It's reported Sir Cliff Richard is to sue the BBC over live coverage of the raid on his home. The BBC flew an helicopter over his house and seen police cars driving out his home.
If the BBC were on his land, I can understand why. If they weren't on his land, I can't see how he'll have a case.
Will he return to the UK or will he oversee proceeding from his home in the Barbados where he has residency? If anyone wants to use UK courts then they must do it in person.
Another pointless case to clog up the justice system.
Why should they leave him alone forever? No one is untouchable and nor should they be.
Pursuing an individual based on evidence is one thing but 'state' broadcaster creating a spectacle to put an persons name into public arena is another.
There is too much of the police using media to trail a name as part of fishing expeditions. It is time for a fightback as our justice system needs to be protected. Guilt by innuendo and kangaroo courts on social media seems to be enough for a frighteningly large number of folks.
Pursuing an individual based on evidence is one thing but 'state' broadcaster creating a spectacle to put an persons name into public arena is another.
There is too much of the police using media to trail a name as part of fishing expeditions. It is time for a fightback as our justice system needs to be protected. Guilt by innuendo and kangaroo courts on social media seems to be enough for a frighteningly large number of folks.
What should happen is that the police should investigate accused celebrities thoroughly and then if they eventually decide that they've got enough evidence, then arrest the celebrity in question. It does look a bit of a farce when celebrity after celebrity gets cleared of what they've been accused of. Okay, Stuart Hall got exposed as being a paedophile, I think. A lot of the others have been cleared of any wrong doing though.
this is him putting a marker for them to leave him alone forever
they clearly found nothing so they should just cut their losses
the whole yewtree investigation has cost millions and been only partially successful
i see it being quietly dropped with the election coming up
oh yeah news for the Police and media
Jimmy Savile is still dead
If the Police get information then that should be investigated, what i feel uncomfortable with is the investigators felt the need to inform the Media before the owner of the home was informed, the Media only need to be informed if any charges are brought against individuals.
The BBC acted despicably. They threw out all concern for professional standards and ethics in favour of a quick and shabby scoop. We shouldn't be surprised really, today the BBC is run by ex Kirby vacs salesmen and gibbering Tweeters.
Even worse, the police co-ordinated their activities to get maximum BBC coverage. In effect this was more entertainment than law enforcement.
Guilt by innuendo and kangaroo courts on social media seems to be enough for a frighteningly large number of folks.
Point proven. If you have actual evidence of Cliff Richard guilt then you need to take it to the police who will investigate. If you are merely jumping on what you have read on social media then you have no more idea than anyone else of his guilt. Dangerous times.
What should happen is that the police should investigate accused celebrities thoroughly and then if they eventually decide that they've got enough evidence, then arrest the celebrity in question. It does look a bit of a farce when celebrity after celebrity gets cleared of what they'e been accused of. Okay, Stuart Hall got exposed as being a paedophile, I think. A lot of the others have been cleared of any wrong doing though.
Agreed. It is not just celebrities it should be the position for all folks being investigated. Social media is very dangerous and it seems to be full of folks who have no idea how justice system works. Being investigated seems to be enough to assign guilt.
In all likelihood this will be settled "out of Court" as neither the police nor the BBC are likely to want the adverse publicity it may well bring.
I too feel we have reached a very bad situation where, well known people in particular, have to prove their innocence in public against allegation of behaviour many years ago. Some may well be true but there is no need to advertise for additional victims to come forward if they have not doe so already.
Agreed. It is not just celebrities it should be the position for all folks being investigated. Social media is very dangerous and it seems to be full of folks who have no idea how justice system works. Being investigated seems to be enough to assign guilt.
Yeah, that should definitely be the case for 'ordinary' people as well.
So is he going to sue the police? Or have they apologised?
Is the case closed?
Is he going too sue those people throwing allegations around?
The BBC and police went for Sir Cliff like a bull in a China shop. We havnt seen other houses for high profile cases raided by police with all those cars coming out of there property. Most of the time we see reporters outside police stations and maybe a house. So it begs to question " Why was he targeted in this
way with a helicopter filming every move"?
Didn't the BBC share the clips with other news outlets. Sky broadcast the shots of the house too Editorial decision wernt looked at. The BBC are getting there knuckles rapped for this?
Sue for what? If the police told a news agency like BBC News that they were about to raid the home of a yet another suspected historical paedophile, why wouldn't they go to the scene to report about it?
It's no different to when the a politician along with an accompanying film crew from either the BBC or ITV go with the police on a drugs or illegal immigration raid. The politician does it for publicity and the film crew do it because it's news worthy. And if the raid doesn't produce the kind of publicity the politician was hoping for, they simply leave the scene and pretend it never happened. The news agency drop the story because it just isn't interesting enough without some good arrests, so no one gets to hear about them.
