archied Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I heard cliff was not the intended target of the raid but they were looking for glitter ,,, cliff merely informed officers ,,Gary doesn’t live here anymore ,,,,, move along nothing to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 It’s all very bad press for the BBC so far , don’t know what they hope to gain from their defence. What will be their defence I don’t know ... it’s important to call out potential abusers? Double standards then by the bbc if that is it... savile was allowed to get off with hundreds of victims some of them on bbc premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 The whole establishment is infested with these scumbags. They look out for their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 3 hours ago, TroyDyer said: The whole establishment is infested with these scumbags. They look out for their own. Showbiz or the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 38 minutes ago, Boycie said: Showbiz or the police? Both. Westminster and entertainment industry paedophiles would never be able to get away with it for decades without at best, certain aspects of the police hierarchy looking the other way. That's why I have so much respect for the fella on Wiltshire for not letting the heath case go silently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 9 minutes ago, TroyDyer said: Both. Westminster and entertainment industry paedophiles would never be able to get away with it for decades without at best, certain aspects of the police hierarchy looking the other way. That's why I have so much respect for the fella on Wiltshire for not letting the heath case go silently. Indeed, I'm sure this abuse is/was much more prevalent within the higher echelons of society. Regular sexual abuse at public schools in the past seem almost a given. Most of the people in charge would be used this upbringing and many of them seemed to have kept this behaviour up when older. Popular entertainers pervs were ideal for attracting young fans, so perfect to form alliances with politicians, church, police etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Justice done today... what a huge waste of licence payers money BBC fighting this when even South Yorkshire police settled at an early opportunity. Entirely self defeating too as they have made new case law they probably won’t like but are now stuck with. Cliffs only crime was making bad records and singing at Wimbledon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 The bbc are contemplating an appeal over the fine. Rolf Harris will front a 6 hour broadcast asking for donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 On 18/04/2018 at 15:32, TroyDyer said: Both. Westminster and entertainment industry paedophiles would never be able to get away with it for decades without at best, certain aspects of the police hierarchy looking the other way. That's why I have so much respect for the fella on Wiltshire for not letting the heath case go silently. Eh? Is that the copper who followed the enquiry based on a serial fantasist who has now been arrested? Is that the Heath case you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, Boycie said: The bbc are contemplating an appeal over the fine. Rolf Harris will front a 6 hour broadcast asking for donations. It wasn’t a fine... it was £200,000 damages ... surprisingly small if you ask me given the emotional stress and damage done to someone’s reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 21 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said: It wasn’t a fine... it was £200,000 damages ... surprisingly small if you ask me given the emotional stress and damage done to someone’s reputation. I admit I was surprised how low it was. I remember when radio 2 wouldn’t play cliff Richard songs, as soon as they were taken to court they couldn’t play enough of em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Congratulations to Cliff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Not enough, should have been an extra zero on that at least, just a slap on the wrist and hardly enough to stop them doing it again. Hope those responsible for sending the crews are now looking for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Presumably, Cliff and the BBC don't talk anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 He deserves the award, will need a rest no doubt so hopefully will be away on a summer holiday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, Paul71 said: He deserves the award, will need a rest no doubt so hopefully will be away on a summer holiday. Where doubtless he will spend some time On the Beach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Where doubtless he will spend some time On the Beach Some people like to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 Well, he undid any restoration to his reputation with that ITV interview. I understand his point but nevertheless, stating; “I’d rather ten [sex offenders] get away with it than one innocent person suffer” is selfish at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 It was absolutely hilarious watching and reading the BBC having to cover this and squirm. The brazen cheek of Unsworth now trying to play victim regarding the curtailing of press freedom after delivering one of the most insincere apologies I've heard has to be seen to be believed. The worst thing of all is that, in a way, I agree with her. This is really bad for the press, but maybe if our public broadcaster that we're taxed to subsidise had managed to show even a shred of journalistic integrity and not gone muck raking like some seedy ducking tabloid this wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Lots of interesting things coming out of this. I was listening to a lawyer on the radio tonight saying that, despite journalistic claims to the contrary nothing too much has actually changed - the police have never been able to release names of suspects before they are charged, unless it is in the public interest. The police didn't release Cliff's name, the BBC did. Cliff was never charged. It was the BBC that claimed 'public interest' to justify their editorial decision. The judge felt it wasn't in the public interest. So this is not, despite newspaper claims, a significant change/limitation on press freedom. The damages are significant - one of the highest awarded in this type of case ie not one of slander or libel but one of invasion of privacy. But the amounts appear to reflect the use of a helicopter and that the beeb put the coverage forward for an award. It's more than irritating that mistakes by both SYP and the BBC will be paid for by you and me. The chances of any individual taking the rap is low. I still think that in any legal case involving sex, given the potential reputational consequences, both parties should be entitled to anonymity until the case is decided. I can see an argument why someone alleging they were raped/assaulted should continue to be anonymous even if they lose a case, but that doesn't mean that the accused's name should be known, if they are found innocent. If that means the police and/or CPS have to work harder then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.