Cliff Richard to face no charges for claims of historic sexual abuse

[Queenbean]

Due to insufficient evidence

www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/16/cliff-richard-will-not-face-charges-over-sexual-abuse-claims

[228agreenend]

There's an interview with Cliff on This Morning tomorrow. It would be interesting to hear how he feels (and whether his faith has supported him during this time).

Surely if there was any remaining suspicion, they wouldn't have closed the case. Possibly naive, but innocent until proved guilty.

[PrettyDumb]

He won't sue. The reason why is obvious.

[Tiggeryoubastard]

^ what prettydumb said.

[228agreenend]

Sorry, not obvious, can you explain.

[Girlgonewild]

I tell people every week not to sue because it costs a fortune and you often lose. in 99% of cases where yiou have a good case it makes sense not to sue. Failure to sue for libel or the conduct of the BBC or whatever does not mean guilt.

As we all know we are all innocent until proven guilty in the UK thankfully.

[11122aa]

He has Just announced he is suing the BBC and Police. Will probably succeed in both the legal action and changing the law for no naming till charge or even conviction ( what government is going to say no to the media and household names supporting it.) The public also support it when it comes to famous people ( yet when serial rapists get off because of it they people will rightly moan about the law they wanted changed).

[PlectrumElectrum]

As much as he feels he's justified in suing both organisations, I abhor his decision to do so. Does he need the money? What purpose does it serve to extract funds from either organisation given they are both public bodies? To prevent them from naming other well known figures in similar circumstances in future? Given the flip side of Cliff Richard/Paul Gambacini/Nigel Evans is Stuart Hall/Max Clifford/Rolf Harris, with many more now dead who escaped that scrutiny through no doubt threatening the very action CR is currently taking, I think it's pretty appalling that he's taking this route now. He's flexing that very power that those who are guilty of such offences use as such a powerful weapon in silencing victims/the justice system/media etc.

Had he decided to campaign for whatever law changes he deemed necessary to protect all those future well known people from the public scrutiny he's endured, I could see the point (even if I disagree with it). But a millionaire suing both organisations for millions?