Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes28 mins ago
Breaking News
57 Answers
https:/
BBC won't be taking the Cliff Richard's case to the appeal court.
BBC won't be taking the Cliff Richard's case to the appeal court.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
bhg481 - // andy //Mr Richard has sought no publicity whatsoever from this case//
Are you saying that Cliff is so naive that he didn't realise that a court case such as this would not attract lots of media attention? //
No I am not saying that at all. When you have been a major star for as long as Mr Richard has, you are intimately acquainted with how the publicity machine operates.
I am sure Mr Richard was absolutely aware of the media attention his court case would attract - but he pursued it anyway, which was the right thing to do.
Bringing a court case which attracts publcity is very different from seeking publicity - something Mr Richard has not needed to do for about sixty years.
As I have pointed out, Mr Richard has given no interviews regarding this case, and clearly sought no publicity for it whatsoever. Any publicity that has been created can hardly be blamed on him.
Are you saying that Cliff is so naive that he didn't realise that a court case such as this would not attract lots of media attention? //
No I am not saying that at all. When you have been a major star for as long as Mr Richard has, you are intimately acquainted with how the publicity machine operates.
I am sure Mr Richard was absolutely aware of the media attention his court case would attract - but he pursued it anyway, which was the right thing to do.
Bringing a court case which attracts publcity is very different from seeking publicity - something Mr Richard has not needed to do for about sixty years.
As I have pointed out, Mr Richard has given no interviews regarding this case, and clearly sought no publicity for it whatsoever. Any publicity that has been created can hardly be blamed on him.
// Totally out of order in IMO, bordering on the libellous.//
oh libel whom for chrissakes ?
all this would be fair comment...
for those who havent read the judgement yet
it is here:
https:/
oh libel whom for chrissakes ?
all this would be fair comment...
for those who havent read the judgement yet
it is here:
https:/
bhg - // If he had been so upset with his name being linked to such activities he would have just kept his head down rather than start a court case and keep it in the public eye for years. //.
Mr Richard's understandable upset was the entire motivation behind him bringing his court action. He was, and is, an innocent man, neither arrested or charged at the time this nonsense was perpetuated on him, and his desire to seek justice is completely understandable, why should he 'hide away' when he has done nothing wrong.
As for 'keeping it in the public eye for years' - Mr Richard had no knowledge, much less control over the length of time the case would take to come to court - but as I have said several times, he did nothing whatever to facilitate any initialising, or maintenance of any publicity.
Mr Richard's understandable upset was the entire motivation behind him bringing his court action. He was, and is, an innocent man, neither arrested or charged at the time this nonsense was perpetuated on him, and his desire to seek justice is completely understandable, why should he 'hide away' when he has done nothing wrong.
As for 'keeping it in the public eye for years' - Mr Richard had no knowledge, much less control over the length of time the case would take to come to court - but as I have said several times, he did nothing whatever to facilitate any initialising, or maintenance of any publicity.
bhg - // We're discussing someone who brought a publicity-attracting court case because he said he'd been upset by the attention he'd received. //
At the risk of sounding like a cracked record here -
Any publicity generated by Mr Richard's celebrity is something over which he had, and has no control at all.
Mr was not 'upset by the attention he received' - he has lived his entire adult life as a centre of attention - this was about invasion of privacy, which is a very different matter from receiving attention.
The press taking your picture as you leave a restaurant with a 'mystery blonde' - attention.
The press filming a police search of your house with a helicopter close enough to film a policeman flashing your underwear at the camera - invasion pf privacy.
I hope that clears up your apparent confusion over which is which.
At the risk of sounding like a cracked record here -
Any publicity generated by Mr Richard's celebrity is something over which he had, and has no control at all.
Mr was not 'upset by the attention he received' - he has lived his entire adult life as a centre of attention - this was about invasion of privacy, which is a very different matter from receiving attention.
The press taking your picture as you leave a restaurant with a 'mystery blonde' - attention.
The press filming a police search of your house with a helicopter close enough to film a policeman flashing your underwear at the camera - invasion pf privacy.
I hope that clears up your apparent confusion over which is which.
Here is an excerpt of an email I sent the beeb news room....
Beeb reporting on the Beeb and the Richard v BBC case- disgusting and misleading
We have the Beeb worrying about the right of free speech and the threat the Richard case poses to this important Freedom - to the Beeb, hacks, and the world !
so the Beeb takes the moral high ground - pompously wondering what will be the future for journalists, freedom and liberty etc
BUT
Just below I have abridged paras 21-24 of the judgement. it is obvious why the Beeb cant appeal
THEY LIED in court ! - later the judge wonders if some of the emails in evidence were er made up later
21. Dan the Man: It is just, to repeat myself, that I considered he was capable of letting his enthusiasm for his story get the better of his complete regard for truth on occasions.
Mr Declan Wilson 22. I found aspects of his evidence unsatisfactory. Mr Wilson's evidence of his post-search conversation was particularly unsatisfactory. The totality of his evidence needs to be approached with caution.
Gary Smith 23. ....He was, in my one of the employees of the who became concerned (I am tempted to use the word "obsessed") with scooping their news rivals and that probably affected some of his judgment at the time, and gave rise to a certain defensiveness in relation to his later conduct (in particular his participation in internal email traffic after the search).
24. I consider that Mr Smith was unduly defensive, and to a degree evasive, in much of his evidence, particularly in relation to post-search email traffic. ... some of that traffic was significantly inconsistent with the case. I regret that I felt I could not always rely on him as a reliable witness.
