Cliff Richards house raided - investigation now dropped

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

I watched Mr Richards interview on ITV and everything he said was correct despite his interviewer trying to say that the BBC were not really wrong, he looked to me like what he now is an ageing singer.

 

 

I'll go with that and a little more, a sad old man. The case has cost him close to 3 million I believe.

 

 

Angel1

Edited July 23, 2018 by ANGELFIRE1

[mossdog 10]

I'll go with that and a little more, a sad old man. The case has cost him close to 3 million I believe.

 

 

Angel1

......would'n't you be a sad old whatever you are if you had to pay three million out on an unproven case that has ruined your reputation!

[The Joker 10]

What the BBC did was come down to the level of the Daily Mail, publishing information because of information gained illegally.

 

I think it was when that Tory bird took over at the Beeb ?

 

You know the one, she was Cameron’s director of doom, or summat ?

[Lockdoctor 10]

This was a very specific case / alleged offence, for which the police were fishing for corroborating evidence, which has happened a lot in similar cases.

 

That doesn't mean I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Cliff Richard, who looks terrible with the strain of it all.

I don't understand your viewpoint. How can so called fishing be justified when it encourages people to make both false and true allegations? Every honest caring person can only have sympathy for Sir Cliff Richard. The BBC should suffer the same fate as the News Of The World suffered when it was proven they behaved badly.

[mossdog 10]

I don't understand your viewpoint. How can so called fishing be justified when it encourages people to make both false and true allegations? Every honest caring person can only have sympathy for Sir Cliff Richard. The BBC should suffer the same fate as the News Of The World suffered when it was proven they behaved badly.

.......I think if there was a thoro' forensic investigation into the way the BBC has behaved behind closed doors over the years by powerful people inside who can pull strings we might be shocked......of course the same can be said for any powerful media corporation or any political party.........."let he who is without wrong doing cast the first stone"as the handbook says!........ I would love to see some enlarged heads and bank balances roll at the BBC. Edited July 24, 2018 by mossdog

[Calahonda 11]

.......I think if there was a thoro' forensic investigation into the way the BBC has behaved behind closed doors over the years by powerful people inside who can pull strings we might be shocked......of course the same can be said for any powerful media corporation or any political party.........."let he who is without wrong doing cast the first stone"as the handbook says!........ I would love to see some enlarged heads and bank balances roll at the BBC.

 

Yes, this about sums things up, what’s the odds on the media and police ever doing their jobs properly?

[melthebell 865]

The BBC wants to appeal the latest ruling and says freedom of press is at stake? Lol

[El Cid 221]

The BBC wants to appeal the latest ruling and says freedom of press is at stake? Lol

 

The BBC has agreed to pay Sir Cliff Richard £850,000 within 14 days to cover his legal costs - following his privacy case against the corporation.

 

A judge ruled last week that the BBC had infringed the singer's privacy in its reporting of a South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in 2014, and awarded him £210,000 in damages.

 

Sir Cliff was never arrested or charged as part of the investigation.

It comes as the BBC seeks leave to appeal against the High Court ruling.

 

Appealing is just plain daft, is there some doubt as to the validity of the ruling?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

The BBC wants to appeal the latest ruling and says freedom of press is at stake? Lol

 

They are right.

 

Although their coverage of the initial raid was on a par with the lowest form of tabloid sensationalism more fitting of the News of the World than the BBC, they should always have the right to cover any story without fear or favour.

 

This ruling will only serve to protect those with £3 million to spend on lawyers.

 

If the BBC are successful in their appeal, if it hasn't already been done, then they should make it absolutely clear to their senior managers that they are competing with Channel Four News, the Times and the Independant not the Sun, the Star and the Daily Mail.

[kidneystone 23]

The court costs could be up to £3 million and it will be tv licence payers who will foot the bill.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

 

is there some doubt as to the validity of the ruling?

 

The ruling turned on the judge's interpretation of the Human Rights Act and what protections it gives to privacy, particularly of those already in the public eye.

 

The Appeal Court judges may well take a different view.

[truman 10]

The ruling turned on the judge's interpretation of the Human Rights Act and what protections it gives to privacy, particularly of those already in the public eye.

 

The Appeal Court judges may well take a different view.

 

Are you suggesting that those in the public eye should have fewer rights when it comes to privacy than the rest of us?