Crosswords2 mins ago
Sir Cliff Richard Wins Case Against Bbc
Sir Cliff Richard has won his High Court privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.
Judge Mr Justice Mann said the singer will receive "substantial damages".
https:/
Good for him!!
Judge Mr Justice Mann said the singer will receive "substantial damages".
https:/
Good for him!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't mean you, naomi. Just that true devotees will never believe a word against him (and on this occasion, correctly so) and won't stop attending his gigs.
Thanks, hc4361. But was it the news report of the search that cost him these things, or the making of the allegations in the first place?
I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news, though I know there are many countries where this happens.
Thanks, hc4361. But was it the news report of the search that cost him these things, or the making of the allegations in the first place?
I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news, though I know there are many countries where this happens.
danny - // he punishment was not for reporting the news, but for how that news was obtained. //
I believe it was the way the report was presented that is the dreadful aspect of this whole sorry business.
What's wrong with a newsreader saying "The home of Sir Cliff Richard has been searched by police today, following accusations …"
They didn't need to scramble a camera crew and a helicopter to beam it into people's living rooms live as it happened. That was pure sensationalism, and uncalled for, and entirely inappropriate and disproportionate, in view of the absence of charges, or even an arrest.
I believe it was the way the report was presented that is the dreadful aspect of this whole sorry business.
What's wrong with a newsreader saying "The home of Sir Cliff Richard has been searched by police today, following accusations …"
They didn't need to scramble a camera crew and a helicopter to beam it into people's living rooms live as it happened. That was pure sensationalism, and uncalled for, and entirely inappropriate and disproportionate, in view of the absence of charges, or even an arrest.
how was it "obtained"? They flew a helicopter over his house while he was in Barbados. How on earth does that infringe his privacy?
I remember American networks filming the chase of OJ Simpson by helicopter. He was duly acquitted, but I don't recall that anyone sought to sue the networks for the outrage of showing it happening. They have different rules on freedom of speech over there.
I remember American networks filming the chase of OJ Simpson by helicopter. He was duly acquitted, but I don't recall that anyone sought to sue the networks for the outrage of showing it happening. They have different rules on freedom of speech over there.
"They have different rules on freedom of speech over there. "
So you are happy with plod tipping off a news organization of the intention to raid a house then are you? Enough notification for them to get hold of a chopper and crew mind so no quick phone call and do it live. I wonder if plod do that when they go raiding a master criminal - bet they dont.
This is not freedom of speech, it stinks and I'm damned sure if it was one of Murdocks News companies you would be up in arms about it.
So you are happy with plod tipping off a news organization of the intention to raid a house then are you? Enough notification for them to get hold of a chopper and crew mind so no quick phone call and do it live. I wonder if plod do that when they go raiding a master criminal - bet they dont.
This is not freedom of speech, it stinks and I'm damned sure if it was one of Murdocks News companies you would be up in arms about it.
The BBC were investigating allegations against Cliff Richard about an incident said to have taken place in Sheffield. They contacted South Yorkshire Police to ask If a criminal investigation was underway, and how it was proceeding. It was during those conversations that South Yorkshire Police revealed that Richard’s home was to be raided. The Police should not have revealed that, and were rightly prosecuted and paid out to Richards.
That is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid. The BBC had a scoop so they made the most of their story. It may have been over the top, but that is not (or should not) be a crime. It was an editorial decision (and it was wrong), but punishing a news organisation for reporting the news is very unfortunate, and the appeal should overturn the result.
That is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid. The BBC had a scoop so they made the most of their story. It may have been over the top, but that is not (or should not) be a crime. It was an editorial decision (and it was wrong), but punishing a news organisation for reporting the news is very unfortunate, and the appeal should overturn the result.
“I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news,”
“That [the police divulging details of the raid] is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid.”
Both were equally culpable. Details of search warrants issued are confidential and applications are, understandably, heard “in camera”. There is no justification for the SY police to reveal to anybody – especially the BBC - that they had secured such a warrant, let alone the details of when they intended to execute it.
For their part the BBC should know the sensitivity of such privileged information and should have declined to cover the raid as a matter of principle. Their argument that coverage was “in the public interest” is piffle. It is not in the public interest to cover such police operations and in some cases could actually jeopardise their success.
“That [the police divulging details of the raid] is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid.”
Both were equally culpable. Details of search warrants issued are confidential and applications are, understandably, heard “in camera”. There is no justification for the SY police to reveal to anybody – especially the BBC - that they had secured such a warrant, let alone the details of when they intended to execute it.
For their part the BBC should know the sensitivity of such privileged information and should have declined to cover the raid as a matter of principle. Their argument that coverage was “in the public interest” is piffle. It is not in the public interest to cover such police operations and in some cases could actually jeopardise their success.
Reporting that Sir Cliff's home has been raided (after the event) is news.
Sending a camera crew to film through the windows capturing an image of a police officer waving underwear at the camera live on national television is not news - it's invasion of privacy.
I fail to see how anyone can defend this as 'journalism' or 'freedom of the press' - it is garbage like this that puts those cherished concepts in danger.
Sending a camera crew to film through the windows capturing an image of a police officer waving underwear at the camera live on national television is not news - it's invasion of privacy.
I fail to see how anyone can defend this as 'journalism' or 'freedom of the press' - it is garbage like this that puts those cherished concepts in danger.
Look I dont think anyone 40-60 has read the report
It reads as tho they havent
it is here
https:/
parachute into p 56 para 214
"Mr Smith’s account in cross-examination of what he really meant by this email was unimpressive and, I am sorry to have to say, to an extent evasive. (j yaps a bit more) He was unable to say what he meant by “tactics” deployed by Mr Johnson, despite the fact that they “impressed” him, according to the email. In my view he was seeking to evade the obvious construction of the email, and the obvious narrative that it contained as to the four-way conversation, because it was inconsistent with the BBC’s present case."
is not about a precious right to freedom of speech
it er seems to be about a right of the Beeb to perjure itself and mislead a judge
we pay for all this by the way ....
It reads as tho they havent
it is here
https:/
parachute into p 56 para 214
"Mr Smith’s account in cross-examination of what he really meant by this email was unimpressive and, I am sorry to have to say, to an extent evasive. (j yaps a bit more) He was unable to say what he meant by “tactics” deployed by Mr Johnson, despite the fact that they “impressed” him, according to the email. In my view he was seeking to evade the obvious construction of the email, and the obvious narrative that it contained as to the four-way conversation, because it was inconsistent with the BBC’s present case."
is not about a precious right to freedom of speech
it er seems to be about a right of the Beeb to perjure itself and mislead a judge
we pay for all this by the way ....
Latest Posts
Crosswords10 mins ago
Fao Buenchico / Barmaid Re Wills
Law23 mins ago
News26 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.