Beeb reporting on the Beeb and the Richard v BBC case- disgusting and misleading
We have the Beeb worrying about the right of free speech and the threat the Richard case poses to this important Freedom - to the Beeb, hacks, and the world !
so the Beeb takes the moral high ground - pompously wondering what will be the future for journalists, freedom and liberty etc
BUT
Just below I have abridged paras 21-24 of the judgement. it is obvious why the Beeb cant appeal
THEY LIED in court ! - later the judge wonders if some of the emails in evidence were er made up later
21. Dan the Man: It is just, to repeat myself, that I considered he was capable of letting his enthusiasm for his story get the better of his complete regard for truth on occasions.
Mr Declan Wilson 22. I found aspects of his evidence unsatisfactory. Mr Wilson's evidence of his post-search conversation was particularly unsatisfactory. The totality of his evidence needs to be approached with caution.
Gary Smith 23. ....He was, in my one of the employees of the who became concerned (I am tempted to use the word "obsessed") with scooping their news rivals and that probably affected some of his judgment at the time, and gave rise to a certain defensiveness in relation to his later conduct (in particular his participation in internal email traffic after the search).
24. I consider that Mr Smith was unduly defensive, and to a degree evasive, in much of his evidence, particularly in relation to post-search email traffic. ... some of that traffic was significantly inconsistent with the case. I regret that I felt I could not always rely on him as a reliable witness.
If you lie in court as the beeb did
then it is very difficult to appeal
Clive Cole one of the highly paid hacks of the Beeb did say:
The judge and the Beeb have concentrated on the freedom of speech aspect
( and then thro' gritted teeth )
although there were various other thing covered.
Breaking news - broken news
Beeb cant report on itelf yet again
then it is very difficult to appeal
Clive Cole one of the highly paid hacks of the Beeb did say:
The judge and the Beeb have concentrated on the freedom of speech aspect
( and then thro' gritted teeth )
although there were various other thing covered.
Breaking news - broken news
Beeb cant report on itelf yet again
PP - // … so the Beeb takes the moral high ground - pompously wondering what will be the future for journalists, freedom and liberty etc //
As I pointed out, the BBC can do nothing other than try and justify its appalling behaviour with a show of cant and bluster about 'press freedom', because the alternative is to admit that they behaved in a truly dreadful manner towards an innocent individual.
If there is any 'curtailment in press freedom' - then the BBC can hang its head in shame as the instigator of such curtailments - it's invasive and offensive actions in the name of 'news' casts a shadow over future investigative journalism for all, and that is not because of the court's ruling, it is because of the BBC's actions.
They should shut up, and hope that the nation that funds them forgives them far faster than they deserve.
As I pointed out, the BBC can do nothing other than try and justify its appalling behaviour with a show of cant and bluster about 'press freedom', because the alternative is to admit that they behaved in a truly dreadful manner towards an innocent individual.
If there is any 'curtailment in press freedom' - then the BBC can hang its head in shame as the instigator of such curtailments - it's invasive and offensive actions in the name of 'news' casts a shadow over future investigative journalism for all, and that is not because of the court's ruling, it is because of the BBC's actions.
They should shut up, and hope that the nation that funds them forgives them far faster than they deserve.
I thought that the Beeb had been refused any right of appeal.
https:/
Hans.
https:/
Hans.
Oops,sorry. I repeated a link which I gave earlier. Hopefully, this the intended one.:-
https:/
Hans.
https:/
Hans.
PP - // The Beeb shouldnt appeal as against
the Beeb cant appeal as they behaved so badly in court the first time //
I don't believe that would stop them.
The BBC is saying it won't appeal because it doesn't want to waste licence payers' money (pity they didn't think about that when they were whistling up helicopters!) but the reality is, they would lose again, and they know it.
the Beeb cant appeal as they behaved so badly in court the first time //
I don't believe that would stop them.
The BBC is saying it won't appeal because it doesn't want to waste licence payers' money (pity they didn't think about that when they were whistling up helicopters!) but the reality is, they would lose again, and they know it.
TTT, since you ask: no, I wouldn't like my house to be turned over by the cops - but my beef would be with the cops. They may have had reasons of some sort for their actions (enough to get them a warrant); in Cliff's case I wouldn't know what they are, but in my case they would be inadequate.
I wouldn't like seeing it on TV either, but again my beef would be with the cops who invited them along. The police rightly apologised for this.
As far as I'm concerned, the BBC followed up a story of legitimate interest (not just "celebrity interest"). Their mistake was their subsequent behaviour in court, which as PP has pointed out makes it impossible to appeal. And I think that's bad in the public interest.
I wouldn't like seeing it on TV either, but again my beef would be with the cops who invited them along. The police rightly apologised for this.
As far as I'm concerned, the BBC followed up a story of legitimate interest (not just "celebrity interest"). Their mistake was their subsequent behaviour in court, which as PP has pointed out makes it impossible to appeal. And I think that's bad in the public interest.
jno -- // As far as I'm concerned, the BBC followed up a story of legitimate interest (not just "celebrity interest"). //
But they didn't just 'follow it up' - did they?
They turned it into a five ring circus with prurient intent which has nothing do with legitimate journalism.
The court didn't find against the BBC because they 'followed up a story of legitimate interest' - they found against the BBC because it invaded Mr Richard's privacy in doing it, and that is against the law.
But they didn't just 'follow it up' - did they?
They turned it into a five ring circus with prurient intent which has nothing do with legitimate journalism.
The court didn't find against the BBC because they 'followed up a story of legitimate interest' - they found against the BBC because it invaded Mr Richard's privacy in doing it, and that is against the law.
Latest Posts
Octopus Energy - Worth A Punt?
Home & Garden48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
ChatterBank73 mins ago
Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News103 mins ago
