I'm no fan of litigation but I hope Cliff Richard sues the police and BBC to kingdom come. He has not been exonerated with that vile phrase 'insufficient evidence' inferring that something probably did happen but there was not enough information for a prosecution. It may have been preferable if Cliff was charged and then found not guilty but of course there is always a risk of a thick headed jury with their own prejudices. Now we have the bones of Clement Freud, the focus on Bill Wyman, whose next, Keith Richards? that would be a laugh, he wouldn't remember anything anyway

If he had been charged, then there would have been a case to answer. "No smoke without fire?" That would have been a fire.

Yeah, Page and Plant have claimed memory loss in the Stairway to Heaven case. Plant claimed he had that he has no memory of seeing the band who they're accused of ripping off; and Page says he can't recall ever listening to the band's record in his collection.

I just hate the way that some in the homosexual lobby are trying to claim famous unmarried men as homosexual. Cliff's sexuality (either way) is his own business and none of theirs. What is clear is that he was targeted specifically because he was a) successful and rich, 2) Christian and 3) single (never married). That is the real bigotry and prejudice that needs to be addressed.

I couldn't agree more. When one thinks about male rock stars who revelled in their contact with under age girls, but are left alone by the media, its clear there is a homophobic agenda at play here. I've never liked Cliff as a pop performer, but this private man's reputation has been dragged through the mud without a shred of evidence to support the claims.

The manner in which the police chose not to arrest or approach Cliff, but collude with the media in a publicised raid on his UK home in the manner they did underlines this was very much rooted in the question of Cliff's sexuality - they wanted to seize the opportunity to root through his house and find any 'evidence' - not evidence that he patted some prick's backside 30 years earlier, but evidence he was a homosexual. They clearly found diddly squat - had they done, it would have made the frontpages and he would have been 'outed', which suggests the man is what he says he is - celibate and asexual.

I have it on good authority that he isn't gay, as it happens - he had a couple of fairtly traumatic relationships in his younger days, and when he converted to 'born again' Christianity in the mid-60s became gradually less & less interested - something that, away from the LoonyLand of conspiracy forums, happens to a lot of perfectly ordinary folk as they coast from middle to old age anyway. His refusal in recent years to 'confirm or deny' is part bloodymindedness - why should he when he isn't, and what would it matter if he was? - and mostly the dignified silence of someone who hasn't had to play 'that game'.

But the raid & hanging him out to dry was all about satisfying the malevolent inadequates online and exposing the alleged offender as a man with a 'double life' - the one form of homophobia that is allowed to positively thrive in today's media.

This case has nothing to do with homophobia and has everything to do with how thick the old bill are. Thick as shit. All they had to do is ask the people who new both these men and they would have quickly realised that they are both the exact opposite of what they were accused of .

"Thick as shit", how true, esp of the South Yorkshire lot with their deeply ingrained inferiority complex. South Yorkshire being an artificial construct by our old friend Ted Heath, and was never a County in it's own right as was the old North, East and West Ridings.

We have a saying in Yorkieland;
"Yorkshire born, and Yorkshire bred.
Strong in the arm, and thick in the head."

Fits the SYP to a "T".

Sir Cliff Richard was not on bail for two years. Do you really not get that someone who was never arrested or charged with any offence could not possibly have been on bail? With that one phrase you denigrate Sir Cliff and any reasonable argument you might make. People have speculated about Sir Cliff's sexuality for years. That's the point though, it's speculation. Sir Cliff has denied being gay in the past and then simply stopped talking about it because he knew certain media sources didn't believe him, but he also realised he is entitled to a private life and owes no one an explanation. I think to reduce his experience down to some kind of homophobic slur denigrates what he has been through. Whatever his private life, he has been through a dreadful ordeal, one which has been shared by a number of high profile men in various ways, some homosexual and some not. Instead of making it a homophobic issue you should be looking at the laws in this country that make Sir Cliff's situation all too easy to happen again and again, and not 'just' to celebrities. Frankly, with the law in this country as it is, every man in the country, whether heterosexual or not, should be frightened to death.

You do not need to be charged to be on bail. Pre charge bail is common place.

Craig. Charles of Red Dwarf and Coronation Street fame was arrested after a one night stand accused him of assault. Held on remand then bailed, tried and found not guilty, his accuser remained anonymous until after the trial when she sold her story to the tabloids and was even photographed by them.
However, Charles major complaint was that the press knew of his arrest within one hour, this could only have occurred by the police "tipping off" the press.
No investigation, no comment, certainly not by the press.
It's about time somebody sues the police and the press. Maybe then this whole pantomime will end.

