Sir Cliff Re-Interviewed By The Police.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11978856/Sir-Cliff-Richard-re-interviewed-by-South-Yorkshire-Police.html

[naomi24]

Good.

[anotheoldgit]

naomi24

Thanks Naomi and Svejk, interesting to note that these trolls never seem to have their confrontational posts removed.

[ummmm]

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll, AOG.

[Svejk]

Don't know about 'trolls', ummmm. But constantly attacking the poster is a form of bullying. Just because aog appears indefatigable doesn't mean he hasn't got feelings.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll, AOG. ///

There are many on here who disagree with me, but I would not put them in the 'Troll' category, but these remarks are not disagreeing with me, and I am sure that if they were directed against you, you wouldn't describe them as being in disagreement..

*** presume your waiting for some juicy info? aog ***

*** Another yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn! ***

*** think we able to read the news on line aog with out you informing us ***

*** your obviously being subjective choosing what news you wish to keep "us" informed about. presume you have already found the celeb in the news guilty ??
svejk ...childish ***

*** i'll let you get on with your knitting ***

[ummmm]

I don't think those comments would bother me.

[wolf63]

ummmm

I have to admit that I am usually thick skinned - but persistent insults (even pathetic little ones) start to get to you after a while.

AOG shouldn't have to wear body-armour in his daily pursuit of stirring up t̶r̶o̶u̶b̶l̶e̶ debate.

[ummmm]

I agree, he shouldn't.

[youngmafbog]

Ivor, if you don't like the posts from AOG, why go on the thread simply to bully him?

Maggie; 5923 Questions from AOG (since 2006), 107 from Ivor (since 2008) and 1074 from you since 2009. I think we see who is keeping the site alive so whether or not you agree with AOG posts you have to admit his claim is pretty valid !

And to save you the bother, 722 questions since 2005 from YMB.

[mikey4444]

I am going to support AOG here. All he has done is to make us aware that Sir C is being interviewed again.

The petty squabbling on here is getting worse.

[youngmafbog]

And so to reply to your OP AOG.

Plod should not release the names of anyone they are interviewing, at the very earliest it should be once a person is prosecuted. We have seen prime examples from individuals on this very site that mud sticks.

This, once again is a very lazy form of Policing from the Old Bill.

[ummmm]

Michael Le Vell and Bill Roache don't seemed to have suffered so badly.

[naomi24]

youngmafbog, I don't think names should be released either. Mud does stick.

[naomi24]

ummmm, If it were you and you were innocent, I doubt you'd be happy to have your reputation called into question.

[RandyMarsh]

Nothing new to the story yet it makes the papers, that must wind Cliff and his legal team up.
This story kinda ruins the adage all publicity is good publicity.

[ummmm]

Of course I wouldn't be happy, that goes without saying, but if Joe Bloggs can be named I don't see why celebs can't.

[Copacetic]

Unless he is charged with something, the press should keep their beaks out.

[bazwillrun]

@maggiebee

"/I know who is classed as the more valuable contributor to the site.//
If this is you AOG you have a very high opinion of yourself. Totally unwarranted IMO. "

as compared to your "IMO" on here which is worth what exactly ?...

[naomi24]

ummmm, Joe Bloggs shouldn't be named either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you all for your support, I thought that was the job of the moderators to spot this kind of thing and nip it in the bud.