General Chat

Sir Cliff Richards is suing the BBC for controversial live broadcast of police raid on his home,also south Yorkshire police for miss use of private information. I have always since Savile that nobody should be named unless they where found guilty What they done to Cliff was really awefull and I for one think he is doing the right thing

I'm also very pleased to hear that he is suing them

Good for him!

When I saw photos of him in New York a few months back he looked so ill I'm glad that he's beginning to look a bit better it must be a load off his mid having that hanging around his neck for two years

I hope that Cliff really takes 'em to the cleaners, Linda ... millions of £! BBC and police heads to roll, too!
The way this 'raid' was done on his home - and the BBC having a 'scoop' - was outrageous in the extreme, without question!
I also wonder ... should he sue the police? Someone there I feel was most unethical tipping 'Auntie' about the impending raid.
Police professionalism certainly out the window on this occasion!
There are so many questions that need to be answered by the police and the BBC in this sorry tale ... which surely has taken a toll on Cliff during the last two years.
(Btw, it's Sir Cliff Richard.)

On a slightly different tack, any thoughts on the sexual charges brought against Chris Evans that allegedly took place in the 1990s?

good on him!!! I've always been disgusted that the alleged perpetrator is named and the alleged victim is never named - the law should be changed - mud sticks

Well some tipping off happened either directly or indirectly which is disgraceful

Just because he a celebrity

The British justice has always been innocent till proven guilty but mud sticks .

Poor man has had two years of hell with lots of press speculation just to sell papers

Good man, too much of these sort of cases which scar innocent folk for life just for the sake of someone jumping on the bandwagon for financial gain. Not saying that those who truly suffer abuse are in this category though.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not.

He isn't actually sueing at the moment, it is merely a threat. The other worry is that if he does go ahead it is us the public who will have to cough up as both the BBC and the Police force are funded from the public purse.

who pays does not matter - he was wronged

Everyone is equal before the law whenever the contesting parties have equal financial resources & influence.

Now & then, gossip obscures the truth.

Why would Sir Cliff want to go through more upset & trauma after he was cleared .ok he will have lawyers to do the work. But the people that matter his true Friends Family & Fans would have known he was innocent of all charges .just enjoy your* Wonderful Life* xx

i think the way it was done the police must have tipped off the bbc for them to there to film it. I would have tthought South Yorkshire police would have learnet from their mistakes over Hillsbouorgh. I think he's doing the right thing

The BBC and the Police are not given to losing, in or out of a court room.

Should Sir Cliff Richards win, I hope he gives every penny to charity.

CR's case is whether or not the BBC and the police colluded by sharing private information. It is nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he was guilty or otherwise of the alleged crime, that is a completely different matter.

In respect of the latter, clearly the police did think there was a case to answer otherwise the papers would not have been sent to the DPP. Having weighed up the evidence the DPP came to the conclusion that a conviction was not guaranteed, hence the decision to prosecute was dropped.

But the bbc should not have been there filming the police scearching his home and who told the bbc anyway and having turned up the police should have told them to stop filming

Meanwhile, the rest of us put up with the ever-present CCTV cameras recording everything within their scope - good & bad.