Has everyone here forgotten that the lunatic child-murder allegations began in Ireland NOT the UK, lasted for about a decade and were actually declining here when they started up in the UK (i.e. with the Haut de la Garenne witch-hunt in Jersey in 2008)?

I attempted a summary of the Irish blood libels in a 2006 "Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child Killing Allegations". I think all of the journalists and leaders of "Victims" groups would have very PC attitudes to homosexuals - definitely no homophobia involved in OUR witch-hunt.
http://www.irishsalem.com/i...

Since many of the child murder claims related to periods when no child died of any cause, I coined the phrases "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders". The claims in relation to Jersey and "Operation Midland" were ALSO of the "Victimless Murder" variety. In Jersey the deputy police chief responsible for the fiasco was born in Derry, must have heard of the Irish claims but probably did not realise they had been discredited because our anti-clerical media had covered up THAT story.

I suppose I can't fault Luke Gittos for not realising this. At the time I drew up my summary, I managed to forget about the original blood libel in 1996 which was directed against the Sisters of Mercy rather than the Christian Brothers. However you can read all about it here
http://www.irishsalem.com/i...
with all of the gory details in a Daily Mirror article on 11 October 1997 (also available on line):

HOT POKER WAS USED ON LITTLE MARION.. NO CASH WILL GET HER BACK; I THINK MY BABY WAS MURDERED AT THE ORPHANAGE, SAYS PAYOUT MUM

The hatred involved here is of the anti-clerical variety and I doubt if there was a single homophobe among the false accusers.

P.S. The main victims of this witch-hunt in the UK seem to be either political or cultural Tories. Blood Libels directed against such persons are probably the UK equivalent of Irish anti-clericalism?

What are you claiming? That there were no sadistic nuns or pervy Brothers? That the whole thing was a pernicious lie?

The use of Blood Libels against the Christian Brothers, Sisters of Mercy and later priests (after I wrote my 2006 article) is a pretty clear indication that the whole thing is a pernicious lie. That doesn't mean that there were NO clerical or religious sex offenders. Similarly the use of Blood Libels against Jews doesn't mean that there are NO Jewish criminals.

Incidentally the main allegation about clerical involvement in the murder of a child (Bernadette Connolly in 1970) was orchestrated in 2009 by the then Fine Gael spokesman for Justice. The Gardai (police) carried out a year long investigation that found no evidence of any Catholic Church involvement and a few months later the same politician was appointed Minister for Justice. Yes the whole thing is an obscene witch-hunt orchestrated from the top - and quite similar to the Deputy leader of the Labour Party in the UK supporting obscene lies about the Tories. (The latter witch-hunt involved child-murder as well.)

The Irish child-killing witch-hunts preceded their UK equivalents, and may well have caused them. What other European country has seen left wing/anti-clerical politicians using Blood Libels against the the Catholic Church or Conservatives??

I'd say, pretty much every country with a strong Catholic presence has seen its anti-clerical left wing attacking the Church for pedophilia.
Which was often true, and proved.
Even though, this left wing itself harbours its own pedophiles - in my country, you'll find them mainly among the Greens and the mainstream liberal left wing.They seem to think pedophilia is cool or something.

"Which was often true and proved"
I concentrated on the child-murder allegations because these are things that can be properly investigated even decades later. The leaders of FOUR "Victims" groups were involved in such claims as were several Irish journalists. Since the same persons were up to their necks in non-lethal child abuse claims as well, I think it's a fair assumption that all of their allegations are false.

And what about the ordinary members of these "Victims" groups? Did they protest when they saw their leaders making ludicrous claims that could easily be proved false? Did they replace these leaders or resign in protest? Well no - presumably because own allegations were also false (though less easy to prove so).

For years Ireland was the only country with "Murder of the Undead" type allegations i.e. where no child died of ANY cause during the relevant period. Then Britain followed with the "Haut de la Garenne" investigations in 2008 and Operation Midland recently. The scapegoats in the UK are the Tories and the underlying reason is probably the final failure of the "liberal agenda" and the desire of hate-filled liberals to find someone else to blame!

