When you’re raised from a baby with something constantly in your life, you’re either going to reach adulthood loving it or hating it. 
In our house, that constant was Cliff Richard. Mum loved his music and so it could often be heard from whatever CD or cassette player she was nearest to. When I got my first MP3 player, his music was some of the first to be put on it, which made for an interesting mix of music overall.
If I set the playing mode to shuffle, I would often have just finished attempting to deafen myself with the heavy drum line and bass of punk music and suddenly along would come to calmer, dulcet tones of Sir Cliff singing about revamping a big red London bus to get it ready for a road trip.
From what I’ve seen and read about Cliff Richard, he does seem to be a genuine fellow. 
It’s difficult to find anyone that will say a bad word against him if they actually know him personally rather than jumping on a bandwagon after seeing a newspaper headline. He is openly religious and has put it on record that he believes marriage to be a very special thing that should be cherished and not done just to “make other people feel satisfied”.
That’s why I was as shocked as the rest of the world when I heard of the sexual assault allegations that were made against him in August 2014. These allegations were not upheld by the CPS who decided not to prosecute after reviewing evidence that was supplied by the accusers.
I think that the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press ahead with a criminal case makes what happened in 2014 all the worse. Sir Cliff was overseas at the time and it appears that the first he knew about anything was when he saw his house being broadcast across the BBC with police officers entering and searching.
It would be a horrific situation for any of us to find ourselves in. Even when you don’t have anything to hide, the thought of someone going through your personal belongings is enough to make your skin crawl. 
When I was in university accommodation, I hated the thought of room inspections or fire alarms because in those scenarios, a perfect stranger was able to let themselves into my room to look about and there wasn’t anything I could do about it. Even the blandest of things caused a panic: would they judge my pile of dirty washing? Would they comment to each other on the dirty bowl left on the desk from a midnight snack of noodles that I hadn’t quite got around to washing yet? Would they go looking through my drawers?
Your space is personal and people should really respect that. We all have a reasonable expectation to have our privacy respected and that includes celebrities. Just because they choose to be in the spotlight at times does not mean that they have to be under scrutiny all the time. They’re just as entitled to do their own thing without being judged for it as the rest of us are.
You see it in the red top tabloids too often. If a celebrity tries to do anything the rest of us mere mortals may think nothing of, they’re followed by photographers who whip out their long lens faster than a lion pouncing on prey or passers-by who see nothing creepy about taking a sneaky shot. 
No matter how secluded or mundane the place, they’re aware that there’s still a possibility they’ll be seen and so can never fully relax. Kate Middleton dared to go grocery shopping during her recent pregnancy and was photographed doing so: her use of reusable bags and bargain hunting was commented on with a fervour most people reserve for speaking about babies or puppies.
When passing judgement on Cliff Richard’s case, Sir Justice Mann said that there had to be a “genuine public interest” in exposing the personal details of a suspect in a police investigation rather than broadcasting their identity to the general public as “interest to the gossip-monger”. 
We use the courts system and evidence to determine whether or not someone is guilty of what has been alleged against them, not trial by media and public opinion. If we did do it by way of the latter, many people would find themselves in hot water for simply being who they are and the people around them disagreeing with their actions.
This ruling is going to make things a little tricky because we’ve seen with the likes of the Jimmy Saville case that by naming him, more victims came forward but at the same time, innocent people need to be protected so that a lynch mob isn’t sent after them due to a malicious accusation being made against them.
If you’ve noticed the Impartial Reporter’s Facebook posts over the past number of months, you’ll see that under some reports of ongoing cases, a warning is posted advising people not to name those involved as they could be committing an offence. We know that it’s wrong to do so in a local sense so why should it be any different if the person is famous?
Our justice system has everyone believed to be innocent until they are proven guilty, but by naming an accused perpetrator, the opposite becomes true. 
I think there has to be a shift in reporting guidelines from here on in. To rehash a well-known phrase, you cannot just fling mud at celebrities and hope that it sticks the odd time. My gut instinct would be to keep everyone’s name out of current crime reporting unless there is substantive evidence towards a guilty verdict that has been reviewed by several experts in the matter. 
That way if they’re proven wrong, at least they can justify their decision and claim to have made it on facts rather than chasing an exclusive news story.