Well done, Cliff. I'm glad he got justice and I could see how drained he was by the whole experience outside court. The head of BBC should be sacked and forced to make a public apology. Will it happen? Never in a million years.![]()
I think Cliff was absolutely correct to do this but how on earth did they come to such an large fee the BBC has to pay ?
Large sum? It seems pretty paltry for someone of his stature who from my memory has not worked in media since this blew up.
They better. They're so quick to jump on any other entity or individual who's imperfect in political, business or public life.
He is incredible well off so is this fine in proportion to his wealth, just don't understand how they arrive at this figure.
A strange apology, the type a bullying former boss used to give to his victims later on with "I'm sorry that you felt upset by .... ". Not "I'm sorry for my behaviour".
This will now spend further time and licence payers money going through higher tiers of the legal system.
View attachment 98855
He is incredible well off so is this fine in proportion to his wealth, just don't understand how they arrive at this figure.
Disgraceful.
I have a similar but much more trivial issue to deal with, my outgoing HoD interfering with my appraisal. Same sort of deal. Shitsquirrels the lot of them. A small poo coated in hundreds and thousands perched on the top of their heads. The oxygen theives.
Apparently BBC abandoned a planned sting with an undercover reporter wired for sound.
Sir Cliff can now enjoy the rest of his summer holiday.
I'm afraid l completely disagree. Whilst admitting that they aren't quite what they were, I still believe that the BBC gives, as near as possible anyway, a non biased opinion on world events. I rue the day if/when they are forced to accept outside funding and take the commercial route.
Agree with my learned friend [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] - the story here isn't Cliff and the BBC, it's the reporting of those who have been arrested, or similar, in connection with a crime and, essentially, when the mud subsequently sticks.
I'm sure some will remember the murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol just before Christmas in 2010. I very much do as I was out in the same Clifton area of Bristol on that night, a stone's throw from where Joanne went missing.
Yeates's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested in connection with her murder and the media went into overdrive. He was an eccentric-looking chap with a few mannerisms that stood out. The basic premise of the reporting was that as he looked a bit odd, he was bound to have done it. He was tried by media and found guilty. It was an open and shut case.
Only it wasn't. Jefferies was innocent. The murdered proved to be Vincent Tabak, an eminently normal and respectable-looking neighbour.
I've always wondered how Jefferies recovered and moved on from what must have been, for him, a truly horrendous experience.
They should pay you handsomely and praise you to the hilt in the annual SWOT appraisal.
Agree with my learned friend [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] - the story here isn't Cliff and the BBC, it's the reporting of those who have been arrested, or similar, in connection with a crime and, essentially, when the mud subsequently sticks.
I'm sure some will remember the murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol just before Christmas in 2010. I very much do as I was out in the same Clifton area of Bristol on that night, a stone's throw from where Joanne went missing.
Yeates's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested in connection with her murder and the media went into overdrive. He was an eccentric-looking chap with a few mannerisms that stood out. The basic premise of the reporting was that as he looked a bit odd, he was bound to have done it. He was tried by media and found guilty. It was an open and shut case.
Only it wasn't. Jefferies was innocent. The murdered proved to be Vincent Tabak, an eminently normal and respectable-looking neighbour.
I've always wondered how Jefferies recovered and moved on from what must have been, for him, a truly horrendous experience.
Agree with my learned friend [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] - the story here isn't Cliff and the BBC, it's the reporting of those who have been arrested, or similar, in connection with a crime and, essentially, when the mud subsequently sticks.
I'm sure some will remember the murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol just before Christmas in 2010. I very much do as I was out in the same Clifton area of Bristol on that night, a stone's throw from where Joanne went missing.
Yeates's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested in connection with her murder and the media went into overdrive. He was an eccentric-looking chap with a few mannerisms that stood out. The basic premise of the reporting was that as he looked a bit odd, he was bound to have done it. He was tried by media and found guilty. It was an open and shut case.
Only it wasn't. Jefferies was innocent. The murdered proved to be Vincent Tabak, an eminently normal and respectable-looking neighbour.
I've always wondered how Jefferies recovered and moved on from what must have been, for him, a truly horrendous experience.
The explemary damages element of this is particularly odd, but not enough to be worth appealing alone (I believe the overall decision is being appealed anyway). Extra 20k for the coverage being nominated for an award? Unjustified.
I'd prefer a system where the already extremely wealthy could, when taking a libel action, nominate a charity they are otherwise unconnected with; and any damages go to that without further intervention. Cliff doesn't need 200k; I'm sure the costs are already vastly more than that and realistically extracting a sniveling apology and a charity donation earlier would probably have closed the issue.