Report comment

The point that is always missed in this case is that the BBC did not merely report, not that it would have been right if they had. The BBC involved itself in a police investigation in its very earliest stages and filmed through the windows of a private property while the owner of the property was out of the country and had neither been arrested, charged or even interviewed and had no idea what exactly he had been accused of. The BBC threw out any presumption of innocence and presumed guilt, because it suited their purposes to do so. The way that Sir Cliff, not merely Richard as Rozenberg insists on calling him, was subjected to further false allegations as a result of that coverage is the fault of the BBC, who are defending the indefensible.

Public interest is not an issue in this matter. People did not need to know that a global star, who the BBC have actively resented for years, was being investigated over what was, at that time, one unproven, unsubstantiated allegation a mere six weeks into the investigative process. Other cases are not relevant, and Rozenberg fails to mention that those referred to were all BBC employees, whereas Sir Cliff is not.

Journalists like to speak of the rights of the press, but they conveniently forget that with rights there must be responsibility. The BBC has never taken a speck of responsibility for its reprehensible behaviour and if the BBC and wider media are subjected to tighter regulations as a result they will only have themselves to blame and the British public the BBC professes to serve will be much better off.