I do agree with the last two posts. I've said repeatedly that the BBC was clumsy in the way it handled this. However, at the time of the broadcast in question, it was not known that the allegations were "unfounded." I don't necessarily trust the judgement of the police but I assume that they took the allegations seriously enough to come to the conclusion that they needed to be investigated. That's the only way that they could have ascertained whether the allegations were "unfounded" or not. There's some wonderfully-quaint hindsight being adopted by two or three of the posters here. I don't question the right of the police to investigate Cliff, nor the BBC's right to report what was going on. But both the police and the Beeb acted clumsily, in the best traditions of the Sun and Daily Mail. That's what's objectionable.