Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Music] Cliff v BBC



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,956
Faversham
No smoke without fire............


(I wrote that knowing that some people will nod in agreement, illustrating my real point, that reputation-ending allegations from which the accused will never recover, should never be made public until and unless there is a conviction).
 






Southern Scouse

Well-known member
Jul 21, 2011
2,095
I admit I love Aunty B.
However FOR GOD’S SAKE..... just how much of the news does it have to take up ???
Trump? Tesla guy apologising? MP quitting
Come on?
 


Leekbrookgull

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2005
16,383
Leek
Sir Cliff Richard and the BBC.

Can it get any worse for the BBC ? Often held out as a signing light in news reporting across the globe,yet that was again before 24/7/365 let alone social media.
 














Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,956
Faversham
Mods please merge with Cliff thread (sigh)
 


Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,307
Living In a Box
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 ?
 






Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
14,123
Herts
Really pleased for him. The grandstanding BBC, after receiving a snide call from the Police, sent an expensive helicopter up and fuelled his trial by public opinion. Mud sticks and all that.

After the Savile scandal, it seemed that the Police and BBC went to the other extreme.

I’m guessing you haven’t read the judgment?

The judge was deeply scathing about many of the BBC folk who gave evidence (and none of the SYP people). He found that the initial contact to SYP was by the BBC journalist, who led the police to believe that if they didn’t cooperate with him, he would arrange for the story to be published before the police were ready to do the raid.

According to the Judge, the BBC were focussed pretty much only on retaining the scoop - to the extent of being in breach of contract with ITN (who will presumably now sue too?). The BBC had a joint contract with ITN concerning the use of the chopper - they should have informed them when they mobilised it. They didn’t.

The £210k awarded is just the start - loss of income and costs still to be awarded.

This will run and run.
 


Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,206
Withdean area
I’m guessing you haven’t read the judgment?

The judge was deeply scathing about many of the BBC folk who gave evidence (and none of the SYP people). He found that the initial contact to SYP was by the BBC journalist, who led the police to believe that if they didn’t cooperate with him, he would arrange for the story to be published before the police were ready to do the raid.

According to the Judge, the BBC were focussed pretty much only on retaining the scoop - to the extent of being in breach of contract with ITN (who will presumably now sue too?). The BBC had a joint contract with ITN concerning the use of the chopper - they should have informed them when they mobilised it. They didn’t.

The £210k awarded is just the start - loss of income and costs still to be awarded.

This will run and run.

Being honest, I didn't. Thank you letting me know the truth.

My view of the BBC on the whole saga remains the same - very poor, with a News of the World approach to journalism.
 






Withdean and I

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2003
1,361
I felt the BBC coverage was utterly wrong from the start. What happened to innocent until proved guilty? Glad that justice has been done.
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,258
Not the BBC 's finest hour.
 




Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
14,123
Herts
Being honest, I didn't. Thank you letting me know the truth.

My view of the BBC on the whole saga remains the same - very poor, with a News of the World approach to journalism.

I think the BBC come out of this in an extremely poor way indeed. It’s hard to see how at least two of those involved will keep their jobs. They, like others in the media, are focussing now on how the judgment brings the whole of reporting possible criminal acts before charges have been laid into question. This despite the Judge explicitly saying that he sees nothing in his judgment that creates new law; it’s just that the facts of this specific case go against the BBC.

Very shoddy. The BBC should reflect more on the fact that the Judge said he couldn’t trust the evidence of some of their employees and that, in his view, pretty much their sole concern was retaining the scoop that their journalist had initially got from a tip-off from, most likely, the Met.
 




Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,206
Withdean area
I think the BBC come out of this in an extremely poor way indeed. It’s hard to see how at least two of those involved will keep their jobs. They, like others in the media, are focussing now on how the judgment brings the whole of reporting possible criminal acts before charges have been laid into question. This despite the Judge explicitly saying that he sees nothing in his judgment that creates new law; it’s just that the facts of this specific case go against the BBC.

Very shoddy. The BBC should reflect more on the fact that the Judge said he couldn’t trust the evidence of some of their employees and that, in his view, pretty much their sole concern was retaining the scoop that their journalist had initially got from a tip-off from, most likely, the Met.

Following the trial early on, the judge and barristers seemed to face sleazy arrogance and resistance, like extracting teeth, from a couple of the key BBC protagonists. No contrition, even slightest of regrets, compassion.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here