(14 Aug 2014, 1:08 pm)Marcus wrote Oh, I remember Cars. Next thing you'll see is a flaming tow truck looking like Mater!

And sounding like Larry The Cable Guy

It now looks like Cliff Richard has been implicated in the historic sexual abuse allegations.

His home in Sunningdale is currently being searched by police.

(14 Aug 2014, 1:20 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote It now looks like Cliff Richard has been implicated in the historic sexual abuse allegations.

His home in Sunningdale is currently being searched by police.

Say it ain't so Cliff

(14 Aug 2014, 1:20 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote It now looks like Cliff Richard has been implicated in the historic sexual abuse allegations.

His home in Sunningdale is currently being searched by police.

Cliff Richard denies historical sex offences.
http://www.nme.com/news/cliff-richard/79170

(14 Aug 2014, 3:49 pm)Jimmi wrote Cliff Richard denies historical sex offences.
http://www.nme.com/news/cliff-richard/79170

Not trying to imply anything but they all deny it and are then found guilty

(14 Aug 2014, 1:20 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote It now looks like Cliff Richard has been implicated in the historic sexual abuse allegations.

His home in Sunningdale is currently being searched by police.

I was having a conversation with a friend a few weeks back about this very topic while speculating who'd be next under investigation.

Cliff Richard was my speculative guess.

(14 Aug 2014, 4:05 pm)marxistafozzski wrote Not trying to imply anything but they all deny it and are then found guilty

From Facebook:


Cliff Richard
36 mins ·
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

(14 Aug 2014, 4:55 pm)Dan wrote From Facebook:


Cliff Richard
36 mins ·
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

Hmm

I'm sure Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and the rest said much the same.

(14 Aug 2014, 5:01 pm)AdamY wrote Hmm

I'm sure Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and the rest said much the same.

They did...

I wonder who will be next...

Elton John
Bruce Forsyth
Noel Edmonds

(14 Aug 2014, 5:35 pm)marxistafozzski wrote They did...

I wonder who will be next...

Elton John
Bruce Forsyth
Noel Edmonds

Much like Cliff Richard, Elton John gets on my nerves. I'll pick him.

(14 Aug 2014, 4:41 pm)AdamY wrote I was having a conversation with a friend a few weeks back about this very topic while speculating who'd be next under investigation.

Cliff Richard was my speculative guess.

Sunningdale is a nice place. Had no idea he lived there.

Getting back to the main point, it is easy to speculate and I have done it too.
His name wasn't one of those that had been mentioned during conversations I have had - seemingly everyone stuck to the dj/entertainer type person, popular in the 70's/80's.

Watching some of the old Top of the Pops episodes on BBC4 and the touchy nature of the presenters plus the cuddly nature of quiz/entertainment type shows shown on Challenge from the same period - it isn't hard to see why some of these accusations have been made.

At the time, I was oblivious to presenters like that and never noticed Wogan (with what looked like) his hands on female contestants bums on Blankety Blank for example.
A simple explanation could be that his hand may have been on the lower part of the contestants back, simply holding the nervous contestant in position for the camera, during the final round... However, in a litigious society - a contestant may not remember it quite the same.

What annoys me the most about all of this is why these allegations are all appearing now when they happened back in the 70s/80s. This however doesn't excuse what they have done, if they have...

(14 Aug 2014, 6:03 pm)Robert wrote What annoys me the most about all of this is why these allegations are all appearing now when they happened back in the 70s/80s. This however doesn't excuse what they have done, if they have...

It could be a whole mix of reasons - including fear.
The wall was broken with Saville and any fear the celebrities have instilled into their victims will have hopefully gone.

Imagine you wanted to report to the police that a celeb had been doing things they shouldn't.
The celeb will have convinced you, that you would be laughed out of town. Nobody would believe you.

Since Saville, the authorities have clearly demonstrated that name or reputation counts for nothing and victims have the chance to come forward.

I am guessing there will be the odd chancer, but for the majority - I am glad times are changing and people are being believed.

(14 Aug 2014, 6:10 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote It could be a whole mix of reasons - including fear.
The wall was broken with Saville and any fear the celebrities have instilled into their victims will have hopefully gone.

