Sir Cliff Richard Wins Case Against Bbc

[naomi24]

Sir Cliff Richard has won his High Court privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.

Judge Mr Justice Mann said the singer will receive "substantial damages".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

Good for him!!

[jno]

I find it hard to believe he's lost a penny, hc4361. Nor that his reputation has suffered any hit. He's like Trump, people who adore him will always adore him no matter what.

[hc4361]

jno, he has lost at least £440k in legal expenses, had his autobiography cancelled and had to return the 'substantial' advance, his annual earnings dropped from £2m+ to £700k in one year and has not recovered.
As well as the physical and mental strain he has lost and will probably continue to lose a LOT of money.

[naomi24]

jno, //He's like Trump, people who adore him will always adore him no matter what. //

It's not about adoration. I've never adored anyone I don't know personally - but I do adore fair play - even for those I don't like. Right is right and wrong is wrong - and this was wrong.

[Gromit]

I have not read the Judgement, but from what I remember, I am not sure the BBC did anything wrong.
They are a News organisation, and they learned that Richard’s house was to be searched, so they covered the story. Richard’s was in Portugal at the time.

Are the BBC supposed to ignore the story? We see police raids on terrorists broadcast. Should the BBC now ignore those for fear of invading the terrorists privacy?

[Bazile]

Just as a matter of interest - why has the BBC not played any of his songs for donkeys ( unless i'm mistaken ) - what's the story there ?

[roopower]

Cliff's songs are occasionally played on the radio now. Can't remember exactly why BBC stopped playing them but he wasn't the only one. Cliff gives a lot of his money to charity, I've no doubt there will be a lot more.

[youngmafbog]

"I am not sure the BBC did anything wrong. "

Why am I surprised you wrote that. I suppose working in cahoots with plod who must have given enough notice to get the helicopter up is not wrong? Tell me would you say the same think if Murdoch did that?

I'm glad he has won, although the slime balls at the BBC still dont get it and are trying to appeal.

About time the BBC licence fee went, lets see how these directors would survive in the real world.

[Gromit]

// why has the BBC not played any of his songs for donkeys ( unless i'm mistaken ) //

Yep, You are mistaken.
Cliff has been played on the BBC today. Yesterday, they played 5 of his songs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b5c2fdfc-d037-45b8-84f9-09ebb7ff8aa1

[Canary42]

I note that the regular vociferous critics/detractors of Human Rights now support this judgement on a Human Rights prosecution.

Double Standards again.

[youngmafbog]

Nothing to do with human rights, what the BBC and the Police did was blatantly wrong.

At least the old bill had the decency to put their hands up unlike this load of liberal elites.

[anneasquith]

I have a confession. I don't like him and have never felt any sympathy for him 're this court case. I don't wish him any I'll though .

[Prudie]

"they learned that Richard’s house was to be searched" that is the crux of where this was disgraceful by the police and BBC. It doesn't matter if you like him or not or even if he's guilty - the BBC were pre-warned so they could be in the air at the right time. That is what stinks and I'm glad of the outcome. As for damage to reputation without a shadow of a doubt that has happened - even I wonder if there's no smoke without fire now.

[anneasquith]

Actually prudie i agree , mud does stick .

[andy-hughes]

hc4361 - // £210k isn't a great deal but it's a start. The award for the loss of earnings will be much greater, I'm sure. //

I doubt any award will be given for 'loss of earnings' because it is not possible to calculate imagined earnings, so the courts do not usually entertain such claims.

What will make a difference is if punitive damages are awarded, they could be tens of millions of pounds.

I think the BBC behaved appallingly here.

They are supposed to be the premier broadcaster in the world, the one the rest look up to for it's reputation for professionalism.

And here it behaved like a low-market tabloid, pretending to be 'acting in the public interest', but actually acting on what interests the public, which is absolutely not the same thing.

Their behaviour stank then, and I hope they have the belated and undeserved dignity to can their intention to appeal, pay up, shut up, and remember who they are and what they actually do.

They report news, they don't titter behind their hands at pop stars' purported behaviour, making them the accused before they are even arrested, much less convicted.

[Peter Pedant]

lose as in 'not get' rather than 'shell out'

Judgement here
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

someone is gonna quip as a one-liner - "foo! dat along prf.!"
and it IS - 122 pages and also I put a long-word-alert out, too

triggered ( not read it yet) by taken in for questions and NOT things like the drone/helicopter.

[Peter Pedant]

// I am not sure the BBC did anything wrong. //

o god I am, £210 000 worth of wrong....

[The_Rim_Greaper]

im sure with the subsatantial damages to be awarded he'll be going on a summer holiday ! -;

Individuals inside plod get backhanders from the Blatantly Biased C*£%s for info, tip offs etc, its always gone on, same with the papers and most meedjia orgs.

[The_Rim_Greaper]

" I am not sure the BBC did anything wrong. "

thats made my day... hahahahahaha

[andy-hughes]

TRG - // im sure with the subsatantial damages to be awarded he'll be going on a summer holiday ! -; //

And I'm sure he will donate anything he receives to charity.