ChatterBank1 min ago
Appealing The Richard Ruling
While I appreciate the "curtailment of press freedom" argument, I do not believe an appeal would be any good in exposing it, and would place more stress on Richard where the BBC have done enough damage already.
Patten is right IMO, saying the BBC should "swallow hard, say they made a mistake, apologise as they have to Cliff Richard, move on and not to do it again"
https:/
Patten is right IMO, saying the BBC should "swallow hard, say they made a mistake, apologise as they have to Cliff Richard, move on and not to do it again"
https:/
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
The problem is that their arrogance is fueled by £3bn a year of licence-
15:08 Thu 19th Jul 2018
The problem is that their arrogance is fueled by £3bn a year of licence-payers dosh. Not for them the tiresome exercise of weighing up whether the costs of such an action are in the company's interests. They have been found wanting and that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
Their "holier than thou" notion that the ruling is an attack on journalistic freedom is without basis. such operations that resulted in the search of Sir Cliff's house should be confidential. The SY should never have disclosed it to anyone, certainly not before it had taken place. They accept they were wrong to do so. The BBC should know the reasons for such confidentiality and should have refused to act on the information they received. It was not in the public interest to broadcast the raid at all and certainly not in the manner it was covered.
If the Directors of the BBC want to launch an appeal the costs should come from their own pockets, preferably from the people who took the disastrous decisions to broadcast the raid.
Their "holier than thou" notion that the ruling is an attack on journalistic freedom is without basis. such operations that resulted in the search of Sir Cliff's house should be confidential. The SY should never have disclosed it to anyone, certainly not before it had taken place. They accept they were wrong to do so. The BBC should know the reasons for such confidentiality and should have refused to act on the information they received. It was not in the public interest to broadcast the raid at all and certainly not in the manner it was covered.
If the Directors of the BBC want to launch an appeal the costs should come from their own pockets, preferably from the people who took the disastrous decisions to broadcast the raid.
// The SY should never have disclosed it to anyone, //
they didnt - The met did - they concluded the journalist involved was not taxed about his sources. and the Beeb was in Lundy and not S Yorks at that time
Patten seems to have read the judgement alone of any commentator - and identified that the Been really were naughty naughty ickle liars. and Freedom of the Press didnt come into it.
When houses of the proles are raided - it gets into the papers innit?
Naga this am was saying - "and if someone is accused then ....."
and later corrected herself to "a potential accused"
hence the rather lame "oh he would have been arrested on suspicion if he had been there!" but of course he wasnt.
in fact Cliff was abroad - and at lunch when one of his hosts said - "hey cliff you are on telly!"
The special damages to be fixed is another excuse for the lawyers to have a bunfight - he will be claiming consequential damages and the judge has to say "when" - you know: "my Lord Sir CLiff had a feeler for an adidas advert, old girls running shoes. It was worth we estimate £50m. he would be tastefully reprising We're all going on a summer holiday, which in itself attracts a royalty payment .... gyrating in time altho he has two replaced hips ....."
and kinda the other side says
" my Lord, tosh! there were three and a half pairs of running shoes sold to ex prima donnas aged over 80 last year. The half was sold to one old girl who had had an amputation....we put the quantum as 3/6 in old money...."
they didnt - The met did - they concluded the journalist involved was not taxed about his sources. and the Beeb was in Lundy and not S Yorks at that time
Patten seems to have read the judgement alone of any commentator - and identified that the Been really were naughty naughty ickle liars. and Freedom of the Press didnt come into it.
When houses of the proles are raided - it gets into the papers innit?
Naga this am was saying - "and if someone is accused then ....."
and later corrected herself to "a potential accused"
hence the rather lame "oh he would have been arrested on suspicion if he had been there!" but of course he wasnt.
in fact Cliff was abroad - and at lunch when one of his hosts said - "hey cliff you are on telly!"
The special damages to be fixed is another excuse for the lawyers to have a bunfight - he will be claiming consequential damages and the judge has to say "when" - you know: "my Lord Sir CLiff had a feeler for an adidas advert, old girls running shoes. It was worth we estimate £50m. he would be tastefully reprising We're all going on a summer holiday, which in itself attracts a royalty payment .... gyrating in time altho he has two replaced hips ....."
and kinda the other side says
" my Lord, tosh! there were three and a half pairs of running shoes sold to ex prima donnas aged over 80 last year. The half was sold to one old girl who had had an amputation....we put the quantum as 3/6 in old money...."
