Cliff Richards to sue BBC

[drdel]

Reports suggest CR will sue the BBC for £1m.

Since we fund the BBC indirectly who thinks the managers responsible for the decision should pick up the bill?

 

[Oohmeoldbacksknackered]

Nope.
Investigative reporters have to be able to poke the hornet's nest without fear.
I think there was plenty of reasons to back this story at the time.
And £1M sounds pretty cheap by today's standards - I'm sure if they offer a full climbdown and £500000 to charity it'll all go away.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

They deserve the protection of their employers as any employee does but people should be sacked over it. Gross error of judgment. Cheap and sensationalist journalism.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

They deserve the protection of their employers as any employee does but people should be sacked over it. Gross error of judgment. Cheap and sensationalist journalism.

That's hinsight though, he's suing the BBC and the Police for invasion of privacy, the BBC broadcasted live the raid on his home, if he'd of been charged we'd be discussing the fall of another icon.

I'd be more interested in finding out how the BBC knew the raid was taking place.

 

[Oohmeoldbacksknackered]

I'd be more interested in finding out how the BBC knew the raid was taking place.

Three guesses:
1- The BBC employ clairvoyants who got lucky
2-Cliff phoned them up so he could get on television and sing 'Summer Holiday' just one more time
3- Money changed hands.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I'd be more interested in finding out how the BBC knew the raid was taking place.

I believe that is already known.

South Yorkshire police informed the BBC.

 

[Norrin Radd]

seems KITTY didnt like his fur ruffled.

 

[freddielong]

I don't know why he is suing the BBC surely the Police conducted their own investigation before the search it wasn't on the bequest of the BBC. You would imagine he should be suing whomever leaked the search to the BBC.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I don't believe it was leaked as such. It seems like it was a full on invitation to the party. I have no issue with him being investigated but this was sensationalising a story before any facts were known. Report the investigation but this was practically a lynch mob effort by the BBC.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

the BBC broadcasted live the raid on his home, if he'd of been charged we'd be discussing the fall of another icon.

It is the broadcast live raid that was wrong about this. The BBC and police colluded. At that stage in an investigation the person, whoever it is, is innocent. There is no hindsight needed to know the live broadcasting of a raid is wrong.

 

[freddielong]

I don't believe it was leaked as such. It seems like it was a full on invitation to the party. I have no issue with him being investigated but this was sensationalising a story before any facts were known. Report the investigation but this was practically a lynch mob effort by the BBC.

Yes, but it was lead by the police, the BBC cannot report it and show footage if it isn't happening.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Which is why both parties are being sued. The police led, the BBC followed. They didn't have to, they could have declined. Editorial judgement.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Which is why both parties are being sued. The police led, the BBC followed. They didn't have to, they could have declined. Editorial judgement.

The parliamentry enquiry into it found the BBC did nothing wrong.

 

[Fish]

No smoke without fire IMO, the police wouldn't have gone this far against such a personality without some degree of decent evidence, obviously not enough at the end of the day could be found to bring a conviction, but that doesn't mean he's totally innocent IMO!

There's nothing better than deflecting attention and getting the public and fans back onside by sueing someone and, no doubt, giving that money to charity, it's not like he needs the money himself, or does he....?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

No smoke without fire IMO, the police wouldn't have gone this far against such a personality without some degree of decent evidence, obviously not enough at the end of the day could be found to bring a conviction, but that doesn't mean he's totally innocent IMO!

There's nothing better than deflecting attention and getting the public and fans back onside by sueing someone and, no doubt, giving that money to charity, it's not like he needs the money himself, or does he....?

Not a big fan of innocent until proven guilty Fish? How about the landlord arrested for the bristol woman who was murdered, was castigated by all, but found to be completely unconnected?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The parliamentry enquiry into it found the BBC did nothing wrong.

That's a judgement call.

I think Fish's post has just clarified why this was wrong.

 

[Fish]

Not a big fan of innocent until proven guilty Fish? How about the landlord arrested for the bristol woman who was murdered, was castigated by all, but found to be completely unconnected?

Not wholly, no, especially when it's a celebrity where the authorities really have to be on the ball, so, for me, there is/was substantial reasons/evidence to go as far as they did, not once, but a couple of times at CR, so for me, they had something that needed to be pursued but never quite had enough for the CPS to follow through with it, is that innocent until proved guilty, technically yes, but has CR just been a bit clever and left no trail, and if so, even though it was a few years back, who's to say that another offence couldn't occur, and then in hindsight what reasons or excuses will be given to that victim?

As I say, no smoke without fire, this wasn't a witch hunt, they (police) acted on something, they're damned if they don't and sued if they do, we live in a claim society now, what a sad situation that is!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

No smoke without fire IMO, the police wouldn't have gone this far against such a personality without some degree of decent evidence, obviously not enough at the end of the day could be found to bring a conviction, but that doesn't mean he's totally innocent IMO!

There's nothing better than deflecting attention and getting the public and fans back onside by sueing someone and, no doubt, giving that money to charity, it's not like he needs the money himself, or does he....?

What faith you have in the police.

Have you already forgotten their recent well publicised pursuit of certain politicians etc; on child sex abuse enquiries? All ultimately found to have no basis and the accusers to be unreliable at best and possibly to have "suspicious" motives.

I'm afraid that coming from Birmingham and recalling the actions of certain elements of the West Midlands Police I cannot share your confidence.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I have no problem in the police investigating a complaint, that is their job, but why the need for all the publicity? There can only be one answer.

They assumed (wrongly) that having flushed Cliff out that there would be an avalanche of further claims, they did not surface, they clearly did not have any evidence , hence the raid and were relying on more "victims" coming forward.

Well that tactic has severely bitten them on the backside, the "no smoke without fire" comment is exactly why he is suing because his character is tarnished.

He was not charged with any offence and is therefore an innocent man in the eyes of the law and to intimate that there might be some substance to the allegations is prejudiced against a "clean living unmarried Christian man of a certain age" on the basis that there MUST be something funny going on. This is so wrong.

The police jumped on the Savile bandwagon assuming he had to be guilty because he was a celeb, they were wrong to involve the media.

This brings back the question as to should people be named by the police before they are charged with an offence.

If You were in cliffs situation, wouldn't you sue?

 

[Fish]

I have no problem in the police investigating a complaint, that is their job, but why the need for all the publicity? There can only be one answer.

They assumed (wrongly) that having flushed Cliff out that there would be an avalanche of further claims, they did not surface, they clearly did not have any evidence , hence the raid and were relying on more "victims" coming forward.

Well that tactic has severely bitten them on the backside, the "no smoke without fire" comment is exactly why he is suing because his character is tarnished.

He was not charged with any offence and is therefore an innocent man in the eyes of the law and to intimate that there might be some substance to the allegations is prejudiced against a "clean living unmarried Christian man of a certain age" on the basis that there MUST be something funny going on. This is so wrong.

The police jumped on the Savile bandwagon assuming he had to be guilty because he was a celeb, they were wrong to involve the media.

This brings back the question as to should people be named by the police before they are charged with an offence.

If You were in cliffs situation, wouldn't you sue?

Wow, still got his posters on your bedroom wall have you Phil, #FanBoy 😜