Technology4 mins ago
Cliff Richard On Piers Morgan.
38 Answers
Loved this programme tonight. Always been a Cliff fan. Seen him live, absolutely fantastic. Parts of this show brought tears to my eyes.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Caran. 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.
I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of the man*, but if, as it now seems, he is innocent of the allegations that were bpught against him, he's gone through one hell of an ordeal, so respect to him. Piers Morgan however is what you get if you unite the words bell and end.
*However, his late Seventies/early Eighties output included some corking tunes.
*However, his late Seventies/early Eighties output included some corking tunes.
A lot of scorn being heaped on the BBC but the real culprits were South Yorkshire Police.
They conducted the raid on Cliff’s home and tipped off the BBC in advance. Sensing an on-going news story, they broadcast the raid live. No news organisation would have ignored the tip off. The reporting did cross a line over invasion of privacy, and the BBC was guilty of that. Unfortunately for the BBC Cliff was never charged with any crime, so they could not use the ‘in the public interest’ defence.
They conducted the raid on Cliff’s home and tipped off the BBC in advance. Sensing an on-going news story, they broadcast the raid live. No news organisation would have ignored the tip off. The reporting did cross a line over invasion of privacy, and the BBC was guilty of that. Unfortunately for the BBC Cliff was never charged with any crime, so they could not use the ‘in the public interest’ defence.
Sunk - // A lot of scorn being heaped on the BBC but the real culprits were South Yorkshire Police.
They conducted the raid on Cliff’s home and tipped off the BBC in advance. Sensing an on-going news story, they broadcast the raid live. //
The raid could have taken place, like any raid does on any day, without the need for the BBC to pay for a camera to fly past the windows of the raided premises and film the raid in action for livfe broadcast.
That was done entirely on the basis that Sir Cliff is a public figure, and the BBC showed bias in the lengths to which it went to humiliate him without any just cause in terms of news-worthiness.
It was shameful then, and remains so now, it was inexcusable.
They conducted the raid on Cliff’s home and tipped off the BBC in advance. Sensing an on-going news story, they broadcast the raid live. //
The raid could have taken place, like any raid does on any day, without the need for the BBC to pay for a camera to fly past the windows of the raided premises and film the raid in action for livfe broadcast.
That was done entirely on the basis that Sir Cliff is a public figure, and the BBC showed bias in the lengths to which it went to humiliate him without any just cause in terms of news-worthiness.
It was shameful then, and remains so now, it was inexcusable.
I enjoyed lunch with Sir Cliff on a TV shoot years ago. We tried to have a conversation about his faith, but he was constantly interupted by the dreadful grandstanding of Graeme Starke, a B-movie actor who was on the shoot and at the table, shouting for attention, interupting and being generally awful. Sir Cliff of course had the manners to try and ignore him and talk to me, but a lot of his interesting conversation was lost in the foghorning of a has-been.
A shameful episode for the police and the BBC. The BBC should never have been made aware that the raid was taking place - and they certainly shouldn’t have taken advantage of it. I have every sympathy with Cliff Richard. He’s been treated appallingly. I’ve recorded the programme and look forward to watching it.
andy-hughes
The BBC didn’t go out of its way to humiliate Cliff. It got an exclusive lead on a story, and followed it.
Unfortunately they did not handle that story sensitively or indeed professionally, but the allegation that the BBC was behaving with deliberate malice is totally wrong.
Cliff’s grievance is justified, and it wasn’t the BBC’s finest hour, but the main people at fault were South Yorkshire Police who wanted the glory of their raid to be televised live.
The BBC didn’t go out of its way to humiliate Cliff. It got an exclusive lead on a story, and followed it.
Unfortunately they did not handle that story sensitively or indeed professionally, but the allegation that the BBC was behaving with deliberate malice is totally wrong.
Cliff’s grievance is justified, and it wasn’t the BBC’s finest hour, but the main people at fault were South Yorkshire Police who wanted the glory of their raid to be televised live.
Sunk - // andy-hughes
The BBC didn’t go out of its way to humiliate Cliff. It got an exclusive lead on a story, and followed it. //
Not true, in my opinion.
If the raid had been on the home of Freddy Fingers the well-known pickpocket, the BBC would not have even mentioned it.
There's prurient interest in the lives and doings of the rich and famous which is the domain of the tabloid rags, not a world-respected, and publicly funded broadcaster. If you seriously believe that a helicopter was engaged to film the raid for any other reason than because the house belonged to a famous pop star, then I suggest you are not a student of the modern media and its audience.
// Unfortunately they did not handle that story sensitively or indeed professionally, but the allegation that the BBC was behaving with deliberate malice is totally wrong. //
I believe that is incorrect, for reasons outlined above.
// Cliff’s grievance is justified, and it wasn’t the BBC’s finest hour, but the main people at fault were South Yorkshire Police who wanted the glory of their raid to be televised live. //
Once again, if this had not been a famous pop star, the police would have had no interest in it being beamed into the homes of the nation, and the BBC would have had even less interest in facilitating that activity.
The BBC didn’t go out of its way to humiliate Cliff. It got an exclusive lead on a story, and followed it. //
Not true, in my opinion.
If the raid had been on the home of Freddy Fingers the well-known pickpocket, the BBC would not have even mentioned it.
There's prurient interest in the lives and doings of the rich and famous which is the domain of the tabloid rags, not a world-respected, and publicly funded broadcaster. If you seriously believe that a helicopter was engaged to film the raid for any other reason than because the house belonged to a famous pop star, then I suggest you are not a student of the modern media and its audience.