“…they [SYP] didnt - The met did”
As is my usual won’t, Peter, I’m reading the full judgement. But it’s 122 pages and I’ve only read Mr Justice Mann’s “Executive Summary” so far. It says this:
5. The main area of disputed fact in this case revolves around dealings between the BBC and SYP in July 2014. There was a dispute as to whether the police volunteered such information as it provided (the BBC’s case) or whether SYP was manoeuvered into providing it from a fear and implicit threat that the BBC would or might publish news of the investigation before the police were ready to conduct their search (SYP’s and Sir Cliff’s case). As my judgment reflects, I have accepted the SYP/Cliff Richard case on this point, and rejected the BBC’s case. I have found that SYP did not merely volunteer the material for its own purposes; it provided it because of a concern that if it did not do so there would be a prior publication by the BBC, a concern known to and probably fostered by the BBC’s reporter, Mr Dan Johnson.
So no mention of the Met there. However, I will agree that buried in the full judgement (round about para 190) are references to a dispute concerning exactly where Dan Johnson got his information from and it certainly seems that the Met (under the guise of “Operation Yewtree”) definitely had some involvement, so thanks for pointing that out. The full judgement is a fascinating read (if you like that sort of thing!)
As is my usual won’t, Peter, I’m reading the full judgement. But it’s 122 pages and I’ve only read Mr Justice Mann’s “Executive Summary” so far. It says this:
5. The main area of disputed fact in this case revolves around dealings between the BBC and SYP in July 2014. There was a dispute as to whether the police volunteered such information as it provided (the BBC’s case) or whether SYP was manoeuvered into providing it from a fear and implicit threat that the BBC would or might publish news of the investigation before the police were ready to conduct their search (SYP’s and Sir Cliff’s case). As my judgment reflects, I have accepted the SYP/Cliff Richard case on this point, and rejected the BBC’s case. I have found that SYP did not merely volunteer the material for its own purposes; it provided it because of a concern that if it did not do so there would be a prior publication by the BBC, a concern known to and probably fostered by the BBC’s reporter, Mr Dan Johnson.
So no mention of the Met there. However, I will agree that buried in the full judgement (round about para 190) are references to a dispute concerning exactly where Dan Johnson got his information from and it certainly seems that the Met (under the guise of “Operation Yewtree”) definitely had some involvement, so thanks for pointing that out. The full judgement is a fascinating read (if you like that sort of thing!)
As is often the case, NewJudge sums up the essence of a case perfectly, with, in my view, no room to gainsay his argument at all.
The BBC is utterly mealy-mouthed and contemptuous in its bleating about 'freedom of the press' - it is this kind of sub-bottom-end tabloid garbage to titillate audiences regardless of justification or genuine worth as news, that does threaten the freedom of the press.
They should apologise, pay up and shut up, and start rebuilding their seriously damaged reputation as news reporters of repute and honesty.
The BBC is utterly mealy-mouthed and contemptuous in its bleating about 'freedom of the press' - it is this kind of sub-bottom-end tabloid garbage to titillate audiences regardless of justification or genuine worth as news, that does threaten the freedom of the press.
They should apologise, pay up and shut up, and start rebuilding their seriously damaged reputation as news reporters of repute and honesty.
An excellent result.
The BBC and the police conspired to perpetrate this disgraceful episode. I don't think it's any coincidence that these were the same organisations that knew what Jimmy Savile was up to for years, and did nothing about it.
This (amongst other things) was some over the top ham fisted way of trying to make amends for that. Alright, we did f all about Savile, but don't worry, we'll ruthlessly pursue any other nonces that think they've got away with it! Even if we haven't got any evidence against them yet.
The BBC and the police conspired to perpetrate this disgraceful episode. I don't think it's any coincidence that these were the same organisations that knew what Jimmy Savile was up to for years, and did nothing about it.
This (amongst other things) was some over the top ham fisted way of trying to make amends for that. Alright, we did f all about Savile, but don't worry, we'll ruthlessly pursue any other nonces that think they've got away with it! Even if we haven't got any evidence against them yet.
1 to 11 of 11
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.