[Music] Cliff v BBC

[Durlston]

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.

 

[Weststander]

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.

They better. They're so quick to jump on any other entity or individual who's imperfect in political, business or public life.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Apparently BBC abandoned a planned sting with an undercover reporter wired for sound.

Sir Cliff can now enjoy the rest of his summer holiday.

 

[Weststander]

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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

Edit although maybe it evens it up with crimes against christmas records.

 

[Beach Hut]

Large sum? It seems pretty paltry for someone of his stature who from my memory has not worked in media since this blew up.

He is incredible well off so is this fine in proportion to his wealth, just don't understand how they arrive at this figure.

 

[Saunders]

They better. They're so quick to jump on any other entity or individual who's imperfect in political, business or public life.

So how do you explain Sir Jimmy Savile if that was the case?

 

[Saunders]

He is incredible well off so is this fine in proportion to his wealth, just don't understand how they arrive at this figure.

He is but in ending his income it also ended a large amount of income, I have seen larger fines for much much less incomes.

Edit we both agree at not understanding how they arrived at that figure.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

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.

 

[Weststander]

He is incredible well off so is this fine in proportion to his wealth, just don't understand how they arrive at this figure.

The wealthy victims of phone hacking received huge payouts. I'm glad they did. Wealth isn't a cap on damages.

 

[Weststander]

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.

They should pay you handsomely and praise you to the hilt in the annual SWOT appraisal.

 

[Bozza]

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.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Apparently BBC abandoned a planned sting with an undercover reporter wired for sound.

Sir Cliff can now enjoy the rest of his summer holiday.

Sometimes humour is appropriate, other times not

 

[Cian]

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.

 

[clapham_gull]

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.

On a technical point the BBC took a commercial route years ago which is a major form of income.

It has many channels abroad that show advertising (including the news) as well as subscription VOD services.

Their production arm (which has recently been made independent) also makes programmes for other channel, like ITV make programmes for the BBC.

And of course they also sell their programmes abroad.

 

[clapham_gull]

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.

Totally agree with you, but if you've wondered how Jefferies recovered he made a nice little media career talking about it.

.. and all power to him. A very eloquent and remarkably non bitter individual.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They should pay you handsomely and praise you to the hilt in the annual SWOT appraisal.

If only.

And woe betide them if we ever have an annual t*w*a*t analysis.

 

[marlowe]

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.

I remember it very well. I was immediately very uncomfortable and dubious about the reporting and remember saying to my wife at the time it happened that I had serious doubts as the only evidence against him seemed to be that he was a "weirdo" as I think they called him. The reporting was appalling and irresponsible beyond belief. I had the same immediate doubts about Colin Stagg when he was "exposed" as the same circumstantial evidence revolved around his "oddness". It made me quite angry what he had to endure. Most of these reporters were probably playground bullies at school who just adapted their natural childhood inclinations into their career, pick on the easy target.

If you never saw the drama "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies" I can thoroughly recommend. It won a couple of BAFTAS and was done in the same vein as the recent Jeremy Thorpe drama where humour was cleverly used to make a very serious point. There was one scene where he was sitting around the dinner table with his friends when they decided his predicament seemed an ideal opportunity to tell him something they'd obviously been dying to tell him for years, "do something about your hair". He needed a style that obviously didn't scream the word "Guilty!" He did actually take their advice so at least one good thing came out of the whole sorry affair, he got a decent haircut. Just discovered its currently on Netflix.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

It would be similar except Cliff was never arrested. He was in Portugal at the time, when South Yorks police seized his property.
They found nothing, so no arrest and no charges.

 

[Goldstone1976]

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.

The Judge awarded the extra £20k because he believed that the BBC were extra guilty by submitting the coverage for an award (which he notes rather sardonically “they didn’t win”) after CR had already complained about the coverage.

He also talks at length about how he came up with all the sums involved, including the split between SYP and BBC. Interestingly, he refers to the Mosley (Nazi hookers) case, and says that he thinks that the CR case is far worse, and explains why.

This wasn’t a libel action; this was a privacy action. It came down to setting CR’s s8 privacy rights against the BBC’s s10 freedom of speech rights.

The £210k is nothing to do with whether CR needs it or not. It’s a punishment for the BBC and SYP. There will be a separate hearing to determine what damages CR will be entitled to for loss of earnings, and costs - both of which are likely to be substantial, dwarfing the £210k.

Finally, CR offered to settle with the BBC for an apology and some (unspecified, but implied to be less than £210k) compo; the BBC refused.

The judgment is extremely well written and clear. I took the time to read it because I’m genuinely interested in the balance between a person’s legal right to privacy under s8 and the press’ legal right to report stuff that’s happening under s10.

It’s worth noting that SYP did not name CR at the time of the search. The senior officer at the scene delivered a piece to the press (only the BBC were at the scene at the time) and no mention of CR was made. It was the BBC who decided to name him.