of the time, it's not enough to prosecute. It may be enough for the police to believe fully in the victims, even for the CPS to believe the victims, but not enough to be sure of a prosecution. Cliff has not been declared innocent by the cps because they would have to prove all 9 accusers were lying. Only then could they say he is innocent.

You would think if all nine were lying it would have been stated by now.

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty, but where Cliff is concerned I'd be erring on the side of caution until he cleared up his connections with his dodgy friends and Elm guest house and also until the victims were proven to be liars. I doubt all 9 are liars, I also don't believe for a second this will ever go to trial.

Money and power bring lots of advantages. The big power seems to be knighthoods, it seems to give protection from the highest order, look at Jimmy Saville and what he got away with, it's incredible, have all these "sirs" and "lords" got something on eachother?

Satsuma wrote:

But regarding evidence in crime cases,  the word "insufficient" isn't appropriate. The CPS is playing with the  English language to cover the fact that they don't have anything
if there was one piece of tangible evidence (rather than just one person's word against another)  it would be enough, as it would be in any case
so there can't be any "evidence" at all (like fingerprints on the handle of a knife in a murder case)

It's shocking that they use the word "insufficient",  because it implies they think he's guilty. Bordering on libel if you ask me

Being the CPS I would have thought they would know if it was libellous,clearly not for them to utter it.

The way I understand it,the police investigate,they collate all statement's,produce a file,this is then handed to the CPS for them to decide whether the evidence is sufficient enough to secure a conviction or for some reason its in the public interest or not, such was the case in the Janner debacle..

Heisenburg wrote:The way I understand it,the police investigate,they collate all statement's,produce a file,this is then handed to the CPS for them to decide whether the evidence is sufficient enough to secure a conviction or for some reason its in the public interest or not, such was the case in the Janner debacle..

I think the same, back in I my post I was saying they need to be sure of a "prosecution" but I should have said conviction.

I don't understand what public interest has to do with anything though, I'm not grasping that.

Also as far as I'm aware, when the CPS decide they won't prosecute because of lack of evidence, it doesn't mean the case is closed. It can be opened up again if further evidence was to come to light, enough that they would hope to get a conviction.

An example of 'not in the public interest' is a parent reversing out of a drive and killing their child. Yes you could prosecute them for driving without care or attention but really is it in the public interest to punish them further. They have lost a child, that is punishment enough.

Not sure where that applies in the case of Cliff Richard though.

I remember a case which was declared to be not in the public interest to prosecute the mother of three or four children who died in a fire, caused I think by her being drunk; she suffered terrible injuries.

It doesn't seem relevant to the situation with Cliff though, as Chilli said.

The CPS  review evidence and decide if there is sufficient to gain a conviction from a jury of ones peers. That is why often charges are reduced ie attempted murder may become GBH ,GBH become an assault because the offence criteria are less and are more likely to get that conviction,in realistic terms would you like to see a criminal walk away not guilty, or be sent down for a lesser offence?
I've never heard insufficient evidence be equated to libel before

No surprise really...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cliff-richard-not-charged-over-8922476

All nonsense, not the slightest piece of evidence against him. Case closed. Now watch Cliff go after the CPS for their "insufficient evidence" slur

Satsuma wrote:All nonsense, not the slightest piece of evidence against him. Case closed. Now watch Cliff go after the CPS for their "insufficient evidence" slur

I'm not wholly in agreement at your quote of "not the slightest piece of evidence against him" Satsuma.

We have no knowledge of what the evidence police presented to CPS.

That the CPS have decided not to form a prosecution case is ex ante.