Thursday, February 26, 2015

Cliff Richard Allegations : Everybody has an idea about everything, even if they are wrong

A statement released by Sir Cliff said:

"I  have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from.
"The police have not disclosed details to me

I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail.
I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon.
"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

Never does not mean did not, it is only applicable if the question asked is have you ever...?

Assault would depend on his personal internal dictionary definition of assault.
A paedophile could pass a poly if asked if he molested little Tiffany. or Billy?
In his personal internal dictionary he didn't see it as assault, he sees it as tickling or cuddling or hugging.

A statement analyst would seek to learn his internal personal dictionary and ask questions such as did you touch...?
Did you touch them over their clothes?
Did you touch them underneath their clothes?
Where did you touch them?
How did you touch them?
With what did you touch them?
Did they touch you?
and so on getting to specifics so they have no chance to minimise or lie by omission.

"I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from".
He would have an idea where the allegations have come from, at least one that is known of, relates to a
Christian rally in Sheffield in 1985 with an adolescent 15 yr old boy.
There are also the allegations of him being a visitor to elm guest house under the pseudonym kitty.
He would have been told at the time he was interviewed and his house searched on the warrant.
His attorneys would also have been told and, i presume would have then informed their client

"The police have not disclosed details to me"
They would have made him aware of the allegations against him when they paid him a visit.
Note though he doesn't say allegations, he uses the word details which means he is aware of what the allegations are but perhaps not the who is making the allegations or the specifics of the allegations.
He wants the listener/reader to believe he knows nothing about anything but he refers to details not allegations.

"I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail."
This is a weak and unreliable denial.

Never does not mean did not.

He also adds the additional qualifier IN MY LIFE which further weakens his denial.
If he has never assaulted anyone then it is a given it would be his whole life.
This is a sensitive part of his statement, he doesn't make a strong first person singular reliable denial and, if he doesn't say it, i can't say it for him.
He uses the word assault, i would need to learn what his definition of assault is.
He says assaulted and not sexually assaulted.
Assault is generally thought of as hitting or attacking someone physically, causing harm.
He may think that what he did wasn't assault as he did not hit or physically harm the victim,
He could claim it was harmless, consensual or loving, minimising the crime and the resulting emotional damage done to the victim(s) and their families and future generations

"I remain confidant the truth will prevail"
This is often used by guilty parties to convince the world they are innocent.

This can and often does change as evidence is found and charges laid.
Oft times the subject will use phrases such as fully intend to clear my name or express confidence regarding the truth only to do a plea deal when reality kicks in.
What is his definition of the
He uses the word TRUTH rather than i will not face charges because i did not sexually touch any child

"I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so".
Note the use of the qualifier FULLY (a qualifier is a word which when removed, does not change the meaning of the sentence)

Qualifiers weaken the statement.
It would be a given that an innocent person would cooperate with LE, why does he need to say he will fully cooperate?
Are or will there be limits to his cooperation?
OF COURSE is used to persuade the listener/reader to accept what the subject is saying without question.
He tells us he has fully cooperated with the police not that he is cooperating with the police currently.
This cooperation will depend on what LE find, any further allegations made and what his lawyers advise him to do.
Note also the dropped pronoun in relation to his continuing to fully cooperate with police.
He doesn't take ownership of continuing to fully cooperation and, i suspect, when more evidence is found / more victims come forward / further information is uncovered the cooperation will cease and he will lawyer up and say nothing

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon."
Here would be the perfect time to state he did not sexually assault/ touch any child since that is the allegation made.

If he was innocent as claimed, then there is nothing to stop him making it clear the allegations aren't true and shouting it from the rooftops day after day.
Innocent people will be loud and proud and will not stay silent if they are innocent..

Guilty people on the other hand invariably say they will say nothing else until the investigation has concluded / they get their day in court or the ever popular on my attorney's advice i will not be making any further comments.
Guilty people tend to want all the publicity to die down and go off the radar saying nothing or next to nothing except the usual spiel about attorneys and courts of law.

He hopes the investigation will conclude very soon which allows for it to continue especially if other allegations come to light which might be the case (elm guest house for example)
He doesn't say the investigation to conclude and me to be cleared as i did not sexually touch / sexually assault any child.
He only says conclude which allows for a number of conclusions some of which will be bad for him and good for the victims.

"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

Is it unbelievable because perhaps he thought he would never be caught?
Is it unbelievable given his professed Christian faith?
Is it unbelievable because he is an all round clean living good guy with a knighthood?
If he were innocent of any wrongdoing then i would expect to hear a strong first person singular reliable denial
I - first person singular
Did not /didn't  - past tense
Sexually molest/sexually abuse/sexually touch  any child - event specific

Anything thing apart from those words are classed as unreliable denials
Examples could be i didn't do it -  this begs the question what is the IT you didn't do?
I  never sexually molested a child - Never does not mean did not making it unreliable.
I  would  never harm a child -  Would is future conditional, if the subject has been caught or even accused the subject may think twice about it next time
Harm is also non even specific and, for example, in the case of murder and the subject uses harm rather than kill, they minimise the crime.

