Sir Cliff Richard

This is precisely the problem with the CPS saying there was "insufficient evidence", bluebell - it encourages people to think that there's no smoke without fire. It's unfair and will leave a shadow cast over Cliff for the rest of his life. If they can't make a case, the CPS should say that the case has been dropped rather than implying that there was some evidence but somehow not enough
Believe me, if there had been any "evidence" they would have gone to court

Satsuma wrote:This is precisely the problem with the CPS saying there was "insufficient evidence", bluebell - it encourages people to think that there's no smoke without fire. It's unfair and will leave a shadow cast over Cliff for the rest of his life. If they can't make a case, the CPS should say that the case has been dropped rather than implying that there was some evidence but somehow not enough
Believe me, if there had been any "evidence" they would have gone to court

Not necessarily
As an aside I can remember a police documentary where the camera crew filmed and televised an incident that the CPS didn't take action due to insufficient evidence

There is no such thing as "insufficient" evidence. Evidence is evidence

If there had been evidence that Cliff had committed a crime, it would have gone to court. Obviously. Evidence leads to possible conviction

Therefore there was no evidence. Just an account of something that may or not have happened, with nothing to back it up

Evidence doesn't need to be physical, witness statements etc can be used


Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

This is taken from the CPS website

Somebody accusing you of something, without tangible facts to back it up, does not amount to "evidence" in any sense of the word other than to lawyers and the CPS
If there had been a single independent witness to anything Cliff is alleged to have done, that witness would have been offered up in court. It would have been persuasive to a jury
But they only had the accusers' versions of events versus Cliff's

Satsuma wrote:Somebody accusing you of something, without tangible facts to back it up,  does not amount to "evidence" in any sense of the word other than to lawyers and the CPS
If there had been a single independent witness to  anything Cliff is alleged to have done, that witness would have been offered up in court. It would have been persuasive to a jury
But they only had the accusers' versions of events versus Cliff's

I'm going to disagree with you there. I got accused of ABH, totally unfounded, no witnesses and I chose to not accept a caution when the police knocked on my door and arrested me as I knew I'd done nothing wrong. CPS decided to take it to court and I naturally got found not guilty 6 months later.

Fact is the CPS pursued it against me and I actually had to attend court 6 months later. Not sure why Cliff didn't have to defend himself as I did.

And it was my ex husband's new partner who was jealous as we still had a relationship because of our son.

Good gracious ... !

You did the right thing chrissie, and it's shocking that it got that far

Sir Cliff Richard lodges papers suing BBC and police

1 hour ago


Singer Sir Cliff Richard is suing the BBC and South Yorkshire Police after being investigated over allegations of historical sexual assault.
Legal papers were filed at the High Court in London on Thursday.
They list Sir Cliff as a claimant, and the BBC and chief constable of South Yorkshire Police as defendants.
The star, 75, has always denied the allegations, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said in June it was taking no further action against him.
The decision to sue the BBC and South Yorkshire Police comes after Sir Cliff was the subject of a long-running police investigation based on allegations dating between 1958 and 1983 made by four men.

Sir Cliff was named as the subject of the investigation after police officers searching his apartment in 2014 were filmed by the BBC.
The CPS announced it was taking no further action against Sir Cliff on 16 June on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
That decision was reviewed last month following an application by one of his alleged accusers, but concluded the original decision not to proceed was correct.
After that announcement, Sir Cliff told BBC Radio 2 that "a cloud lifted" when he was informed of the news he would not be prosecuted.
The singer has previously spoken publicly about the investigation and the publicity surrounding it.
In a statement released in June he criticised what he called "vile accusations", adding he was "named before I was even interviewed, and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'".
A spokesman for the singer said: "We can confirm that Sir Cliff today issued legal proceedings at the High Court against both South Yorkshire Police and the BBC. It would not be appropriate to comment further."
A BBC spokesman said: "While we haven't received any notification of action, we've said previously we are very sorry that Sir Cliff has suffered distress but we have a duty to report on matters of public interest and we stand by our journalism."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37580723

Freedom of the press v what exactly,it will be interesting to know just what the legal papers claim.
Of course there are cynics out there who would say that adverse publicity ensured that there never would be a case to answer.

IMO CR has over-reacted and gone down the suing road - big money, big media attention etc. It makes them look more guilty IMO.

Look at Paul Gambaccini - he went through the same and he`s just carried on with his life without all the hoo-ha.

He's settled with Yorkshire police......


Cliff Richard settles with police over sex abuse reports

Sir Cliff Richard and South Yorkshire Police have settled a legal fight over reports naming him as a suspected sex offender.

The singer sought damages from the force, and the BBC, over media coverage of a police raid on his home in 2014.

On Friday, lawyers told High Court judge Mr Justice Mann that Sir Cliff and the force had come to terms.

The BBC, which is still disputing the claim for damages, said it "had a duty to report" the investigation.

Sir Cliff said live BBC coverage of the police search of his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, invaded his privacy.




He sought "very substantial" compensation from both South Yorkshire Police and the BBC.

In a statement on Friday, a BBC spokesman said: "The BBC's responsibility is to report news stories that are in the public interest."

The corporation said the "extensive disclosure of historical child sexual abuse" by other celebrities made the investigation - and a subsequent police decision to search his home - a worthy news story.

"A search happened, and because it did, the BBC reported it - just as any other media organisation would have and did," the spokesman said.

'Profound' damage

South Yorkshire Police had already apologised "wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused".

The force learned of the sex offence allegations in July 2014, searching Sir Cliff's Berkshire flat the following month.

In June 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service announced Sir Cliff would face no charges.

The star's lawyers said he suffered "profound and long-lasting" damage from coverage of the search, and from being publicly named as a suspected sex offender.

They also say South Yorkshire Police contravened guidance on "relationships with the media".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40059252



Still the dispute with the BBC to go.

No matter how much money he gets out of the police and BBC, it`ll never take away what`s written in black and white and permeated the internet.  Even turning to religion did not help.

He turned to religion in the 1960s so long before there were any rumours about him - other than that he was "one of them" as used to be whispered when I was a child!

I bought this record for my mother - it will bring back lots of memories to listen to it again after all these years.




I personally haven't read anything about him that I find to be believable.

Freedom wrote:He turned to religion in the 1960s so long before there were any rumours about him - other than that he was "one of them" as used to be whispered when I was a child!

I bought this record for my mother - it will bring back lots of memories to listen to it again after all these years.




I personally haven't read anything about him that I find to be believable.

No I haven`t either - it was only the list of guests from that paedo guest-house showing him and Jess Conrad there.  Perhaps they were doing research - both very pretty boys btw.  I really don`t know, unless it was 2 other guests that went there and used CR and JC`s names.

PS - you`ve probably guessed that I often find that people who are desperate to appear squeaky clean, nicey nicey and god-like are fighting some darkness within. We know a few people like that.

Yes, it makes me cringe when it's said that people are very religious as if that means they couldn't do anything wrong.

To quote the old song, that don't impress me much!