Great news

[farmer42]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrit...sexual-8204983


Very pleased to see Sir Cliff has been cleared even more so because he has pledged to help grant anonymity until convicted, the world will turn around one day.

[Aidy]

South Yorkshire police apologise over the handling of the case!
Allowing a film crew to tag along whilst they searched his property..

I am somewhat bemused though at how the cps come to their decisions?
4 separate complaints, and a huge celebrity...I am not for one minute suggest Sir Cliff has done anything wrong, but I would suggest this fits the cps guidelines to decide to charge someone?

I genuinely believe they haven't got a clue what they are doing at the cps!

[Rights Fighter]

Having more than one complainant doesn't mean that the case will be charged. There may be evidence that is was a conspiracy for all we know.

[Aidy]

Having more than one complainant doesn't mean that the case will be charged. There may be evidence that is was a conspiracy for all we know.

Yes that is correct!
I guess what I was trying to say was, I was surprised he hasn't been charged!

I still stand by my statement that the cps are a bunch of clueless tossers!

[KB19]

Well this is certainly good news for Sir Cliff so thinking maybe he pop ( just realised my pun ) on here sending some

Hoping that the high profile of his case has done good for all of us waiting to hear still and that the police and CPS are taken to task and maybe be tackled and personally fined for the anguish and distress caused by their totally rubbish way of doing things and unbelievable lies they tell and manipulation etc etc

Also that it will start the ball rolling again about the length of time people spend on bail as its all so quiet again on that front.

[Lilyput]

Thank goodness Cliff handled a crappy situation wonderfully glad the police finally admitted their dirty deeds.

[Franticwithworry]

Great news for Sir Cliff!

[slowdown73]

I'm glad to hear it's been dropped and never believed it anyway. I feel sorry for him after the allegations went public. An apology by the Police is no way enough for the distress caused and damage to his reputation. No one should ever be put in that situation certainly not until at least being charged and even then I don't agree with publicly naming people until conviction. Sir Cliff is right by saying that although it's been dropped, it doesn't completely vindicate him because of the information given which states lack of evidence. This is entirely different to saying someone didn't do the alleged crime.

[IzzyMadison]

Sir Cliff actually said people's names should not be made public until they have been "charged" (as opposed to "convicted"):

From the links provided Sir Cliff statement says:

"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.

and

"How can there be evidence for something that never took place! This is also a reason why people should never be named publicly until they have been charged unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It's a step in the right direction but from what I have read on the forum over the past few months, the nightmare of false allegations, really seem to start once someone has been charged.