This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/22/cliff-richard-bbc-film-police-raid-privacy
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Cliff Richard attacks 'illegal collusion' over BBC film of police raid | Cliff Richard attacks 'illegal collusion' over BBC film of police raid |
| (2 months later) | |
| Sir Cliff Richard has said there “must have been illegal collusion” behind events that culminated in a police raid of his home being broadcast live on BBC News. | Sir Cliff Richard has said there “must have been illegal collusion” behind events that culminated in a police raid of his home being broadcast live on BBC News. |
| The singer said on Wednesday he was considering taking legal action for the “gross intrusion” into his privacy which saw him named as part of a criminal investigation without ever being charged. | The singer said on Wednesday he was considering taking legal action for the “gross intrusion” into his privacy which saw him named as part of a criminal investigation without ever being charged. |
| Richard has described how, while in Portugal in August 2014, he discovered with horror that footage of detectives searching his Berkshire home was being broadcast live on television. | Richard has described how, while in Portugal in August 2014, he discovered with horror that footage of detectives searching his Berkshire home was being broadcast live on television. |
| The BBC has apologised for causing him distress as a result of the coverage that he earlier said made him feel like he was “going to die”. | The BBC has apologised for causing him distress as a result of the coverage that he earlier said made him feel like he was “going to die”. |
| South Yorkshire police have also apologised over their handling of the investigation after the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop the case. | South Yorkshire police have also apologised over their handling of the investigation after the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop the case. |
| Richard indicated to ITV’s Good Morning Britain that he may seek compensation in the courts. | Richard indicated to ITV’s Good Morning Britain that he may seek compensation in the courts. |
| He said: “There must have been illegal collusion. I’ve never known, I don’t think, investigations take place with lighting and cameras and special angles for the helicopter – it just seems ridiculous. | He said: “There must have been illegal collusion. I’ve never known, I don’t think, investigations take place with lighting and cameras and special angles for the helicopter – it just seems ridiculous. |
| “I feel I have every right to sue because, if nothing else, definitely for gross intrusion of my privacy.” | “I feel I have every right to sue because, if nothing else, definitely for gross intrusion of my privacy.” |
| The veteran entertainer said he felt like “collateral damage” resulting from the wave of police investigations into high-profile sex abuse allegations sparked by the Jimmy Savile scandal. | The veteran entertainer said he felt like “collateral damage” resulting from the wave of police investigations into high-profile sex abuse allegations sparked by the Jimmy Savile scandal. |
| Those under investigation for sexual crimes should not be named unless charges are brought, he told the programme. | Those under investigation for sexual crimes should not be named unless charges are brought, he told the programme. |
| Richard said he understood why children who make allegations are granted anonymity. | Richard said he understood why children who make allegations are granted anonymity. |
| However he added: “My accusers were all men, grown-up men who were probably in their 40s and into their 50s. I don’t see why they should be protected.” | However he added: “My accusers were all men, grown-up men who were probably in their 40s and into their 50s. I don’t see why they should be protected.” |