I don't know about child-murder allegations, even though similar accusations have been leveled in my country, but against liberal left-wing politicians.
All I said was pedophilia is well documented within the Catholic Church, and that would be everywhere, not just Ireland. I add that Protestants have also been denounced as having the same rate of child abusers among their ministers - even though, as this data is less politically useful, its has not made the headlines.
The accusations against the Catholic church in Ireland may well have been orchestrated by some Church-hating Soros-like group, but one thing is certain: if so many people were ready to believe the Church was guilty, it is because of the inescapable fact it has been in the past.
If I was an anti-Catholic activist with a political agenda, of course I'd use that line myself. It's like shooting an elephant in a barrel.

We will have to agree to disagree. HOWEVER "If so many people were ready to believe the Church was guilty, it is because ..... it has been in the past".

In January 2006 the Sunday Tribune declared that the number of homicides in 2005 had been the highest in the history of the State - at least since the Civil War of the early 1920s. The statistics for all other crimes of violence show the same pattern. I believe the same applies to the suicide rate. I know that the number of children taken into care during the Celtic Tiger years increased greatly - I think from under 4,000 to over 6,000 at a time when Ireland was filthy rich - AND the Church was declining. I find it impossible to believe that the incidence of child sexual abuse is any different i.e. it MUST be greater now than say the 1950s, when the power of the Catholic Church was at its height.

So what is behind the war against the Catholic Church in Ireland and elsewhere? Well in one sense our anti-clerical liberals have won the Culture Wars - with our new-found anything-goes attitude to authority and sexual morality. But in a more profound sense they have lost the war - in relation to crime, suicide and drug abuse for example - and they know it.. Having spent decades blaming the Church for all our evils, they have no way of dealing with our REAL current problems. Their response has been to howl obscenities at the Church and at their own forefathers who deferred to it. Saying that there must be SOME reality behind all these allegations is like making a similar point about Satanic Ritual Abuse or the Salem witch-hunts. Or indeed about the 9 separate accusers of Cliff Richard. (The police and the BBC gave vast publicity to the original false allegation and THAT encouraged all the others to come forward. There is no great mystery about it!)

In the UK, the Tories are stand-ins for the Catholic Church in Ireland (partly because the Anglican Church has provided little resistance to the new liberal order).

We do not disagree. I am quite sure that the attacks against the Catholic Church serve an agenda indeed, that of the liberalization of the whole of society. If I may add a personal observation, I generally find atheists (or Anglicans, or liberal Protestants) way easier to manipulate through propaganda than the Catholics, who have strong convictions and are not easily swayed. Hence, if you want a pliant population, it makes sense to try and destroy Catholicism.

Which does not mean the Church is altogether free of guilt... unfortunately.

I agree about the Anglicans, liberal Protestants etc being gullible and easily manipulated but unfortunately the rot has spread pretty far in the Irish Catholic Church also. I have written here about a (now retired) Bishop Willie Walsh whose acceptance of preposterous allegations caused mirth, even among our anti-clerics.
http://www.irishsalem.com/i...

There is also the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin who displays similar credulity - though, in my opinion, he is less of a fool and more of a willing accomplice with the anti-clerical establishment. In February 2014 our national broadcaster RTE had to pay damages to named Catholic journalists who were described as "homophobes" by gay activist Miss Panti Bliss. There were furious protests by politicians and a mass rally denouncing the payout but RTE pointed out that they had no option - their presenter had actually encouraged Miss Panti Bliss to make the comment. Naturally the Archbishop of Dublin weighed in on the controversy
"Homophobia 'insults God', says Archbishop of Dublin"
http://www.independent.ie/i...

Archbishop Diarmuid had nothing at all to say about the slandered Catholic journalists. In his autobiography "Woman in the Making", Miss Panti Bliss (Rory O'Neill) correctly observed that the Archbishop was on his side and I quote
"The Archbishop of Dublin denounced homophobia and practically declared himself to be on 'Team Panti'. [page 265]

It's true that if you want a pliant population it makes sense to destroy Catholicism, but the Irish Church is destroying itself. Incidentally I am well aware that their media representatives regard me as an extremist!

If I may, the Pope is equally confusing and confused, and might be a tool too. There are rumours that say Pope Benedict was pushed out to be replaced by a more "Western values"-friendly and pliant Pope.
It wouldn't surprise me.
http://catholicreformation....

I don't remember Cliff Richard saying anything about his sexuality. Did I miss something?

