Matthew Parris Matthew Parris

Was there any way not to traduce Cliff Richard?

Harder, sadly, than many commentators seem to think

issue 25 June 2016

Sir Cliff Richard will not be charged with historic sex offences, say the police and Crown Prosecution Service. There is ‘insufficient evidence’.

You, reader — yes, you: I cannot reveal your name because I’m making this up, but let’s call you Alan, and let’s suppose my reader-ship know very well who you are… you, Alan, respectable, hitherto-well-regarded Alan, are not going to be charged with smuggling into Britain a stash of sadomasochistic scatological pornography as a young man in 1983 because there is ‘insufficient evidence’.

How do you feel about that announcement, Alan? How do you feel after more than two years of sniggering and media speculation and an £800,000 investigation, since the police raided your house while you were away, with a BBC TV helicopter hovering above after the corporation had been tipped off about the imminent raid, and had done a deal with the police? Happy now? Your name cleared? Your reputation restored?

You feel pretty sick, don’t you? Because for the rest of your life, you’re the Alan who in the end wasn’t brought to court for a lot of disgustingly unmentionable stuff because there was insufficient evidence.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in