Jump to content

Cliff Richard


PistoldPete2

Recommended Posts

PistoldPete2

Why are the BBC defending this case? South Yorkshire police have already settled the case but it was the BBC who named him as "the suspect". Waste of licence payers money if you ask me. The BBC seems to have particuarly poor judgement when it comes to these abuse allegations ... Dropping the saville expose, then going ahead with a Lord Mcalpine story that was all hooey and now this. Why are they trying to defend the indefensible? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

He's suing them for breach of privacy - if he wins, it has a huge impact on the media as a whole and their ability to report 'news' (people arrested would not be able to be named until they are charged). I think a lot of people would sympathise with him in that his reputation has been damaged, but the BBC will argue that it was a newsworthy story and they should be allowed to report it - a (big) can of worms....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
3 hours ago, Gaspode said:

He's suing them for breach of privacy - if he wins, it has a huge impact on the media as a whole and their ability to report 'news' (people arrested would not be able to be named until they are charged). I think a lot of people would sympathise with him in that his reputation has been damaged, but the BBC will argue that it was a newsworthy story and they should be allowed to report it - a (big) can of worms....

South Yorkshire police were not above reproach in this case . Not for the first time, this police force were in the wrong.  But even they decided not to release the persons name until they were charged, which in Cliff Richards case he wasnt. So on what basis do the BBC decide not only to release his name to their viewers but also collude to cover the raid? It was pure sensationalism.

Considering sexual assault victims have rights to anonymity throughout and beyond a trial, those who are accused  dont have that right after they are charged regardless of the outcome. Why not? At the very least they should have that right of anonymity prior to being charged. Its a particular problem for famous people who have attracted a fair few  dodgy claims against them.

Cliff Richards only crime is making  a load of excruciating songs.    
   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

Congratulations. ...:lol:

Police didn't get anything on him even though he was Wired for Sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger issue is how the bbc got invited to film the raid. Who at SYP gave the go ahead  “ a up, we’re abaht tut raid that singer that owd ladies like, tha knows, tha one that tupped Sue Barker”

Why is it a thing for the police to invite the media to film their operations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
1 hour ago, Mafiabob said:

Heard he will putting his money into running guest houses after the trial

So long as he doesnt make any more records he can do what he wants in retirement as far as Im concerned..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...