Cliffgate: is the thin blue line getting thinner and thinner?

SIR CLIFF RICHARD: Has said the claims against him are absurd and untrue.

HAVE you been assaulted in South Yorkshire recently? Did eight police officers in five cars come to your home to conduct their enquiries? Did they hang around for five hours conducting those enquiries? Oh, and did they arrange for a BBC crew in a helicopter to record everything and broadcast it live to the nation?

No? Thought not. That’s because you’re not famous and the alleged offence didn’t occur 30 years ago. If it happened to you yesterday, too bad! South Yorkshire police seem much more interested in the high-profile ‘historical’ stuff.

This follows news that Sir Cliff Richard faces at least one more allegation of sexual abuse after police reports that their investigation has “increased significantly in size.” As for Sir Cliff, he’s said the claims against him are “absurd and untrue” and he has “never, in my life, assaulted anyone.”

The police have so far behaved with a staggering lack of judgement, and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion they’re now attempting to deflect public scrutiny away from the Rotherham child grooming scandal. It’s high profile and doesn’t threaten them – unlike Rotherham which is right on their patch and ongoing.

The police usually leave the well-known accused in such cases in limbo for ages while they do little or nothing. That’s what’s happened several times in cases that have eventually been dropped.

Take, for instance, the broadcaster, Paul Gambaccini, whose bail was extended seven times over a whole year. They owe it to Sir Cliff to investigate speedily and resolve this – one way or the other. It’s the least they can do.

So, another nail in the failing reputation of the UK’s justice system and public trust in the police? Whatever your view, this case undeniably illustrates, yet again, the unfairness of naming the accused and ridiculously long police investigations.

It’s really hard to find safe ground on the naming issue. However, police and prosecutors rationalise that the surrounding publicity allows others who may have been wronged by the alleged offender to come forward: a fishing trip, in other words. Cases such as Sir Cliff’s are flawed and dangerous to the innocent party but, without anonymity, the current situation leads inevitably to a publicly declared presumption of guilt of the accused.

Anonymity for both parties is the only answer.

Nora Johnson’s thrillers ‘Landscape of Lies,’ ‘Retribution,’ ‘Soul Stealer,’ ‘The De Clerambault Code’ ( available from Amazon in paperback/eBook (€0.89; £0.79) and iBookstore. Profits to Cudeca.

Author badge placeholder
Written by

Euro Weekly News Media

Share your story with us by emailing, by calling +34 951 38 61 61 or by messaging our Facebook page


    • Dyann

      13 March 2015 • 00:05

      I totally agree with the article. Cliff is a decent honorable man. He has lost quite a lot of income as the radio stations haven’t been playing his records, and so the charities that he supports will get less income.
      I’m a Cliff fan, and have been to many concerts of the years. Screaming fans have been trying to get to Cliff. If Cliff had touched, which he didn’t, there would have been much bragging and certainly not complaints.

    • nuthatch

      12 March 2015 • 10:25

      no smoke without fire. nuff said . . .

    • teejay1

      12 March 2015 • 13:49

      I completely agree with this article. Thanks to the disgusting conduct of the BBC and the South Yorkshire Police this man, who happens to be very famous, has been subjected to trial by media. It is no coincidence that the ‘raid’ on Sir Cliff’s home, with its legally dubious search warrant and the BBC leading the chorus, was just prior to the Jay Report coming out, which reported on South Yorkshire Police’s failure to investigate the abuse of at least 1400 girls. Sir Cliff Richard had not been interviewed and knew nothing of the allegations against him when the raid was broadcast on live TV last summer, but that didn’t stop the police or the media blasting his name and reputation to hell. Naming anyone merely accused of an unproven, unsubstantiated alleged offence is wrong. It leads to the idiotic and flawed argument of ‘no smoke without fire’, the fallback position of people who have no idea what they are talking about. In This case this man was named and what he is accused of was mentioned numerous times, clearly enabling anyone else who wanted to come forward to know what they should accuse him of too. I have met Sir Cliff Richard. He is an honourable, decent man who would never hurt anyone let alone a child. The fact that certain people can not accept that someone would live a decent life says more about them than it does about him. I hope God will forgive these liars, because I never will.

