[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

No smoke without fire basically translates to guilty until proven innocent, it's **** logic.

I don't really see why anyone would cover for Cliff Richard of all people tbh, if they didn't charge him then it was probably because he didn't do what he was accused of. The whole privacy thing might be more to do with the fact that he seems pretty closeted and isn't interested in coming out which he might have to do if it means clearing his name.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless there's charges and a case brought against him, it's all speculation and opinion.

Or that there is little/no evidence after such a long period of time.

The standard of evidence thats required in normal assault/rape trials is insane. And even DNA evidence, cctv and many injuries sometimes are not accepted. So..in a historical case it must be even harder to build a case. Its a bit silly to say that because enough evidence could not be gathered, he is probably innocent tbh. he might be innocent, but him not being charged means nothing really. Certainly does not prove innocence.