The police force which conducted the dramatic and televised search of Sir Cliff Richard’s home have been criticised by a committee of MPs.
They called the search “utterly inept” and said that South Yorkshire Police should apologise to Sir Cliff for the “enormous and irreparable damage” to his reputation.
The Home Affairs Select Committee did not let BBC off the hook either. The report called the BBC reporting “misleading”.
The search was mounted on August 14 at the singer’s home in Sunningdale, Berkshire. The BBC broadcast the event live from outside the building, including the use of a helicopter.
At the time, Sir Cliff, 74, was in the Algarve.
Police said they were investigating an allegation that Sir Cliff had sexually assaulted a young boy in 1985 at a Christian rally.
Sir Cliff has not been arrested or charged and has dismissed the allegations as “completely false”.
The report criticises the South Yorkshire Police for failing to contact senior BBC executives. The BBC director general now claims that had a senior executive been informed, it would not have run the story.
Instead, committee chairman Keith Vaz said the force handed over sensitive information to a journalist and gave him privileged access to the execution of a search warrant.
“No British citizen should have to watch their home being raided by the police live on television.”
Mr Vaz said: “Sir Cliff Richard has suffered enormous and irreparable damage to his reputation and he is owed an apology over the way matters were handled. We are not surprised that he wishes to sell his home.”
Although a leak of information is suspected from a police source to the BBC, no source has been identified.
A spokeswoman for the South Yorkshire force said it was cooperating with the Metropolitan Police investigation” to find the source. Scotland Yard said the Metropolitan Police Service has found no evidence.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “The DPS have established that there are other people outside of policing who were also in possession of the information.”
Comments
Newly arrived orphans would be told by older ones that complaining about the sexual abuse was pointless. It had been done before over the years and no-one ever listened.
So pointless that the horrendous decades long Casa Pia abuse was only properly brought to light by an ex-inmate training themselves as a lawyer!
The few accused identified precisely because they were celebrities. The many others in the ring remaining unknown in the shadows.
Not able to now avoid a court case - the authorities then worked hard to get all the celibrity accused off the charges. By constantly weakening and discrediting the victims testimony. Constant delays and re-hearings.
Now read about it yourself ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal
What is so difficult for a Portuguese to understand ?
In Portugal there is no crime whatsoever of 'wasting Police (or any authorities) time'. Any Portuguese heavyweight can invent say - a defamation charge against a lightweight and prosecute it through the courts without any risk of being punished for their invention. Ask your lawyer !!
In the UK it is made clear to a complainant at the start - fabrication is a crime !
Yes - UK Police are at fault for publicising the raid on Sir C's house. But obviously not in publicisng the reinvestigation.
Publicity is a gamble by the UK Police to expose repetitive misbehaviour of power abusers as in Sir C's case and others -- but how else to bring forward these extra victims ? How many similar 1 to 1 prayer meetings ?
Victims of crime are already compensated for in the UK - by the taxpayer. The idea that this is a shakedown of Sir C is laughable !
Paedophilia not an illness ? So the NHS can chemically castrate the convicted ?That takes the biscuit !
I do not completely understand all that Edna writes, but it seems that she believes that the taxpayer should shoulder the burden of punishing sexual predators, ie the cost of their imprisonment. This is the case for any wrongdoer. But the taxpayer should not pay recompense to any such proved victims.
I can see neither the justice nor the point in locking up someone of say Rolf Harris´s age. The conviction is enough.
Lastly, I do not see any illness. It may be an injury, and the NHS is equipped to deal with traumas of this nature.
At the cost of repeating myself, this rash of prosecutions for ancient wrongdoing seems to me to be founded in the hope of making money. That people think in this way I find distasteful.
I would not like to suggest an appropriate cut off point, but if there is one and it became public knowledge, should a litigant wish to press charges, then come forward sooner and this will undoubtedly improve clarity for all. The current situation is completely unacceptable and should be debated in parliament.
As for naming and shaming in advance of any tangible evidence that would support a prosecution in order to scare off power abusers, as promoted by Edna, this is part of the problem, not the cure. This is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt. Not desireable, or acceptable
Total twaddle - anyone who has suffered some kind of 'serious abuse' - physical, sexual or psycholgical when a child or teenager is still carrying the scars to their grave.
How can these be 'out of date' ? Does the UK statute of limitations apply to this ???
Surely the core point is to send yet another warning that this kind of 'power' abuse does not have an 'out of time'.
IT IS WRONG. PERIOD. It also overlaps the paedophile debate that is NOT being discussed in Portugal.
The nonsense here from Portuguese judges that being identifed as a convicted paedophile in Portugal or elsewhere and then being publicly identified as such - means you are getting punished twice.
More Twaddle .... can paedophilia be 'cured' and is one sentence always sufficient? Is it controllable ? How?
Many not yet caught no doubt in some twisted way justify what they are doing.
If only to say - 'It may be wrong but ... it was done to me and now society / my parents / my childhood neighbours owe me' ie everyone else must take the blame for my 'illness'.
Second, the underhand method of the police. I cannot think what sort of evidence the police might have found in only one of Sir Cliff´s homes. The first base in such enquiries must be to question the individual involved.
For me, the police in this case have conducted their enquiry in a stupid and insensitive manner (and who granted the search warrant, and on what grounds?). And the BBC has shown itself to be no better than the most sensationalist redtop.
Mr Vaz is wrong. Sir Cliff is the only individual to emerge from this cesspit with his integrity intact.
Police decide to investigate - absolutely fine. I don't think people have an issue with that. Police informant tip off to the media and media subsequent handling of the matter - not fine. And that is the issue at point here.
The MP were not commenting on the fact Cliff was investigated - and we all agree that no one is above the law - but the way in which it was done - "utterly inept" seems a sound description in this case.