WHEN is an apology not an apology?

When it’s the one made by the BBC to Sir Cliff Richard for broadcasting live the massive police raid on his Berkshire mansion in August 2014. Even now that we know all the details, this ruthless and entirely unjustified invasion of Sir Cliff ’s property is beyond belief.

It all began when South Yorkshire Police – not the most reliable bunch of lads as we know from their mishandling of the Hillsborough disaster and their failure for years to arrest the perpetrators of child sexual abuse, on an epic scale, on their patch – tipped off the BBC that the following day they were to conduct their raid.

Sir Cliff, on holiday in Portugal, knew nothing about it until he saw live coverage on TV of the BBC’s helicopter filming above his house, followed by scenes of the police searching his place room by room.

The entire episode was a monstrous injustice.The police said they were investigating Sir Cliff on suspicion of an alleged incidence of sexual abuse, decades ago. His accuser – the alleged “victim” – was allowed to remain anonymous. Sir Cliff, of course, was not. Thus, outrageously, an innocent man was arraigned before a worldwide TV audience, always avid for snippets of salacious gossip. The investigation went on for two years and cost £800,000 – the whole thing conducted in full media spotlight. Sir Cliff never had a moment’s respite.

In an interview last week, the singer said: “I just collapsed. I couldn’t imagine what depression was like, but I have an idea now. I felt as though I was in this hole and I had no means of getting out. I thought I was going to die.” I think I know, just a little, of what he felt like and what he went through. Back in 1998, I co-edited a book Faking It: The Sentimentalisation of Society.

In one of the chapters, a contributor wrote to suggest, in the gentlest and most courteous tones,thatthe public expression of emotion after the death of Princess Diana might have been a little excessive. The writer and his co-editors took the flak. My phone never stopped for a fortnight, I was door-stepped by a dozen newspapers and magazines, was asked for interviews on both British and American TV. I received poison pen letters and death threats. I’m sure that my experience was nothing compared with the intense and prolonged ordeal endured by Sir Cliff. As he said, it nearly killed him.

The BBC has issued an apology – of sorts: “The BBC is very sorry that Sir Cliff Richard, who has worked as a musician and performer for so many years with this organisation, has suffered distress.”

But what is this apology worth when the BBC still stands by its decision to carry the story of the police raid? Sir Cliff replied that he is, “…bitterly disappointed to see that, while finally appearing to offer an apology for the distress I have suffered, the BBC do not acknowledge that they themselves caused it.” Meanwhile the Crown Prosecution Service says that the case was dropped on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”.

I liked Ann Widdecombe’s comment in one of the papers: “The CPS should invent a new phrase for ‘insufficient evidence,’ and that phrase is ‘no evidence’.” The palpable injustice in all this is that Sir Cliff was named before any charge was brought against him. I hope Sir Cliff carries out his intention to sue.