18-07-2018, 11:08 PM
21
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Longdogs
->
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.
But unfortunately it was that "don't go there" mentality that let the likes of Saville get away with what he did for so long
If they're in the public eye anyway...then any news becomes sensationalist news
My worry is that the man "Doth protest too much"
Another thing that sat uncomfortably with me was when he said in the interview "i used to use the tunnel between centre and first court in Wimbledon for years but now I don't because it goes past the boys' changing rooms"
Did any of us know it was young boys he had allegedly targeted? I didn't...
18-07-2018, 11:34 PM
22
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
I'm sorry if I've offended anyoneI know he is well liked
And a renowned Christian man
But he is famous...
And the police hsve a job to do
He'd have come across a lot better by just saying something along the lines of...obviously a mix up or a false allegation...let the police do their job...I've nothing to hide...etc etc
18-07-2018, 11:49 PM
23
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
I'm sorry if I've offended anyoneI know he is well liked
And a renowned Christian man
But he is famous...
And the police hsve a job to do
He'd have come across a lot better by just saying something along the lines of...obviously a mix up or a false allegation...let the police do their job...I've nothing to hide...etc etc
18-07-2018, 11:53 PM
24
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
What happened was, that "there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of 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 convict me"
The CPS "charge" and a court may "convict" after a trial.
18-07-2018, 11:55 PM
25
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Omah
->
Not "convict" but "charge":https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...l-abuse-claims
The CPS "charge" and a court will "convict" after a trial.
And thank you
Edited to add: Oh the beauty of the Edit button
18-07-2018, 11:57 PM
26
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by May
->
Sir Cliff Richard has won his privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.High Court judge Mr Justice Mann awarded an initial £210,000 in damages.
The singer claimed the BBC's reporting of the 2014 raid, which was part of an investigation into historical child sex allegations, was a "serious invasion" of privacy. He was never arrested or charged.
The BBC said journalists acted in good faith and it is considering an appeal.
The judge said the BBC had infringed Sir Cliff's privacy rights in a "serious" and "sensationalist" way.
Congrat's to Sir Cliff.
19-07-2018, 12:38 AM
27
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
Quite right Omah..And thank you
Edited to add: Oh the beauty of the Edit button
19-07-2018, 08:56 AM
28
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
I doubt anyone dubbed a "national treasure" these daysThat'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"
Innocent people don't have scripts to follow they just say things .
They don't weigh every word .
19-07-2018, 09:16 AM
29
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case I doubt if there is anyone who cannot deny that the media has now become far to invasive purely for money.Regardless of who or what it is or how much harm it causes, a so called story line is now 'done to death' on the pretence of it being in the publics interest.
Sensasionlised news carries the risk of being exposed for just being that and hopefully the media will take note and adjust the way it reports and carries out stories in future.
19-07-2018, 09:17 AM
30
Re: Cliff Richard v BBC
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
I'm sorry if I've offended anyoneI know he is well liked
And a renowned Christian man
But he is famous...
And the police hsve a job to do
He'd have come across a lot better by just saying something along the lines of...obviously a mix up or a false allegation...let the police do their job...I've nothing to hide...etc etc
.
|
|
