Investigation into Cliff Richard increased significantly and involves more than one allegation, says police chief

The police investigation into veteran singer Sir Cliff Richard has “increased significantly in size” since its inception and involves “more than one allegation”, South Yorkshire's Chief Constable has revealed.

David Crompton said the “expanding nature” of the investigation meant he could not give a date when it would be concluded.

In a letter to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr Crompton said the force was in regular contact with SirCliff's lawyers.

The publication of the letter from Mr Crompton, dated February 10, followed a scathing independent report into an agreement between South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and the BBC which led to a raid on the singer's home being broadcast live around the world.

The independent report found that the deal “certainly interfered with his privacy and may well have caused unnecessary distress”.

Following the raid, Sir Cliff was interviewed by detectives investigating a claim of a sex crime involving a young boy, but was not arrested or charged.

Former chief constable Andy Trotter said SYP should never have a made a deal with the broadcaster - a decision taken after BBC reporter Dan Johnson went to the force saying he knew they were investigating the veteran entertainer.

Mr Crompton said a Metropolitan Police investigation into the source of the leak to the BBC had been unable to find the source.

In his letter, Mr Crompton said: "South Yorkshire Police detectives are in very regular contact with Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers. Typically this involves a verbal update about once a fortnight.

"We have not written directly to Sir Cliff Richard. It is the responsibility of his lawyers to ensure he is fully briefed on the conversations which have taken place with investigators.

"This is an investigation which has increased significantly in size since its inception. Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers are aware that there is more than one allegation.”

He added: "In view of the expanding nature of the investigation, it would be premature and potentially misleading to predict a likely date when it will be concluded; however, we are progressing as swiftly as possible.”

Two paragraphs of the letter from Mr Crompton were blacked out before being released.

In a statement, Sir Cliff said: "I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from. The police have not disclosed details to me. I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail. I have cooperated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon. In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/police-investigation-into-cliff-richard-increased-significantly-10070342.html

The record of visitors at Elm House had him listed.

risingsun wrote:

The police investigation into veteran singer Sir Cliff Richard has “increased significantly in size” since its inception and involves “more than one allegation”, South Yorkshire's Chief Constable has revealed.

David Crompton said the “expanding nature” of the investigation meant he could not give a date when it would be concluded.

In a letter to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr Crompton said the force was in regular contact with SirCliff's lawyers.

The publication of the letter from Mr Crompton, dated February 10, followed a scathing independent report into an agreement between South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and the BBC which led to a raid on the singer's home being broadcast live around the world.

The independent report found that the deal “certainly interfered with his privacy and may well have caused unnecessary distress”.

Following the raid, Sir Cliff was interviewed by detectives investigating a claim of a sex crime involving a young boy, but was not arrested or charged.

Former chief constable Andy Trotter said SYP should never have a made a deal with the broadcaster - a decision taken after BBC reporter Dan Johnson went to the force saying he knew they were investigating the veteran entertainer.

Mr Crompton said a Metropolitan Police investigation into the source of the leak to the BBC had been unable to find the source.

In his letter, Mr Crompton said: "South Yorkshire Police detectives are in very regular contact with Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers. Typically this involves a verbal update about once a fortnight.

"We have not written directly to Sir Cliff Richard. It is the responsibility of his lawyers to ensure he is fully briefed on the conversations which have taken place with investigators.

"This is an investigation which has increased significantly in size since its inception. Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers are aware that there is more than one allegation.”

He added: "In view of the expanding nature of the investigation, it would be premature and potentially misleading to predict a likely date when it will be concluded; however, we are progressing as swiftly as possible.”

Two paragraphs of the letter from Mr Crompton were blacked out before being released.

In a statement, Sir Cliff said: "I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from. The police have not disclosed details to me. I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail. I have cooperated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon. In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/police-investigation-into-cliff-richard-increased-significantly-10070342.html

The record of visitors at Elm House had him listed.

That of course makes him absolutely 100% guilty of anything and everything
We can publicly try him with NO access to any evidence (just like the media)
we can invade his privacy BEYOND what is required under law


funny yoiu know ...I thought this was all about "justice"

or is "one groups justice (if it indeed exists) worth more than some-one elses...especially if they are
a) male
and
b) famous

what happened to innocent untill proven guilty

oh sorry I forgot


HE is

a)male
and
b)famous

that makes it ok then


guilty ....hang him....

NEXT.........

You do know what Elm House was used for, in fact it was the only thing that went on there?

risingsun wrote:You do know what Elm House was used for, in fact it was the only thing that went on there?

really...and you know this how ...and 100% through unimpeachable evidence that has been tested in court???

or from some sensationalising "only interested in the headline and payline" red top toilet paper???

