(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!

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

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

(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

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

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

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

I wonder who will be next...

Elton John
Bruce Forsyth
Noel Edmonds

(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.

(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...

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.