    • Mary Fletcher

      12 March 2015 • 21:04

      Nuthatch really suits that name, talking rubbish helps nothing and no-one so before you utter rubbish be very sure of your facts

    • nuthatch

      13 March 2015 • 09:43

      understand, i do not bear cliff richard any malice whatsover. what interests me is why he was investigated hence my use of the idiom that has attracted the wrath of some commentators on this thread.
      reading that the investigation had been expanded in cliff richard’s case was the reason for my comment . . .

    • Diri La Veron

      14 March 2015 • 09:46

      Cliff Richard was named by ‘key witness’ Mary Moss as a paedophile and abuser at the infamous “Elm Guest House’. She managed to copy, photograph and hide away her evidence before The Met Special Branch raided her home and attempted to destroy any evidence she had. Why would they do that? Her evidence is readily available for anyone to see, presumably some ‘investigators’ don’t want to see it. The list includes Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Chris Denning. Presumably, to his sycophantic ‘fans’ this is not enough evidence?

    • Diri La Veron

      14 March 2015 • 12:36

      In 2010 Sir Cliff Richard surrended his British citizenship and become a National of Barbados known as a “Bajan”, this is extremely unusual. He no longer pays taxes to HMRC. As a “Bajan”, does he have any protection if, for example, the UK authorities/Police wanted to investigate and/or charge him with any offences committed in the UK? I wonder.

    • Diri La Veron

      14 March 2015 • 16:14

      So, you KNOW that he “never hurt anyone”, do you? Do you know this for a fact? Do a bit of research. He IS a suspect.

    • Susan Green

      17 March 2015 • 09:33

      Totally agree with this spot on article. Whatever the final outcome of this case, Cliff Richard’s name should not be disclosed unless he is found guilty. And if found innocent then the accusers should be named. The way it’s being conducted is all wrong.

    • teejay1

      26 March 2015 • 16:16

      I think I would know rather more than you Diri La Veron

    • teejay1

      26 March 2015 • 16:18

      Sir Cliff Richard is still a British citizen. He holds a British passport, which he was photographed with very recently. As for the other things you speak of, repeating lies doesn’t make you look clever, it just makes you look like you don’t know the truth form a lie.

    • Diri La Veron

      27 March 2015 • 08:45

      We’ll see.

    • Diri La Veron

      27 March 2015 • 08:48

      [quote]I think I would know rather more than you Diri La Veron[/quote]
      Ridiculous assumption.

      Your stupid, smug statement does not prove that you KNOW that he “never hurt anyone”, does it?

    • Diri La Veron

      27 March 2015 • 08:52

      Daily Telegraph 23 Sep 2010

      Sir Cliff Richard: Why Barbados beats Britain

      Sir Cliff Richard says he is no longer a British resident because he spends most of his time in Barbados.

      Although Sir Cliff Richard won praise in the Seventies for staying in Britain as Denis Healey taxed the rich “till the pips squeak”, the pop star has no trepidation about the Coalition’s plans to tackle the budget deficit.
      “I’m officially a non-resident, although I will always be British and proud of it,” says Sir Cliff.
      His spokesman, Bill Latham, confirms that Sir Cliff is a citizen of Barbados, where, after selling his house in Weybridge, Surrey, in 2006, he now spends most of his time.
      Latham tells Mandrake that the singer, who retains a flat in Sunningdale, Berkshire, has not paid tax to the British Government on money he earns outside the country for some years.
      “It was more about downsizing his property porfolio than a reaction to any policies of this or the last government.”

      Sir Cliff, 69, who will perform at the Royal Albert Hall in October, says he spends no more than “a week here, a week there” in Britain.
      He has a flat, too, in New York and a farmhouse in Portugal, but he says he is thinking of selling off his Barbados estate – where Tony Blair has stayed – to live instead in a flat overlooking the beach, so he needn’t worry about the upkeep of his gardens.

    • Diri La Veron

      27 March 2015 • 09:42

      A young Cliff Richard was a close friend of Lord Boothby, a known pedophile.