I think he said something about being a bachelor boy, and that's just the way he'd stay

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Everybody likes peas, though.. Don't they?

The point is rather that child abuse panics are the acceptable face of anti-gay sentiment. 'It's not the fact that X is alleged to have slept with males, you see, it's just the under-age aspect we don't like...' This was clearest in the Harvey Proctor case. The anonymous accusers have certainly formed a view that the suspects are homos, and this inspires the claims they make to the police. As the article says, the media have speculated from time to time about Cliff Richard. I am waiting for twitterphiles to rediscover the singer's past denunciations of David Bowie and sexual deviants; if Cliff turns out not to be inclusive or trans-friendly enough, there may well be fresh persecutions.

Perhaps I'm mis-remembering things but as far as I can recall, Cliff Richard has always been extremely careful to say nothing derogatory, on the record at least, about other artistes.

He's restricted himself to The Shadows and his own records and public appearances and so on, and kept schtum, at least in public, about things he doesn't like. I don't think I've ever heard him criticise anything, actually..

You are quite definitely misremembering. Richard allied himself with the religious right in the 1970s and criticised Bowie by name. Now, it's possible that he has changed his mind, or that he never really thought this way in the first place. But he went out of his way to campaign for what he called christian values on sexual matters.

<<"my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr".....!tw1096n:
two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars...Learn. More right Here
!tw1096n:
➽:➽:.
➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsVision\GetPay$98\Hour.....

★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹::::::!tw1096n....,...

Having been 'upvoted' by one of Lori's friends, I have to conclude that these friends are commenting manually. The plot thickens..

I think this has mostly to do with two things:

1) After Savile, the police have tried to make a point of getting convictions as a sort of penance, and in doing so have collared some innocent people.

2) While I'm not inclined towards conspiracy theories, it does seem as if a certain section of the establishment, namely some musicians and DJs, have been offered up as a sort of alternative to the investigation of politicians.

To be clear: it's pretty obvious now that there was some serious child abuse going on in the 1970s by members of our 'establishment' (I am using that in the broadest sense to cover 'people in our life', not just politicians. I was only a child at the time, so I do not know how much of an inkling other people had at the time. Some of the investigations post-Savile appear to have been perfectly correct (if abysmally late). Others have seemed a bit like a witch hunt.

In the case of Cliff Richard, the BBC's behaviour has been shabby because so obviously a case of sensationalising rumours, again perhaps partly as a sort of effort to make atonement for what it allowed Savile and others to get away with.

I think probably more investigation of possible/alleged abusers from the 1970s and 1980s needs to be taking place. At the same time, neither the police nor media have acquitted themselves well in this, choosing sensationalism over seriousness and and impartiality. It wasn't remotely acceptable that so many children suffered abuse at the hands of celebrities (and others) in the time under investigation; it doesn't make it all square to ruin the lives of at least several more people by the manner of its reporting and investigating now. Innocent or guilty, the Cliff Richard case should not have been dealt with in the way it has been.

Alternatively, let the past lie, and focus efforts on the abundance of child abuse that's still going on today!

Absolutely agree Carl, use the resources against current abuse ,not he touched my bum 30 yrs ago and now I've decided to make some dosh out of it

You can't let the past lie, since the victims have to deal with the aftermath all their lives. The past is unfortunately all too present for them.

So what? They survived, they moved on (or they'd be dead); dredging up past events rarely if ever helps. If anything, the ordeal of complaining, police interviews, publicity, testifying, etc. often makes things worse.

For all but the most serious crimes, like murder, there should be statutes of limitations. The state should be focused on minimising the risk of abuse happening now and in future; rather than pandering to political and media pressure to dredge up the past. For those 'victims' who feel that compensation of some sort is due, there's always civil law.

If I may be honest, you are repulsive.
A sewer for a mind.

Maybe.

Sir Cliff Richard was named by the Police in the media before he had been, as he never was, arrested. Not charged. Arrested. Think on. The heavily orchestrated front page lynching of Sir Cliff not only made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial, but was possibly the greatest act of playground bullying that this country had ever seen. The cool kids in Fleet Street, on the BBC and on Sky had waited a very long time for that. Longer, in fact, than most of them could remember, or than well over half of them had been alive.

