Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Sir Cliff To Sue Bbc And South Yorkshire Police
It appears that Sir Cliff Richard has instructed his legal people to commence procedings in suing the BBC & South Yorkshire Police. The amount quoted is £1 million which has been calculated as loss of earnings.Hopefully he secures every penny and these two organisations will be more careful in future about how they conduct themselves.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by grumpy01. 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.I believe it was fundementally wrong to name Cliff Richards and to film the raid before he was charged - had it been Joe Bloggs down the road then nothing would have happened - whilst I know 'stars' covet their media exposure concerning their careers it should not subject them to being the victims to unlawful proceedures.
-- answer removed --
Gromit is correct, the Police were forced to act earlier than they intended to stop the investigation being exposed by the BBC journalist. If it had not been for that the investigation would probably have been closed without any action being taken. The BBC's 'reward' was an exclusive news story where they were able to set up cameras and wait for the police convoy to arrive at Cliff's house.
Basically it was a form of blackmail, the BBC were given exclusive coverage in return for not reporting the investigation and thereby sabotaging any chance of a prosecution. It is the BBC who should be sued.
Basically it was a form of blackmail, the BBC were given exclusive coverage in return for not reporting the investigation and thereby sabotaging any chance of a prosecution. It is the BBC who should be sued.
-- answer removed --
The BBC found out that the police were investigating Cliff Richard. They are a news organisation and it is their job to report such news. South Yorkshire Police had not concluded their enquiries, and made a deal with the BBC to hold off broadcasting anything until Cliff's house had been searched. No one was rewarded, it was an arrangement beneficial to both parties.
SYP concluded that there wasn't any evidence to prosecute. That is not an admission that the police were wrong to investigate the initial complaint.
My prediction is that Cliff will withdraw the complaint, or settle out of court for a much smaller amount.
SYP concluded that there wasn't any evidence to prosecute. That is not an admission that the police were wrong to investigate the initial complaint.
My prediction is that Cliff will withdraw the complaint, or settle out of court for a much smaller amount.
naomi , divebuddy, Yes I agree it was shameful and that the police should not have been 'rewarding' anyone. My point was that if it were not for the BBC journalist threatening to reveal the information he had been 'leaked' the raid would not have taken place. The police thought that they had no option but to go in and try to get any evidence there may have been before the warning gave time to destroy it. However the police informed the journalist of the time of the raid which gave the BBC time to set up cameras to film it. I call that a 'reward'.
blimey most of the disapprovers are showing in their posts that Sir Cliff has a point.
// If it can be proved 100% that they lied then they should be prosecuted and named.//
and that would be perjury or some other 'witness crime' s.a.conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
perjury requires a second witness - which is why it is so rare ( and usually successful ) which sort of answers that question and accounts why he isnt suing his accusers. There is another technical reason which is probably not suitable for this thread ( perjury is not a tort )
I still dont see under what heading ( cause of action ) Cliff is gonna sue
Negligence I suppose...
// If it can be proved 100% that they lied then they should be prosecuted and named.//
and that would be perjury or some other 'witness crime' s.a.conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
perjury requires a second witness - which is why it is so rare ( and usually successful ) which sort of answers that question and accounts why he isnt suing his accusers. There is another technical reason which is probably not suitable for this thread ( perjury is not a tort )
I still dont see under what heading ( cause of action ) Cliff is gonna sue
Negligence I suppose...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.