Why Can’t Peter Tatchell Leave Cliff Richard Alone?
Cliff Richard has spent more than six decades entertaining audiences, selling over 250 million records, and becoming one of Britain’s most enduring music legends. Yet, at 83 years old, he’s found himself once again the subject of unwelcome public scrutiny — this time from activist Peter Tatchell, who recently criticised Cliff’s decision not to publicly define his sexuality.
The controversy began after a 2016 Loose Women interview resurfaced, in which Cliff politely but firmly drew a boundary: “I don’t mind talking about things, but there are things that are mine, that will go with me to my grave… I don’t talk about my family, I certainly don’t talk about my sexuality.” To most, this seemed like a reasonable assertion of privacy. To Tatchell, however, it was an opportunity to weigh in.
“Sure, it is up to him,” Tatchell began — before adding that “hiding his sexuality colludes with the idea that it is shameful” and “sets a bad example to young people.” His comments struck many as presumptuous, ignoring both the long history of public intrusion Cliff has endured and his fundamental right to keep certain matters personal.
For decades, Sir Cliff has navigated fame with grace. From his early days as Britain’s first rock and roll star — often compared to Elvis Presley for his youthful charisma — to his later career as a family-friendly entertainer, he’s never sought to trade in scandal. In fact, the singer’s Christian faith, private marriage-free life, and measured public persona have made him a target for speculation.
Those rumours reached a cruel crescendo a decade ago, when Cliff was subjected to false and humiliating allegations of child sexual abuse. The BBC broadcast police searches of his home in real time, and although he was never arrested or charged, the damage to his reputation and privacy was immense. He later received substantial damages in court, but the ordeal left deep scars.
Given this history, many find Tatchell’s intrusion baffling. If anyone should understand the harm caused by speculation about someone’s private life, it is a veteran campaigner for LGBTQ+ rights. Yet here he is, suggesting that Cliff owes the public an answer about his sexuality — as though his decades of music, charity work, and cultural contributions are somehow incomplete without it.
The irony is that Cliff’s choice to remain silent on the matter is entirely in keeping with entertainment history. Sexual ambiguity has long been part of many artists’ public image, from the Pet Shop Boys to David Bowie. Some later defined their sexuality publicly; others never did. In many cases, it was the mystery — the refusal to be neatly categorised — that gave their artistry a certain intrigue.
And perhaps that’s the point. Cliff Richard is not a politician or public official. He is an entertainer, and his personal life belongs to him. To suggest that he is “setting a bad example to young people” by maintaining privacy ignores the reality of today’s youth culture, where Gen Z is far more likely to be following Dua Lipa or Harry Styles than waiting for guidance from the singer of Mistletoe and Wine.
In the end, Tatchell’s criticism says more about him than about Cliff Richard. It reflects a tendency among some activists to demand conformity to their own vision of visibility, even when it disregards an individual’s personal boundaries. Privacy is not the same as shame, and silence is not the same as dishonesty.
Cliff has given the world decades of music, joy, and goodwill. That should be enough. Whether he ever chooses to speak publicly about his sexuality is his decision alone — and it’s time for everyone, including Peter Tatchell, to respect that.