Imagine you wanted to report to the police that a celeb had been doing things they shouldn't.
The celeb will have convinced you, that you would be laughed out of town. Nobody would believe you.

Since Saville, the authorities have clearly demonstrated that name or reputation counts for nothing and victims have the chance to come forward.

I am guessing there will be the odd chancer, but for the majority - I am glad times are changing and people are being believed.

Yes but, if it was an ordinary person without fame the chances are it will be reported straight away and really, celebrities are no different apart from their fame.

(14 Aug 2014, 7:39 pm)Robert wrote Yes but, if it was an ordinary person without fame the chances are it will be reported straight away and really, celebrities are no different apart from their fame.

Not necessarily, look at Sex Abuse scandals in places like Care Homes in the 60's up till recently, the abused would not report there abusers for the same reasons Andreos pointed out, these people were no Jimmy Savile or Max Clifford, though they were people like Coppers, Magistrates, Freemasons etc, so 'ordinary' people in a position of power/authority were able to abuse and get away with it...Look at what has been coming out recently about the former Medomsley Young Offenders Institute, there is the Waterhouse Report in the 90's as well

(14 Aug 2014, 7:39 pm)Robert wrote Yes but, if it was an ordinary person without fame the chances are it will be reported straight away and really, celebrities are no different apart from their fame.

As Fozz pointed out, others got away with it for years - probably due to their roles in the community.

However, whether it is victims of domestic abuse or of a sexual nature, creating that element of fear can play a massive part in the perpetrators getting away with their punishment for a long time.

Kids I went to school with, only had the courage to speak up about certain things a long time after the 'events' ended.
One mate in particular had it tough. We were all totally unaware. He confided in me 4/5 years ago and that was circa 10/12 years after it ended.

(14 Aug 2014, 9:08 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote As Fozz pointed out, others got away with it for years - probably due to their roles in the community.

However, whether it is victims of domestic abuse or of a sexual nature, creating that element of fear can play a massive part in the perpetrators getting away with their punishment for a long time.

Kids I went to school with, only had the courage to speak up about certain things a long time after the 'events' ended.
One mate in particular had it tough. We were all totally unaware. He confided in me 4/5 years ago and that was circa 10/12 years after it ended.

I had a similar experience last year, a guy I know, who actually looked after me, got 18 months last year after he was caught shagging young girls. I told a female I lived with about it, and she instantly told me stuff I had suspected for years, although he never did anything to her, he came on quite strong at times and was very suggestive, but back in the day, I was 15/16, and it was something we all suspected, but never talked about it, so we left it and it never got brought up again till he got sent down, I don't know why it never came up years ago, because other people have told me stories about the guy in question when he got suspended and when investigated, accusations went back a long time, before I even knew the fella

Does anyone else think Cliff Richard looks like a dead North Korean Dictator in tomorrow's Telegraph

Operators should enforce same rules as taxis. 30 quid charge or whatever if you're sick on board.

(15 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm)aureolin wrote Operators should enforce same rules as taxis. 30 quid charge or whatever if you're sick on board.

Agreed...might put them off being sick on the X93!!

(15 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm)aureolin wrote Operators should enforce same rules as taxis. 30 quid charge or whatever if you're sick on board.

At the end of the day though, they can't help been ill. Your point may be stronger than mine but that's my view of it.

Yes, I also know if your ill you shouldn't travel but at the end of the day, if you need to be somewhere that is too far to walk and can't drive they have no choice but to use the bus.

(15 Aug 2014, 5:50 pm)Robert wrote At the end of the day though, they can't help been ill. Your point may be stronger than mine but that's my view of it.

Yes, I also know if your ill you shouldn't travel but at the end of the day, if you need to be somewhere that is too far to walk and can't drive they have no choice but to use the bus.

I know they can't help being ill, but they can make a judgement call on whether they're well enough to travel on public transport or not. If they know they're not well enough to travel (as they're likely to vomit on the bus), but still do travel, then it's unacceptable in my opinion. Is it acceptable to inconvenience everyone else on that trip (or the one after that's now been cancelled due to the bus being fouled) who also need to be somewhere?

