ChatterBank2 mins 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.
As I have said, I don't believe for one minute that legitimate journalism is compromised by the decision in Mr Richard's legal action.
The BBC is still trumpeting about 'freedom of the press', which it has to do for obvious reasons.
The best form of defence is still 'attack', so the BBC adopts a position of as lofty moral news crusader with the interests of the people at heart. That is because the alternative is to concede the truth - that it acted like a gutter tabloid in gleefully gloating over the search of a celebrity's property, using expensive resources like a helicopter in a way which it would not have dream of doing had the 'suspect' been anyone anonymous.
No-one is suggesting that reporting of legitimate news should be compromised by this situation, but the plain truth is that it is not, and will not be compromised.
The only compromise is that the BBC will stop treating its news coverage like some sort of celebrity gossip magazine, and stop wasting licence payers money to film a grinning policeman waving underwear at its cameras through the windows of the house of an innocent man - and that can only ever be a good thing.
There is a massive difference between 'the public interest' and 'what interests the public, and the BBC has received an expensive lesson in something it should already know.
The BBC is still trumpeting about 'freedom of the press', which it has to do for obvious reasons.
The best form of defence is still 'attack', so the BBC adopts a position of as lofty moral news crusader with the interests of the people at heart. That is because the alternative is to concede the truth - that it acted like a gutter tabloid in gleefully gloating over the search of a celebrity's property, using expensive resources like a helicopter in a way which it would not have dream of doing had the 'suspect' been anyone anonymous.
No-one is suggesting that reporting of legitimate news should be compromised by this situation, but the plain truth is that it is not, and will not be compromised.
The only compromise is that the BBC will stop treating its news coverage like some sort of celebrity gossip magazine, and stop wasting licence payers money to film a grinning policeman waving underwear at its cameras through the windows of the house of an innocent man - and that can only ever be a good thing.
There is a massive difference between 'the public interest' and 'what interests the public, and the BBC has received an expensive lesson in something it should already know.
Eddie - // I agree the BBC went over the top with the helicopter filming. But the case needs reporting. If this means peadophiles trials can't be reported that is bad news. //
As I pointed out at the time, this case was not about the reporting of the case, it was about the way in which the reporting was carried out.
There is a difference between a newsreader saying "The police are carrying out investigations following allegations of child abuse … "
and flying a film crew past Cliff Richard's bedroom window!
Reporting a potential paedophile investigation is legitimate journalism - sensationalising the search of an innocent pop star's house is not.
As I pointed out at the time, this case was not about the reporting of the case, it was about the way in which the reporting was carried out.
There is a difference between a newsreader saying "The police are carrying out investigations following allegations of child abuse … "
and flying a film crew past Cliff Richard's bedroom window!
Reporting a potential paedophile investigation is legitimate journalism - sensationalising the search of an innocent pop star's house is not.
Is this really such a big deal, a body that has reported appropriately most of the time for many years has an error of judgement directly affecting just one individual. This individual had the money to sue, he won, no appeal. It's not the end of press freedom it's not the end of investigative journalism just a reminder to play by the rules.
bhg481 - // What fascinates me about this case is that a very religious person, whose religion advocates turning the other cheek and forgiving your enemies, is so upset and offended by the publicity given that he keeps the case in the public eye by making a great fuss about it. //
Mr Richard has been a major pop star and celebrity since the 1950's, I hardly think being in the public eye is something that would phase him in the slightest.
And it is important to consider that the publicity that this case has attracted, including the activity which started off the legal action, is not a matter of 'publicity', it is invasion of privacy, which is an entirely different thing.
Privacy is a right enjoyed by everyone, and not something that is removed subject to a successful career in entertainment - and that is why Mr Richard took the action that he did.
You will note that he has said not one single word to any media during the time that this has gone on - so any publicity generated and maintained is not generated and maintained by Mr Richard personally, so the notion that he is keeping it in the public eye by making a fuss about it is clearly not accurate.
Mr Richard took legal action over the invasion of his privacy, and that is his right as a citizen - everything else, especially the publicity, he has borne with fortitude, and, ironically, a sense of privacy, which the BBC invaded with its sub-tabloid nonsense.
Mr Richard has been a major pop star and celebrity since the 1950's, I hardly think being in the public eye is something that would phase him in the slightest.
And it is important to consider that the publicity that this case has attracted, including the activity which started off the legal action, is not a matter of 'publicity', it is invasion of privacy, which is an entirely different thing.
Privacy is a right enjoyed by everyone, and not something that is removed subject to a successful career in entertainment - and that is why Mr Richard took the action that he did.
You will note that he has said not one single word to any media during the time that this has gone on - so any publicity generated and maintained is not generated and maintained by Mr Richard personally, so the notion that he is keeping it in the public eye by making a fuss about it is clearly not accurate.
Mr Richard took legal action over the invasion of his privacy, and that is his right as a citizen - everything else, especially the publicity, he has borne with fortitude, and, ironically, a sense of privacy, which the BBC invaded with its sub-tabloid nonsense.
rowanwitch - // Even bad publicity is still publicity, he isn't exactly relevant any more, a bit sad really, //
As I advised in my previous post, Mr Richard has sought no publicity whatsoever from this case, and I am not sure what you mean by 'relevant any more' - ?
Clearly the BBC thought him 'relevant' enough to invade his privacy in the way they did - a sort of 'relevance' I am sure Mr Richard has never sought and never wanted.
As I advised in my previous post, Mr Richard has sought no publicity whatsoever from this case, and I am not sure what you mean by 'relevant any more' - ?
Clearly the BBC thought him 'relevant' enough to invade his privacy in the way they did - a sort of 'relevance' I am sure Mr Richard has never sought and never wanted.
rowanwitch - // Is this really such a big deal, a body that has reported appropriately most of the time for many years has an error of judgement directly affecting just one individual. //
It is a big deal, because the 'body' in question is a publicly funded broadcaster which trumpets the high standards of its journalistic integrity at every opportunity.
The situation does indeed affect one individual, but the freedoms and privacy that Mr Richard lost are an essential aspect of our civilised society, and that speaks to everyone.
It is a big deal, because the 'body' in question is a publicly funded broadcaster which trumpets the high standards of its journalistic integrity at every opportunity.
The situation does indeed affect one individual, but the freedoms and privacy that Mr Richard lost are an essential aspect of our civilised society, and that speaks to everyone.
One thing is for certain, a poor innocent person would never have taken the BBC to Court. However, win or loose, C.R. had enough money to do so.
https:/
Hans.
https:/
Hans.
Latest Posts
Gisèle Pelicot - Husband Jailed...
News3 mins ago
Society & Culture5 mins ago
Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News15 mins ago
Spectator - Christmas Crossword -...
Crosswords45 mins ago