I am still waiting for him to make a strong reliable denial regarding the allegations, sadly it is not yet forthcoming.
I do expect his sexuality to finally come out possibly to divert attention from the allegations.
It is an open secret and possibly he maintains the facade due to the age of his fan base and also due to his professed Christian beliefs.

Way back when he first started, homosexuality was taboo and even up until fairly recent times it was the secret no one talked about although these days it seems everyone is jumping on the gay bandwagon if it will sell records or get them 15 minutes of fame.
His fan base, like most boy bands even today are the young girls of the time, girls who will buy his records, go to his concerts, buy memorabilia and generally scream and swoon at the feet of their idol, do their best to meet their idol or even jump into bed with them (back then they were called groupies)
Even today, boy bands tend to keep their sexuality hidden along with any significant others such as girlfriends or wives at the behest of their management.
Single boys and men mean more sales of records and memorabilia.
Having a significant other means reduced sales by girls who hope one day they may become their significant other and, who can get really jealous and angry even to making threats if their favorite gets a girlfriend, married or has favorite girls he hangs out with.
Cliff was portrayed and sold  as the UK version of Elvis Presley

I wonder if we will hear anything from his live in companion (an ex priest whose mom
elliptically told a newspaper in 2006: ‘He left for the same reasons so many of them leave. I know about his new life and Sir Cliff, of course. I hope they are happy'

I think there is a lot more to come out, especially since his name being on the Elm Guest House  list  along with his nickname of Kitty is open knowledge.
Elm Guest House has links to  paedophile parties  where underage boys were sexually abused by people in power or money or fame.
It will be interesting to see if he makes any mention of this in the coming days and weeks.

He has alluded to in in an earlier statement without getting into specifics

Aug 14 2014

"For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online.
"The allegations are completely false. Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.
"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.
"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will cooperate fully should the police wish to speak to me.
"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."
It is strange that, given the  allegations being made, and considering  how paedophiles are reviled, that rather than make a strong reliable denial  in relation to said allegations and that being called a paedophile directly or by implication is probably the worst thing you can accuse someone, particularly a man of, why not say I am not a paedophile, i did not visit Elm Guest House at any time, I did not attend any parties where underage children were sexually abused etc, he instead decided to say nothing.

This is unexpected and has caused me, and likely many others, to ask why won't he make a strong reliable denial?

Is this akin to by not answering the question you are answering the question?

By implication alone the questions running through the minds of the public are:
Are you a paedophile?
Have you sexually abused a child or children?
Did you attended parties where sexual abuse of underage boys took place?

These are not questions that will go away.
These are questions that demand an answer.

It reminds me of david payne and the Drs Gaspar statements and the common knowledge he liked to bathe other peoples children.
A child, Madeleine McCann, goes missing on a vacation where he is also present  and yet despite the allegations and all they imply, rather than make a strong reliable denial, he says nothing.
In such cases, given their nature, saying nothing is not an option.
Staying silent only fuels the fire.
Questions are asked as to why they aren't denying the allegation  which then leads to the logical conclusion that they aren't denying it because there is some truth to it.

Cliff has made no strong reliable denial, nor has he responded to the allegations regarding Elm Guest House (something LE will be well aware of)
By saying nothing, people will then ask why isn't he denying it?

Is there some truth to these allegations?
I await with interest any further statements he or his attorneys decide to make


  1. Indeed, Tania, I did think exactly that, why no strong denial of the Elm Guest House allegations? I also noted he draws attention to 'online allegations circulating for many months'; when the reality is, they are very much more than that. Rumours of abuse at EGH have 'circulated' for at least a couple of decades, so anyone naming CR as a visitor there stretches to a very long time before any internet 'discussions'.

    Still, he claims to have no idea where they came from? Protesting too much, methinks.

  2. "it seems everyone is jumping on the gay bandwagon if it will sell records or get them 15 minutes of fame."


  3. Aha! I see you mention DPayne here, I asked about him on another post :-)

    This is also MM related:Someone on a debate group on Facebook firmly believes that MM is in Morocco, I haven't seen their reasoning behind that theory or statistics to support that theory but I am curious about this! Tania, have you come across any statements (in the files) regarding Morocco? Thanks :-)

  4. Nikolaevna Preobrazhensky GrebenshchikovApril 20, 2015 at 4:19 PM

    Dear Tania Cadogan (AKA known as “HobsNob”),

    Greetings! I write you with question from frozen tundra Siberia where even here your fame as freedom soldier of justice for innocent Madeleine McCann remains well known! Thank you my sister!

    My question in area relating “internet troll.” If person, who real name is seen clearly by all in commentator section, then same person post reply using fake troll name talking to self using what you call profane words what we call профанация. Question: this person who profane self doing more like harm self (cutting) or pleasure self (masterbater) or only hiding identity to make alibi?

    Thank my UK friend!

    Nikolaevna Preobrazhensky Grebenshchikov


Post a comment