Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

Well done Sir Cliff
He was so over come he couldn't speak

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799?#_=_

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I'm delighted that Clif has won his case with substantial damages (maybe more to come) but saddened that he had to go through the experience of the police search and the coverage of it, the latter apparently prompted by a police informer.

Naming a suspect before charges are laid has always annoyed me, but, with current immediate worldwide media coverage, damage to a person's credibility, reputation and career is instant and indelible - I'm all for a law change.

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I am delighted too. I remember the news program when it was shown & I thought no way, they are all idiots.

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

This is laughable.

If the Beeb had been asked to pay £210,000 at the time for the privilege of making a sensational documentary about Sir Cliff they'd have jumped at the chance.

That kind of money is meaningless to both Cliff and the BBC.

A lot of wasted time there imo.

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I can't stand the bloke but I'm pleased he won his case. He was found innocent apparently. Just hope he doesn't sing a bloody Christmas song about it!

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

Well said, Solo.
Now to put him through even more with their appeal, the BBC ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I doubt anyone dubbed a "national treasure" these days
That's Saville's legacy for me

And he wasn't found innocent of anything Floydy...
What happened was, that "there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with any thing"
In the snippet I saw of the interview on the news...he was openly saying that, which I found quite bizarre
If he's entirely innocent shouldn't he be saying
"They obviously weren't going to find ANY evidence" not
"The police stated that there wasn't enough evidence to charge me"

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I know wha you mean Rhian butI think the main point of this case is not whether he is guilty or not but about how the BBC acted by naming him before he was tried and filming the police storming his house.

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

It was a part of the historical cases' Yewtree Investigation..
So of course it was in the public interest if the police were raiding his home for evidence

Re: Cliff Richard v BBC

I'm just thinking back to Rachel Nickell's murder, which was about 25 years ago. I still remember the name of the man wrongly accused after all these years but cannot remember the name of the real murderer.

I'm not suggesting the police shouldn't have raided his house if they thought there would be evidence but I don't think it was anything to do with the BBC at that point in time.