I.m well aware of what Elm House was used for.........

so guilt by association is sufficient evidence to destroy some one

of course

HE is
a) male
and
b)famous


so that makes it ok then


right ho...

sorted


guilt by association is now the standard we can work to



so



lets make a start o the immirant problem shall we.....



or is that "different" ?

Okay, apart from anything else (even though I'm kinda with sassy on the elm house thing) but take that away and everything else....isn't it just a tad weird that the guy was never seen with anyone, male or female (except the brief thing with Sue Barker, and were not they not just "friends")??
He's a man in his seventies and he has never had a girlfriend/lover/wife.

Isn't that just a tad unusual?

oh and hes not a Muslim....

eddie wrote:Okay, apart from anything else (even though I'm kinda with sassy on the elm house thing) but take that away and everything else....isn't it just a tad weird that the guy was never seen with anyone, male or female (except the brief thing with Sue Barker, and were not they not just "friends")??
He's a man in his seventies and he has never had a girlfriend/lover/wife.

Isn't that just a tad unusual?

yes but so are many things



so quick lets lock up all heavily tattoed people...bound to be some sort of deviancy there....
and er

Lady gaga...i mean she is just wierd.....

darknessss wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, apart from anything else (even though I'm kinda with sassy on the elm house thing) but take that away and everything else....isn't it just a tad weird that the guy was never seen with anyone, male or female (except the brief thing with Sue Barker, and were not they not just "friends")??
He's a man in his seventies and he has never had a girlfriend/lover/wife.

Isn't that just a tad unusual?

yes but so are many things



so quick lets lock up all heavily tattoed people...bound to be some sort of deviancy there....
and er

Lady gaga...i mean she is just wierd.....

Ah shuddup Vic! I never said let's lock up people who are weird.
I said, didn't you ever find it unusal that cliff was never with a woman (or man?)

Come on vic! He was asexual at best and I'm sorry, I always had a wonderment about that.

Nope


IAMGETTINGARANTONBECAUSEPEOPLEAREONEAGAINIGNORINGTHEPRIMETENETOFJUSTICE.....

darknessss wrote:Nope


IAMGETTINGARANTONBECAUSEPEOPLEAREONEAGAINIGNORINGTHEPRIMETENETOFJUSTICE.....

BETTERTOGETAHARDONSOWHYNOTWATCHSOMEPORNANDLOGOFF?

see my sig

darknessss wrote:see my sig

Yes I did notice it

So cliff.
You think he likes men or women?

Is he still seeing Sue Barker?

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:see my sig

Yes I did notice it

So cliff.
You think he likes men or women?

I have NO idea

and its irrelevant anyway......

HE..is
a)male
and
b) famous
and
c) not a Muslim


so its ok for everyone to ignore what is perhaps the greatest and most important tenet of justice ...


I see............

why dont we dispense with our courts of law altogether...think how much that would save...

just have justice decided by and dispensed by the media.....


they already think they have a right to try it....

Irn Bru wrote:Is he still seeing Sue Barker?

No, that was over (if it ever started?) years and years ago!

darknessss wrote:why dont we dispense with our courts of law altogether...think how much that would save...

just have justice decided by and dispensed by the media.....


they already think they have a right to try it....

I'm not saying he's guilty!!
I said its a bit odd that he's never seen with an adult of either sex!
It's not "normal" is it?

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:why dont we dispense with our courts of law altogether...think how much that would save...

just have justice decided by and dispensed by the media.....


they already think they have a right to try it....

I'm not saying he's guilty!!
I said its a bit odd that he's never seen with an adult of either sex!
It's not "normal" is it?

neither is being a lot of other things too....like a monk

a space jocky




all just as irrelevant atm....

besides...exactly......what is normal

what, in order not to be judged and hung by the media, norms should we all conform to?

darknessss wrote:what, in order not  to be judged and hung by the media, norms should we all conform to?

I have said take away all the media stuff and this recent allegation, don't you find it odd he's never been seen with anyone?

Come on vic be honest! You never wondered!?

Cliff Richard 'stole my wife' (after he'd secretly married an African princess)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1094298/Cliff-Richard-stole-wife--hed-secretly-married-African-princess.html

It's in the Daily Mail so it must be true

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:what, in order not  to be judged and hung by the media, norms should we all conform to?

I have said take away all the media stuff and this recent allegation, don't you find it odd he's never been seen with anyone?

Come on vic be honest! You never wondered!?

Nope

I dont go round pokeing my nose into others "business" NOR do I make judgement on how someone lives (provided its within the law)

AND

until evidence to the contrary is provided, tested and tried by due process in a competant tribunal (court to you) (HRA)
as far as I am concerned the guy is innocent of any wrong doing and thus of NO interest.....I am NOT empowered by ANYTHING to be an "inquisitor"...we employ "police " to do that
(not withsatnding that the police are guilty of significant wrong doing here)

therfore...even if I HAD an opinion as to his guilty or not guilty status I WOULD KEEP my mouth shut...