Cliff Richard - shock!

IN the public eye.

I know that if someone announced that I had done something, years ago or recently, which I knew to be untrue I would be devastated. I am not famous so nobody would be interested in me except my friends and family and it wouldn't affect my livelihood either but I would feel pilloried and that a grave injustice was being done to me and that I was powerless to stop it. How much more so when one is the public eye with untold agendas being carried out.
Not enough of us walk in the other man's shoes.

Insufficient evidence can mean devoid of proof or failing to prove. Surely if this case IS devoid of proof that would make him innocent?

Of course reading this thread he's already been hung drawn and quartered without any evidence whatsoever . So its a moot point.

I wasn't at all surprised about Clement Freud. He was our local MP when we first moved here and regarded as a good bloke all round. I met him many times when he attended village functions and as he was a popular TV and radio celeb we were always glad to have his support.

Sometimes though you just have a feeing.

I was very surprised about the connection with Kate and Gerry McCann though and I do hope the police don't ignore it.

And that is why there should be nobody named and shamed until there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. It is so easy to make allegations without foundation and sometimes people do this to take some fame for themselves from those they accuse. This is plain wrong.

Surely if it meant "no evidence", they would say that.

jingl, I am not absolutely sure you are correct. From what I heard, the CPS's line in such circumstances is "insufficient evidence". Which can mean anything as far as I know.

Yes they do ab. Including me.

Oh what a cocked up post.

must have been some

evidence

Yes. "Insufficient evidence" must mean there was "some". And vid emcee is evidence....

That was in regard to CF

I wasn't in the least bit surprised about him. Always seemed a bit sleazy.

I was surprised to read about the late Clement Frued too...

As you say AB many people do say such things and it is that which is so sad.

Think the accuser should face some questions too. As you say Synonymous it's so easy to besmirch someone but very difficult for them to disprove especially after such a time lapse.
South Yorkshire Police handled it all so badly and wasted a lot of money in the process it seems.

The law says innocent until proven guilty. Many people say - there is no smoke without fire

Sadly it is so very easy to make allegations and besmirch someone. Much harder to disprove and therefore prove innocence. That is why in this country we stand by 'innocent until proven guilty'.

He can never prove he is innocent , the damage is done

It was all handled so badly.
And looks like he was completely innocent.

Agree.. and leaving Cliff hanging

No conclusion, this would mean guilty or not guilty, they have said insufficient evidence , this means - we have some but not enough to charge you. This is so wrong, more concerned with covering the actions of the police yet again

POGS it can't have done him much good at his age having to go through all this. The media didn't help showing police going into his home and searching, they never did anything like that with mp's, judges ect

Only because there is not enough evidence so his name is not entirely cleared.
If I were him and I were innocent this would not be good enough I'm afraid.

It's like saying we know you did it but we can't prove it

Well at at last a conclusion!

Cliff Richard will face no further action.

The South Yorks Police have apologised, 'wholeheartedly for the stress caused'.

www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-06-16/police-apologise-for-way-they-handled-cliff-richard-case/

HOLLY

AND