// Unfortunately they did not handle that story sensitively or indeed professionally, but the allegation that the BBC was behaving with deliberate malice is totally wrong. //
I believe that is incorrect, for reasons outlined above.
// Cliff’s grievance is justified, and it wasn’t the BBC’s finest hour, but the main people at fault were South Yorkshire Police who wanted the glory of their raid to be televised live. //
Once again, if this had not been a famous pop star, the police would have had no interest in it being beamed into the homes of the nation, and the BBC would have had even less interest in facilitating that activity.
Andy Hughes,
Of course Cliff being famous was paramount in the BBC’s decision to broadcast the raid live.
The BBC has a whole section devoted to entertainent, of which stories about Cliff would be highly news worthy. Entertainment news is not tabloid fodder, anymore than news about the latest iPhone or Bond film. It is all news, the public is interested, so the BBC will report it.
https:/
Of course Cliff being famous was paramount in the BBC’s decision to broadcast the raid live.
The BBC has a whole section devoted to entertainent, of which stories about Cliff would be highly news worthy. Entertainment news is not tabloid fodder, anymore than news about the latest iPhone or Bond film. It is all news, the public is interested, so the BBC will report it.
https:/
Sunk - // Andy Hughes,
Of course Cliff being famous was paramount in the BBC’s decision to broadcast the raid live.
The BBC has a whole section devoted to entertainent, of which stories about Cliff would be highly news worthy. Entertainment news is not tabloid fodder, anymore than news about the latest iPhone or Bond film. It is all news, the public is interested, so the BBC will report it. //
Then you agree with me, that the thrust behind the BBC's coverage was prurient interest - it was not that a man's house was being raided that was the 'news', it was the fact that Cliff Richard's house was being raided, and that is not a basis for sourcing a helicopter and filming the raid as it happened.
If you are happy for the BBC to blur what is news with what is entertainment, and use the fame under the second aspect to pretend that it becomes the first, then I am not.
As for your notion that, 'the public is interested' - that is perfectly correct.
But there is a world of difference between 'the public's interest' and 'the public interest'.
The first is gossip and nonsense, the second is news.
Pretending one is the other is exactly what allowed the BBC to slide away from its responsibility for this dreadful occurrence, and for the people responsible to avoid proper sanction.
That sanction would begin with their dismissal, since any News Editor who doesn't know the difference between the public's interest and the public interest does not deserve to keep his or her job.
Of course Cliff being famous was paramount in the BBC’s decision to broadcast the raid live.
The BBC has a whole section devoted to entertainent, of which stories about Cliff would be highly news worthy. Entertainment news is not tabloid fodder, anymore than news about the latest iPhone or Bond film. It is all news, the public is interested, so the BBC will report it. //
Then you agree with me, that the thrust behind the BBC's coverage was prurient interest - it was not that a man's house was being raided that was the 'news', it was the fact that Cliff Richard's house was being raided, and that is not a basis for sourcing a helicopter and filming the raid as it happened.
If you are happy for the BBC to blur what is news with what is entertainment, and use the fame under the second aspect to pretend that it becomes the first, then I am not.
As for your notion that, 'the public is interested' - that is perfectly correct.
But there is a world of difference between 'the public's interest' and 'the public interest'.
The first is gossip and nonsense, the second is news.
Pretending one is the other is exactly what allowed the BBC to slide away from its responsibility for this dreadful occurrence, and for the people responsible to avoid proper sanction.
That sanction would begin with their dismissal, since any News Editor who doesn't know the difference between the public's interest and the public interest does not deserve to keep his or her job.
// It is all news, the public is interested, so the BBC will report it.//
erm
blimey a bit sweeping
erm not sure where to start
it is not all news some of it is guff
the public probably cant be said to be interested in the american election but we get wodges of it every night
and the Beeb reports to its own agenda which is clearly not bums on seats watching
fave subject like Mandela ( of course ) Mugabe long long after his liberation-date, get long discursive pieces
aother than that I cant really complain
erm
blimey a bit sweeping
erm not sure where to start
it is not all news some of it is guff
the public probably cant be said to be interested in the american election but we get wodges of it every night
and the Beeb reports to its own agenda which is clearly not bums on seats watching
fave subject like Mandela ( of course ) Mugabe long long after his liberation-date, get long discursive pieces
aother than that I cant really complain
hi andie
thx for reading my post - thousands dont
liberation Mugabe - he wasnt liberated - but he liberated his country ( he said) and condemned them t0 30 y poverty
but hey that is the price of liberation ! (*)
doing a lot of gk and latin poetry as answerbank often takes on a 'same as yesterday' appearance. liberation here is active ( he liberated ) but not not attributive ( he wasnt liberated)
Read Catullus - the commentaries are full of this stuff - ethic dative, modal dative, ablative of time but not of place.
still better than a 100 post thread all saying foo! . Some lengthier than others
thx for reading my post - thousands dont
liberation Mugabe - he wasnt liberated - but he liberated his country ( he said) and condemned them t0 30 y poverty
but hey that is the price of liberation ! (*)
doing a lot of gk and latin poetry as answerbank often takes on a 'same as yesterday' appearance. liberation here is active ( he liberated ) but not not attributive ( he wasnt liberated)
Read Catullus - the commentaries are full of this stuff - ethic dative, modal dative, ablative of time but not of place.
still better than a 100 post thread all saying foo! . Some lengthier than others
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.