Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Not exactly reliable evidence but after rolf, nothing surprises me.
Not because I want him or indeed anyone to be found guilty of such horrific crimes but because it will mean an end to the yearly Cliff Richard calendars that my Mrs gets as an ironic Christmas present every year. Last year he had a string vest on for one of the months. My eyes!!!!
Bought a few in HMV for a couple of quid each last january and used them as wrapping paper for the last xmas :D
should go through the roof.
it'll just be via eBay instead of WHSmiths.
He did not touch me.
... isnt he?
Wired for sound is one of the greatest music videos of all time. Also,. I thought he was a eunuch who lived with a priest, allegedly, OH WAIT A MINUTE. Everybody Out.
however Cliff is one of loads of 72-year-old men.
Hope it's not him; that said, I can't think of someone who I'd hope it was.
and they were right.
Makes me thing that general, opportunistic kiddie touching is fucking wide spread.
Sometimes these things are correct, but as Sally Bercow so famously proved, sometimes they are not, so over-speculation is never wise.
It was his birthday the day after he was arrested, so the papers then started referring to an 83 year old man. Bit of a giveaway.
A lot of it is based on the fact he has always been single and people have always speculated about his sexuality - because where there are no facts, speculation and malicious gossip is what fills the gaps. Like ccb said, it would be nice to think this is just more malicious gossip, because it would be great if no one had done the things that Yewtree is investigating.
Tears. Actual tears.
I helped set up for it and when I met the guy I said "Hey Cliff*, massive fan." and he gave me a weird look, chuckled a bit, then said "Alright then." then walked away. Didn't realise what I'd done until a moment afterwards and spent the rest of the night avoiding eye contact with him.
*Cliff Richard performed a few years earlier and for some reason I found him confusable with Rod.
1)It was with the chubby faced one from McFly
2)It was at the cinema
3) My mate said he was a fan of his song "Year 3000"
4) This mistake was deliberate
5) "Dougie" (or whoever) told him to "fuck off"
6) This may well be a made up story, my mate is kind of a liar.
when I met the guy who played Les on Vic Reeves Big Night Out at a music festival in Deptford. I'd had a few drinks by that point, & said "Fucking hell, it's Graham Lister!" "Right show, wrong character" he said. "Ah...LES!" "Yes! Correct." "So what are you doing these days then?" I asked. A wistful look came over his face & he said "Oh...trying to get a couple of solo projects going..." We were both silent for a few moments, then went our separate ways.
I honestly couldn't tell you the name of a single on of his songs.
to convince that I don't like Cliff Richard doesn't it
I'll say no more
Hope the fucker goes to jail.
was in a 'Leather bar' in Earls court and saw Cliff Richard with some leather joyboys. (late 80s)
but it wasn't cliff, it was some other old (alleged) nonce
Also: ' 'Ex-BBC producers Ted Beston and Wilfred De'Ath and a 65-year-old man who has not been named have all been released without charge' '.
I'm never gonna build a lynch mob for an ex-BBC producer
but my totally non-libellous comments that i think it's not helpful of conor orbest to sue that woman is deleted.
I fully support any action to kick Conor Oberst in the nuts but deleting stuff for legal type reasons feels like it should be his call.
but when it's a fairly important discussion about how his actions could silence people who might want to come forward in other cases in future... and sean provides no justification just "i deleted that to avoid legal action against dis", it's a bit ridiculous. the thread was made cause dis were interviewing him and wanted ideas for questions. i said i didnt think its appropriate to interview him when he's suing a woman for $1million for making a rape allegation on a forum (referring to the contents of a pubic statement which he had released), a bunch of usuals waded in totally missing the point and thinking this was about censorship or a "boycott" of conor orbest, then sean deleted it.
Tldr - agreed, imagine anything even vaguely dubi looking goes instantly regardless of merit due to lack of legal funds, ergo v surprised that this is still up.
I mean, I find it incredible how much the law protected McAlpine from the most vague and interpretable of Tweets. So I guess music people can threaten a lot.
In this case, I imagine no one cares or else we'd have been told.
bright eye's lawyers contacted sean and asked him to delete comments which didn't even insinuate anything defamatory about their client, just reasonable opinion about something which he has very publically done? is sean really stupid enough to give into that kind of non-threat?
I suspect that it would have been from the person handling Oberst's PR, with the threat of pulling the interview.
It's his site
more that he was deleting posts tackling rape culture for no real reason i.e. doing a bad thing.
not funny haha