There is a strict canonical text of the history of this country's ubiquitous popular music. To be honest, I generally prefer the canonical acts to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical ones. But that Authorised Version is incomplete to the point of falsehood. Look at the charts in any week, month or year since pop music can reasonably be said to have begun. The apostles and prophets of the given period are all there, of course. But so are all sorts of other people, and not as novelty acts: they took themselves entirely seriously, as did the fans who bought their records by the bucket load.

Cliff was originally so cool that when my father, as a curate in 1950s Leicester, was deputed to take the church youth club to see him, they became so excited that they smashed up the theatre and broke my father's arm, which was never right again. In causing my father to be permanently injured, Cliff succeeded where Rommel, Mussolini and the Stern Gang had all failed. But for most of British pop's history, Cliff has been the towering, the supreme, the definitive uncool act. Even stations dedicated to oldies have written policies of not playing him, bizarrely describing the long-dead as more enduring than a man who still performs live and who continues to record.

His response is to be the single biggest-selling British solo artist ever, and the third biggest-selling act in British chart history, beaten only by the Beatles and by Elvis Presley. He has had more Top 20 hits than any other artist. Only he and Elvis had hits in all six of the first decades of the UK Singles Chart. Only he has had a Number One single in each of five consecutive decades. In this country, he has sold twice as many records as, say, David Bowie, and well over twice as many as the Rolling Stones. Now, give me Bowie or the Stones any day. But the numbers don't lie.

Moreover, he is only three years older than Paul McCartney, he is only two years older than Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and he was born in the same year as John Lennon. Yet he has been famous since well before any of them ever was. Let's face it, we are talking about being seriously famous here. Seriously rich with it, too. All as, and by being, something approaching an unperson to Everyone Who Matters. Look how a Billy Graham Crusade was dragged into this long-predictable attempt at a takedown. And look how that event, already too ghastly in itself, has managed to surpass even that by being held in Sheffield.

No wonder that it was played out on television. Anyone would assume that it were the script for a work of fiction. One of those ones which are not as clever as they think they are, and which are only about laughing at the common people. If Sir Cliff had been guilty, then he would have deserved whatever he got from the courts. At least the same is deserved by Bill Wyman. He was 47 when he repeatedly and flagrantly had sex with a girl who, at 13, was probably younger than the alleged victim in this single instance.

Notice how, while the man who had the effrontery to have a hit with Stairway to Heaven featuring a wobble board is now in prison and ruined, Jimmy Page himself has never faced any action whatever in relation to his 14-year-old girlfriend of yesteryear. Rolf Harris has rightly been stripped of his CBE; Page was awarded his OBE long after everyone knew about him.

I have often had cause, in relation to a wide range of artists, to wonder if I can love the music while hating the drugs. I have decided that I probably can. But I am starting to doubt that. The elevation of Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll into a kind of national and global substitute for politics, patriotism and religion has led both to the worship of idols and to the persecution of heretics.

It seems insulting to potential jurors, asserting they're too thick to focus on the evidence before them; and too beguiled by the media to remain skeptical of biased reporting.

Cool is ephemeral. Sinatra was cool; then Elvis made him an old fogey. Later on, revaluation often occurs. Sinatra's greatness restored; Cliff's a second-rate Elvis. Popularity soon kills cool.

'If Sir Cliff had been guilty' of what, exactly? 'Sexual abuse' can mean anything from a quick grope or a touch, to rape.

As for Bill Wyman, there's too much time, money and effort being wasted on complainants of long ago allegations as it is. If we widen this to include all those who refuse to complain too, the justice system will be brought to a standstill! We need less of these ancient, decades old cases, rather than more.

'Mandy was questioned by police when the story broke, but to this day the family have refused to press charges. Why? "What good would it do? He has a family now. What happened happened. And I suppose because we did go on to get married when I was 18, it didn't seem as bad."' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

Page's under age partner, reflecting on those times:

'"That time of my life was so much fun. It was a period in which everything seemed possible. There was no AIDS and the potential consequences seemed to be light. Nobody was afraid of winding up on YouTube or TMZ."

'So, what did Lori's mother think of her daughter having flings with rock stars? "She liked him. She used to be an agent and was savvy to show business. She knew that I was dating the biggest rock star in the world. She used to say, “My daughter is like Priscilla [Presley].” I was Jimmy’s little angel." Page and Lori's relationship lasted nearly three years.' http://www.mamamia.com.au/l...