      Cliff Richard was a close friend of Ronnie Kray, a known pedophile, and wrote to him regularly whilst Kray was in prison.

      Cliff Richard was a close friend of Tony Blair (Anthony Charles Lynton Blair) AKA “Miranda”, a prolific cross-dresser at university. “Charles Lynton” was fined in Bow Street Magistrates Court in 1983 for soliciting in male public toilets.

      Cliff Richard was a close friend of Jill Dando and was one of the last people to speak to her immediately before she was murdered. Jill Dando was assassinated by a professional “hit man”. Jill Dando was heavily involved in investigating a high level VIP pedophile ring.

      All circumstantial!

    • dan

      30 March 2015 • 02:03

      Mary, you are sick, to defend a child rapist.

    • grapevine

      30 March 2015 • 09:52

      This article’s really set off a war of words. Fascinating subject.Keep up the good work – well done!

    • Diri La Veron

      06 April 2015 • 10:02

      In the ’70s Lord Longford (friend of child abuser and murderer Myra Hindley) went on a fact finding mission studying the porn industry in London and Copenhagen. He took with him odd-ball charity worker and Disc Jockey (ahem, ahem) Jimmy Saville and…wait for it…Cliff Richard.

      Just circumstantial!

    • Diri La Veron

      08 April 2015 • 14:51

      [quote]OK, and these “facts” are backed up with evidence?[/quote]

      Yes, do some research! I do and so do many, many others. Unfortunately, most of what is proven to be true, but may be unpalatable to the brainwashed masses, will not be printed in “mainstream” media. Even ‘local’ papers like this will not print information which is backed up by evidence in the form of documents, images and video. If it goes against the “agenda” it will ‘ignored’. On many occasions I have attempted to give verified information and links to information in these columns and it does not appear. Why do you think that is?

    • Roy Peters

      08 April 2015 • 16:50

      Dan, why do you have the nerve to call him a child rapist? Do YOU have evidence that the police do not have?
      If you don’t, as I suspect is the case, then please keep your comments to yourself!!!!!

    • Roy Peters

      08 April 2015 • 16:54

      “Your stupid, smug statement does not prove that you KNOW that he “never hurt anyone”, does it?[/quote]”

      Diri, you are making a lot of assumptions and accusations yourself. Do you KNOW and have PROOF that Cliff Richard has molested anyone?
      If you do then I suggest you contact the police, but if you DON’T then I would rather you SHUT UP!!!!!

    • justsaying

      10 April 2015 • 14:58

      I really don’t understand the extreme views-hostility even- expressed here about Cliff Richard. Why does just his name seem to arouse such a response and so many wide-ranging (justified?) accusations from some?

      As for the article itself, I couldn’t have put it better myself. I understand that nobody’s above being investigated (as should have been learned by the Savile case) but surely the investigations should be kept confidential until guilt is proven? I don’t hold any particular view as to whether Cliff Richard is guilty or innocent, but surely it’s unfair to publicise everything without even knowing if he’s guilty?

      And it’s equally unfair to make accusations which we have no way of knowing are justified or not.

    • Diri La Veron

      17 April 2015 • 22:06

      Keep your head up your arse, Roy, and you’ll be nice and cosy in your little, comfortable world. Do a [very little] bit of research and you’ll see that the evidence is there for all. The evidence has been presented to the police, and rejected, hidden, lost or whatever is needed to protect this bunch of vile predators. Kitty is in there amongst the “big knobs”, with SoVile, Brittan, Boothby etc. etc. etc. etc. It’s smug ignorant people like you who help these people ruin our children. Wake up!

    • Diri La Veron

      17 April 2015 • 22:19

      Roy, do you have absolute knowledge and evidence that he is a sweet, christian, celebate partner of an ex-cathoilic priest (no capitals is deliberate)? You see, there is too much evidence which says otherwise. But that evidence will never reach the “mainstream” or the courts because the judiciary, the establishment, are all part of it, and they always will be, as long as we have smug, ignorant fanboys like you protecting your petty celebrities.

    Comments are closed.