Of course there's the other type of vomiting on the bus. Such as parents who let their kids jump all over the bus on a full stomach or full of sugar/sweets. The result is ultimately the same.

If you're that ill and you need to travel to a medical centre/hospital/etc, then call a paramedic. That's what it's there for. If someone is ill at work we do just that. We don't send them up to Dryburn on a bus.

And if it hasn't got anything to do with medical appointments? I know I may be going overboard but there are appointments that don't have specific people driving about to pick them up and take them there. Cancelling may also not be an option leaving them no option but to go and possibly vomit on a bus whilst going or coming back. Just like you, my view of this hasn't changed and a majority of me still sticks to it being ok despite it being more than inconvenient for passengers.

(15 Aug 2014, 6:00 pm)aureolin wrote I know they can't help being ill, but they can make a judgement call on whether they're well enough to travel on public transport or not. If they know they're not well enough to travel (as they're likely to vomit on the bus), but still do travel, then it's unacceptable in my opinion. Is it acceptable to inconvenience everyone else on that trip (or the one after that's now been cancelled due to the bus being fouled) who also need to be somewhere?

Of course there's the other type of vomiting on the bus. Such as parents who let their kids jump all over the bus on a full stomach or full of sugar/sweets. The result is ultimately the same.

If you're that ill and you need to travel to a medical centre/hospital/etc, then call a paramedic. That's what it's there for. If someone is ill at work we do just that. We don't send them up to Dryburn on a bus.

Buses are for everyone to travel on regardless of whether they are well or not. Can you imagine the outcry if we started refusing customers because they looked unwell and may be sick while on the bus.

(16 Aug 2014, 7:30 am)mrnut85 wrote Buses are for everyone to travel on regardless of whether they are well or not. Can you imagine the outcry if we started refusing customers because they looked unwell and may be sick while on the bus.

That's not what he was saying though. The suggestion was to have a penalty fine (£30) for those who are sick on the bus and cause disruption to everyone else, who are then more than entitled to claim 'compensation', causing the company to lose out on even more cash.
This would discourage anyone who feels like they are going to be sick from travelling by bus. Really, it's quite inconsiderate.

So if I have been out to Middlesbrough for the day and for example had summit to eat from Burger King or a chippy and the food has made me feel ill then I either have to stay stuck in Middlesbrough or risk paying 30 quid i dont have to Stagecoach thats if the driver lets me on the 1 or 36 that does seem unfair do u not think.

(16 Aug 2014, 8:50 am)col87 wrote So if I have been out to Middlesbrough for the day and for example had summit to eat from Burger King or a chippy and the food has made me feel ill then I either have to stay stuck in Middlesbrough or risk paying 30 quid i dont have to Stagecoach thats if the driver lets me on the 1 or 36 that does seem unfair do u not think.

If a taxi was your only mode of transport, you'd have to pay the £30 - why should the bus be any different?

(16 Aug 2014, 8:50 am)col87 wrote So if I have been out to Middlesbrough for the day and for example had summit to eat from Burger King or a chippy and the food has made me feel ill then I either have to stay stuck in Middlesbrough or risk paying 30 quid i dont have to Stagecoach thats if the driver lets me on the 1 or 36 that does seem unfair do u not think.

As long as you're alright though... Sod the other 30 odd passengers on the bus yeah? At least the 30 quid could go towards sourcing and replacing the trip you prevented running.

Few year ago, i was on the 18 coming back from the airshow, 2 stops before i got off... this kid vomited everywhere.... tell u i was glad i was getting off i the next 5 mins or so....


I can deal with baby sick and snots but... kids vomited aged 2+... i just cant


Driver wasn't to happy as it means, he would have to wait for a replacement bus... not like he could hide it, it was in middle of the bus on the walk way

Arriva's policy on passengers being sick is carry on with the journey, I got on the 7 to Framwellgate Moor one morning and someone had been sick at the back of the bus, on another occasion on the 7 to Framwellgate Moor a passenger was sick in the pushchair bay and my brother said that he got on the 7 one night and there was sick on the floor.