Of course we can love music; why should that be affected by what Page got up to in the 1970s, Mozart in the late 18th C, or Wagner's 'anti-Semitism'?

Sorry, I call bulls*** on this one. Utter misrepresentation of the sex abuse scandals of late.

Look at the majority of cases in Ireland, for example. Male perpetrators. Male victims. It's nothing but homosexual pederasty. Seriously, think about it: the Catholic Church is full of MALES, and they abused majoritively MALE boys. Is the penny dropping??? Yet, you call it a "witch hunt"?! You couldn't be further from the truth. In none - NONE - of the many articles I've read have the words "gay" or "homosexual" been there. Why oh why is that?

No credible researcher will tell you that heterosexual males are remotely as inclined to pederasty as their homosexual counterparts (per capita, of course). If you have the wisdom and integrity to make it past the hysteria around the American boy scouts association's former ban on gay leaders, you will understand that - all things being equal - your son is far, far, far more vulnerable in the hands of a gay male leader than your daughter would be to a straight male one. Make it, again, past the no-duh comments that the chances of said leaders actually being pederasts, and I ask you, "is it worth the risk?" (Again, the common many's appreciation of statistical probability is poor: he'll be more freaked out about the chances of his son breaking his leg on a swing than coming to harm in an area - care, education, sports, etc - where, sorry, but it's a logical magnet for those who have bad intentions.)

The author is clearly some lobbyist - the same who has no problem that the Labour Party of the 70s platformed the Paedophile Information Exchange. The homosexual lobby has been brilliant at positioning itself as just a bunch of nice boys who love their mummies and just want to settle down - read Kirk & Madsen's After the Ball, about the strategy to transition from HIV-era to normalisation...

I'm sorry, but I love Spiked for its brutal truths and irreverence. This article should never have made it past the sub-editor. Propaganda piece.

One of the problems of Sir Cliff is his staunt refusal to confirm that he's gay; he's been obfuscating for decades and everybody has known except him!! This is a fertile environment for abuse from would-be blackmailers and assorted hangers-on. He could have knocked it all on the head and said years ago, "yes, I'm gay and I'm happy with my life". No further problems. And don't, please, suggest he 'didn't have to'. He's a very public figure and people (rightly or wrongly) use these celebrities as some kind of role model. They would have far better accepted his homosexuality than this sordid stuff about 'abuse', quite frankly. Now it has the double whammy of exposing Cliff's sexuality and his associations with 'the rough trade'. Worse and worse, as Othello said.

And you know he's gay, how?

Surely you jest.

Avoidance tactics will get you..where?

Item 1: All complaints about sexual harrassment have been from MALES

Item 2: No denial of homosexuality resulting from such claims. That would have been my first defense, "sorry, I'm straight and not gay and have had no relationships with men of any kind".

Item 3: Never been in a relationship with a female.

This is kindergarten stuff.

1) As far as I'm aware, the complaints are from men about 'child' sex abuse. Pedophiles tend to for kids of either sex. That said, if the allegations are false, as we're lead to presume by the case being dropped, then what bearing do they have on his sexuality? Evidence of him even propositioning a male adult, let alone a child, is absent.

2) When accused of child abuse, claiming you're gay or straight is completely besides the point. As it is of any crime, now homosexuality is legal, and even blessed with 'gay marriage'! If anything, given the current PC climate, they'd feel under more pressure to charge him if he says he's straight; and go easy on gays.

3) Evidence of his relationships with women exist; most publicly, with Sue Barker. He also dated Carol Costa in his early days of stardom.

Surely he asked you a question?

Perhaps he is a role model in how to keep your own counsel.

If there are those who would want to prosecute him then they have to use the appropriate means which are used in every other case. A person is innocent until proved guilty and it is incumbent on the prosecutor to provide the evidence. It is not incumbent on the accused to provide that evidence. The accused always has a right to remain silent.

It is not about him protecting his private life as much as it is about protecting the rights he has to due process in the legal system. Why should those accused or even suspected of criminal activity in their sexual behaviour be any less protected by the process?

Many people want to know about his private life to satisfy their own voyeurism or to make money from selling papers but these are not good enough reasons. A prosecutor may have cause to investigate but the law must be independent and treat every crime the same way.

He was never charged.

He was actually accused by 9 people. 5 accusations were not even credible enough to be forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service and the other 4 were shot down in double-quick time. Originally there was only one accuser but publicity supplied by the police and the BBC attracted the others