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 didn't mean you, naomi. Just that true devotees will never believe a word against him (and on this occasion, correctly so) and won't stop attending his gigs.

Thanks, hc4361. But was it the news report of the search that cost him these things, or the making of the allegations in the first place?

I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news, though I know there are many countries where this happens.

[dannyk13]

jno, //I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news//
The punishment was not for reporting the news, but for how that news was obtained.

[andy-hughes]

danny - // he punishment was not for reporting the news, but for how that news was obtained. //

I believe it was the way the report was presented that is the dreadful aspect of this whole sorry business.

What's wrong with a newsreader saying "The home of Sir Cliff Richard has been searched by police today, following accusations …"

They didn't need to scramble a camera crew and a helicopter to beam it into people's living rooms live as it happened. That was pure sensationalism, and uncalled for, and entirely inappropriate and disproportionate, in view of the absence of charges, or even an arrest.

[jno]

how was it "obtained"? They flew a helicopter over his house while he was in Barbados. How on earth does that infringe his privacy?

I remember American networks filming the chase of OJ Simpson by helicopter. He was duly acquitted, but I don't recall that anyone sought to sue the networks for the outrage of showing it happening. They have different rules on freedom of speech over there.

[hereIam]

Not a fan of CR, never have been, BUT he was wronged here and he has my sympathy and I'm glad he will receive damages.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // how was it "obtained"? They flew a helicopter over his house while he was in Barbados. How on earth does that infringe his privacy? //

It pretty much points a sign saying 'Famous pop star Cliff Richard lives in this house here - recognise the area?'


I'd call that invading anyone's privacy.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // They flew a helicopter over his house while he was in Barbados. //

I don't believe Sir Cliff is obliged to notify the BBC of his whereabouts, so they had no way of knowing if he was at home or not.

[youngmafbog]

"They have different rules on freedom of speech over there. "

So you are happy with plod tipping off a news organization of the intention to raid a house then are you? Enough notification for them to get hold of a chopper and crew mind so no quick phone call and do it live. I wonder if plod do that when they go raiding a master criminal - bet they dont.

This is not freedom of speech, it stinks and I'm damned sure if it was one of Murdocks News companies you would be up in arms about it.

[naomi24]

Had he not been a celebrity, it wouldn't have happened. I think that says it all.

[Gromit]

The BBC were investigating allegations against Cliff Richard about an incident said to have taken place in Sheffield. They contacted South Yorkshire Police to ask If a criminal investigation was underway, and how it was proceeding. It was during those conversations that South Yorkshire Police revealed that Richard’s home was to be raided. The Police should not have revealed that, and were rightly prosecuted and paid out to Richards.

That is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid. The BBC had a scoop so they made the most of their story. It may have been over the top, but that is not (or should not) be a crime. It was an editorial decision (and it was wrong), but punishing a news organisation for reporting the news is very unfortunate, and the appeal should overturn the result.

[Old_Geezer]

Sounds daft to me. Having a beef with the police for tipping folk off I can see, with the BCC for hearing of an incident and reporting it as is their job, not so much.

[fender62]

moneys should come out of the people who gave the green light to the whole saga, then perhaps they will give due thought to future accusations and coverage, not a big richards fan.. but i liked devil woman track....

[Mertyl]

Well done Cliff and many CONGRATULATIONS.
No doubt he’ll donate a considerable sum to charity.
The BBC deserve to be sued and the compensation should come from the people responsible for such an atrocity- NOT us licence payers.

[The_Rim_Greaper]

"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. "

and i'm sure the joke went way over your head...whoooooosh

[Hopkirk]

I suspect the BBC fully expected juicy stuff to come out.

It hasn't been reported on main news sites, but I'm pretty sure that Sir Cliff was on the list from the fantasist 'Nick' who caused so much trouble elsewhere.

[zebo]

Reading between many of the lines here I suspect many have my late mother's definition, no-one was ever 'innocent' they always 'got away with it'.

[jno]

I have no doubt about Cliff's innocence. But the gist of the ruling isn't about helicopters; it seems to be that he should never have been publicly named at all. That's an unprecedented restraint on freedom of the press, and I don't know that it will survive an appeal.

[New Judge]

“I remain deeply uneasy that a news organisation can be punished for reporting news,”

“That [the police divulging details of the raid] is entirely different from the BBC’s part. They had found out that a search was to be made, so deployed a news team to cover the raid.”

Both were equally culpable. Details of search warrants issued are confidential and applications are, understandably, heard “in camera”. There is no justification for the SY police to reveal to anybody – especially the BBC - that they had secured such a warrant, let alone the details of when they intended to execute it.

For their part the BBC should know the sensitivity of such privileged information and should have declined to cover the raid as a matter of principle. Their argument that coverage was “in the public interest” is piffle. It is not in the public interest to cover such police operations and in some cases could actually jeopardise their success.

[andy-hughes]

Reporting that Sir Cliff's home has been raided (after the event) is news.

Sending a camera crew to film through the windows capturing an image of a police officer waving underwear at the camera live on national television is not news - it's invasion of privacy.

I fail to see how anyone can defend this as 'journalism' or 'freedom of the press' - it is garbage like this that puts those cherished concepts in danger.

[Peter Pedant]

Look I dont think anyone 40-60 has read the report
It reads as tho they havent
it is here
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

parachute into p 56 para 214

"Mr Smith’s account in cross-examination of what he really meant by this email was unimpressive and, I am sorry to have to say, to an extent evasive. (j yaps a bit more) He was unable to say what he meant by “tactics” deployed by Mr Johnson, despite the fact that they “impressed” him, according to the email. In my view he was seeking to evade the obvious construction of the email, and the obvious narrative that it contained as to the four-way conversation, because it was inconsistent with the BBC’s present case."

is not about a precious right to freedom of speech

it er seems to be about a right of the Beeb to perjure itself and mislead a judge

we pay for all this by the way ....