By Eric King-
The call for the CPS decision to drop charges against Cliff Richard looks bad for the singer.
One of the four accusers of the music legend has called for a review of the cps decision under the victims right of review.
Cliff Richard, 75, was livid when his home was raided and filmed over historical allegations , reportedly between 1958 and 1983, in particular one allegation in 1985 at a Billy Graham Evangelical crusade in 1985.
The BBC filmed the raid live at the time, much to the music legend’s disappointment. Although he was neither arrested nor charge, Cliff Richard said the ordeal had nearly killed him, and that he felt the BBC had behaved irresponsibly for filming and publicizing the raid. The BBC defended its decision by stating it had a duty to broadcast it because of his high profile.
Cliff Richard threatened to sue the BBC and West Yorkshire police on that occasion, although we heard nothing of the suit thereafter. It just disappeared into thin air. Now, with this challenge to the CPS’s decision, Richard is facing fresh anguish now the case has resurfaced , with one of his accusers pushing for charges to be brought against the knighted singer. The big problem with situations like this is that without hard evidence, there is no case to answer. However, as they say, there is no smoke without fire.
The question on the minds of most people therefore is why are these allegations hanging over his head without being put to bed? What has happened to keep this accuser hanging around instead of disappearing? Malicious allegations are nothing new in the world of celebrities and known figures, but most allegations are usually either true or have some shady background to the story which will shed full light on the allegation if made known.
Something is not right here, and the call for a review looks bad on the Cliff Richard. He once expressed anger against the formal conclusion that the case had been dropped due to ‘insufficient evidence”, pointing out that insufficient evidence means ”there is something there”, whilst insisting there is ”nothing there”. First, insufficient evidence means not enough evidence to prove the allegation made, and does not necessarily mean there is something there. However, the wording can suggest that.
What’s worrying about this ongoing public mess that looks bad for Sir Cliff Richard, is that he has not categorically denounced his accusers, as would be expected if there was no fire at all. In his defence, his lawyers may have advised him not to say anything about them. In theory, the allegations could be a form of blackmail, malice or jealousy , or some form of reprisal for some reason unknown to us. It’s all speculation at the moment, but it looks bad. Only time will tell if anything at all comes out of this.