In my opinion, Cliff Richard is just making a big fuss about it because he knows mud sticks so he needs to go on the offensive and stress the point to the public that he didn't do anything wrong, there was no real suggestion he ever did and there is no smoke to see, let alone fire etc.
The BBC behaved pretty shabbily (though certainly not as shabbily as the person that tipped off the BBC), but I can't imagine what cause of action he'd have against the BBC. They didn't trespass on his land and didn't report anything that was factually incorrect. They also didn't broadcast anything that couldn't be viewed by any member of the public who was situated in a place to which the public have a right of access. Don't blame him for being very hurt and upset, but I think that's the extent of it, really.
I think Cliff is just trying to threaten the BBC to keep quiet. I don't think he will actually sue them. This is more a warning to all media outlets to keep quiet.
Agreed. It is not just celebrities it should be the position for all folks being investigated. Social media is very dangerous and it seems to be full of folks who have no idea how justice system works. Being investigated seems to be enough to assign guilt.
Just some of the posts on this thread shows exactly that, bordering on the pig ignorant.
Comments
Will he return to the UK or will he oversee proceeding from his home in the Barbados where he has residency? If anyone wants to use UK courts then they must do it in person.
Another pointless case to clog up the justice system.
they clearly found nothing so they should just cut their losses
the whole yewtree investigation has cost millions and been only partially successful
i see it being quietly dropped with the election coming up
oh yeah news for the Police and media
Jimmy Savile is still dead
Why should they leave him alone forever? No one is untouchable and nor should they be.
Pursuing an individual based on evidence is one thing but 'state' broadcaster creating a spectacle to put an persons name into public arena is another.
There is too much of the police using media to trail a name as part of fishing expeditions. It is time for a fightback as our justice system needs to be protected. Guilt by innuendo and kangaroo courts on social media seems to be enough for a frighteningly large number of folks.
What should happen is that the police should investigate accused celebrities thoroughly and then if they eventually decide that they've got enough evidence, then arrest the celebrity in question. It does look a bit of a farce when celebrity after celebrity gets cleared of what they've been accused of. Okay, Stuart Hall got exposed as being a paedophile, I think. A lot of the others have been cleared of any wrong doing though.
If the Police get information then that should be investigated, what i feel uncomfortable with is the investigators felt the need to inform the Media before the owner of the home was informed, the Media only need to be informed if any charges are brought against individuals.
Even worse, the police co-ordinated their activities to get maximum BBC coverage. In effect this was more entertainment than law enforcement.
Point proven. If you have actual evidence of Cliff Richard guilt then you need to take it to the police who will investigate. If you are merely jumping on what you have read on social media then you have no more idea than anyone else of his guilt. Dangerous times.
Agreed. It is not just celebrities it should be the position for all folks being investigated. Social media is very dangerous and it seems to be full of folks who have no idea how justice system works. Being investigated seems to be enough to assign guilt.
I too feel we have reached a very bad situation where, well known people in particular, have to prove their innocence in public against allegation of behaviour many years ago. Some may well be true but there is no need to advertise for additional victims to come forward if they have not doe so already.
Yeah, that should definitely be the case for 'ordinary' people as well.
Is the case closed?
Is he going too sue those people throwing allegations around?
The BBC and police went for Sir Cliff like a bull in a China shop. We havnt seen other houses for high profile cases raided by police with all those cars coming out of there property. Most of the time we see reporters outside police stations and maybe a house. So it begs to question " Why was he targeted in this
way with a helicopter filming every move"?
Didn't the BBC share the clips with other news outlets. Sky broadcast the shots of the house too Editorial decision wernt looked at. The BBC are getting there knuckles rapped for this?
It's no different to when the a politician along with an accompanying film crew from either the BBC or ITV go with the police on a drugs or illegal immigration raid. The politician does it for publicity and the film crew do it because it's news worthy. And if the raid doesn't produce the kind of publicity the politician was hoping for, they simply leave the scene and pretend it never happened. The news agency drop the story because it just isn't interesting enough without some good arrests, so no one gets to hear about them.
In my opinion, Cliff Richard is just making a big fuss about it because he knows mud sticks so he needs to go on the offensive and stress the point to the public that he didn't do anything wrong, there was no real suggestion he ever did and there is no smoke to see, let alone fire etc.
It's standard practice
Based on what? Because he's not married?
Just some of the posts on this thread shows exactly that, bordering on the pig ignorant.