Cliff Richard speaks about Crown Prosecution Service decision
A CLOSE friend of Sir Cliff Richard has told Premier Radio that Cliff's Christian faith has actually been strengthened by accusations of historical sexual abuse. Sir Cliff said he was "thrilled" that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to bring charges after the "vile accusations". The 75-year-old singer spoke out after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute" and South Yorkshire Police said it "apologised wholeheartedly" for its "initial handling of the media interest" in its investigation. Said the veteran singer, "I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point! Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close. Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly. Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent. This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one. Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged. I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'. It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people."
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date.
Crown Prosecution Service said there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute", not that there was or was not some evidence, but the comment, in my opinion, implies that there was. In his comments Richards dodges this issue with the implication (his) that there was no evidence.