My own view is that despite him not being charged with a single crime, the entire scandal has ruined his career and legacy. It just shows you the damage that false accusers can do to someone's life without a single night in a prison cell. The law needs to be changed. Those that bring accusations to be named and shamed if they are later deemed to hold not one ounce of credibility. The media should be barred from naming anyone until such time they have been found guilty. In the Cliff Richard case the BBC acted appallingly. The man was essentially criminalised and demonised in the most horrific manner.

CamelsArse wrote:
My own view is that despite him not being charged with a single crime, the entire scandal has ruined his career and legacy. It just shows you the damage that false accusers can do to someone's life without a single night in a prison cell. The law needs to be changed. Those that bring accusations to be named and shamed if they are later deemed to hold not one ounce of credibility. The media should be barred from naming anyone until such time they have been found guilty. In the Cliff Richard case the BBC acted appallingly. The man was essentially criminalised and demonised in the most horrific manner.

Yet the BBC have taken no responsibility nor did the rest of the MSM.

His tour for next year is pretty much sold out, so he still he has loyal fans out there.

I don't have the impression, e.g. from a Google search of his name, that his reputation has been tarnished, other than perhaps among the crazies of the internet, but I agree that false accusers should be brought to book and that accusees should not be named unless they're found guilty. Not sure if it would be possibly legally to name and shame false accusers, though. Even if someone is cleared on appeal of a conviction based on false allegations, does that necessarily mean, in law, that the accusations were unfounded or just that they did not supply sufficient evidence on which to base a conviction?