The British media is moaning because the judgement in the case seems to rule that in future a persons name cannot be published until they have been charged with an offence.
They claim that "the case marked a "significant shift" against press freedom and an "important principle" around the public's right to know was at stake.
I don't agree.
Neither did the judge. "In his judgement, Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case."
A former chief constable for British Transport Police said: "Generally speaking, I see no reason for the public to know people have been arrested. The person arrested carry the stigma of that arrest for a long time."
I think it is right that the media should not be able to damage a persons reputation by reporting they are being investigated and will now have to wait until they are charged. If they are not charged their anonymity will be protected.
The media have lost the right to smear a person just to get a scoop.
Fran Unsworth, the BBC's director of news, said that the ruling is a "significant shift against press freedom". No its not. Though it is a blow to the unethical who think their desire to get a scoop justifies invading someone's privacy and destroying their reputation.
I listened to David Jordan, the BBC's director of editorial policy and standards being interviewed by a BBC journalist [senior BBC manager interviewed by more junior member of same organisation. That's the way to get at the truth. I assume Mr Jordan's mum was not available to do the interview.]
His answer to almost every slightly tricky question was to say that the BBC would have to consider that issue. The police raid was four years ago. Haven't the BBC found time to think about the case and their actions during the past four years? No meetings? No time to put the old thinking cap on?
David Jordan said resignations were "not necessarily the right response to every mistake that every journalist makes in a news organisation". Oh, I don't know. I think applying a blowlamp to some BBC tootsies would do the organisation a world of good. If they have trouble drawing up a list of sackable people I can think of a few names.
One important reason why the media should lose the right to smear is the way the police have treated the innocent. After the police have tipped off the media and someone has been smeared but found to be innocent, the filth like to conclude their investigation by saying that 'insufficient evidence was found to charge Mr X'.
To many people that sounded like, 'the cops know he was guilty but cannot prove it'.
Mr Justice Mann's ruling kills that nasty practice.