Sir Cliff Richard has once again been interviewed by police regarding a claim of a sex crime involving a young boy in the 1980s. Last time, he was interviewed under caution which means police suspected that a crime been committed.
Quite why we have been told all this stuff is beyond me. I always thought that under the law, a person was always regarded as innocent until they were proved guilty. Doubtless, the authorities will tell us that this remains the case with Sir Cliff but the perceptions of many will be changed by the fact this is now in the public arena.
Rightly, victims of many crimes, like rape, are handed anonymity. I know that the suggestion is that Sir Cliff is not a victim, rather the reverse, and it encourages the no smoke without fire law. There must be something in it. And then people think that it’s up to the accused (of nothing, so far, in Sir Cliff’s case) to prove their innocence, which it shouldn’t be.
I am yet to be fully convinced that those accused of serious offences shouldn’t be named, and effectively, shamed in public, but it’s becoming more of a compelling argument. Mud sticks. I have heard people say things about Sir Cliff that suggests they have already made up their minds about him. He has never married, almost nothing is known about his personal life, there must be something in it. But must there be?
I don’t particularly like his music but I respect the fact that millions do and I don’t think it is right that his good name is being tarnished like this. Of course, there are probably things we do not know about the case, there could be intelligence that the police have not shared with us. But I think it’s unfair that the old boy has been declared guilty in the most awful “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” way and I so wish there was a better way of doing these things.
