If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life0 min ago
Breaking News
57 Answers
https:/
BBC won't be taking the Cliff Richard's case to the appeal court.
BBC won't be taking the Cliff Richard's case to the appeal court.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Richard argued that reporting on the police investigation was an invasion of his privacy. He won his case.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped.
In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped.
In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes.
Gromit - // Richard argued that reporting on the police investigation was an invasion of his privacy. He won his case.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped. //
No it does not mean that at all.
The entire thrust of Mr Richard's legal action hinged around the fact that he had not been arrested or charged.
People who have been arrested and charged will have no legal right to prevent the reporting of their case.
// In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes. //
That is an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever.
You are assuming that the result of Mr Richard's successful action sets a legal precedent preventing the reporting of other arrests and trials, and there is no indication that this is the case at all.
Hopefully, what will come out of the court case, and its result, is that the media will be less keen to sensationalise the preliminary investigations of an innocent individual in the interest of prurient sensationalism, and restrict itself to reporting facts.
That will not impede anyone coming forward with additional evidence where and when it is appropriate.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped. //
No it does not mean that at all.
The entire thrust of Mr Richard's legal action hinged around the fact that he had not been arrested or charged.
People who have been arrested and charged will have no legal right to prevent the reporting of their case.
// In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes. //
That is an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever.
You are assuming that the result of Mr Richard's successful action sets a legal precedent preventing the reporting of other arrests and trials, and there is no indication that this is the case at all.
Hopefully, what will come out of the court case, and its result, is that the media will be less keen to sensationalise the preliminary investigations of an innocent individual in the interest of prurient sensationalism, and restrict itself to reporting facts.
That will not impede anyone coming forward with additional evidence where and when it is appropriate.
You had better hope no one on here knows you Gromit or some might try putting it o the test via a tip off to the old Bill with some false accusations as happened to Richard. Could tip the local rag off to get a nice piccie of your gaff being turned over by plodwithout you being arrested (but naming yo of corse).
Bet you would change your tune then
Bet you would change your tune then
because the next time media want to expose a Savile (not that anyone did last time) they'll be under more severe restrictions on what they can say. Even filming someone's house can cost them a fortune because hey, invasion of privacy, even if the guy himself is in Barbados at the time.
This is Celebrity 1, News Media 0. Don't imagine the media will be willing to risk a fortune telling you the next time they hear of anything bad about a celebrity.
This is Celebrity 1, News Media 0. Don't imagine the media will be willing to risk a fortune telling you the next time they hear of anything bad about a celebrity.
What utter tosh, jno, like gromit you appear to be saying that innocent people are fair game. Would you like your drum turned over while you watch from your holiday home? Would you like all your private things gone through on the say so of some anonymous person that talked about something that allegedly happened in 1973? Anyway it’s not just that it’s the whole process of investigation and the worry for years whilst the authorities do their thing, slowly. Deal with real abusers by all means but do it when there is some evidence rather than on the say so some gold digger with nothing but a hope for some compo. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Tell you what if they must go after people on no evidence at least keep it out of the public eye until charges are brought. Gawd help us on planet jno/gromit we are all guilty before we start.
