BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages

Subject: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jul 18 - 05:05 PM

Cliff Richard British singer today awarded damages for invasion of his privacy by the BBC as a 'suspect' in a sexual abuse investigation. Congratulations sir cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Jul 18 - 05:34 PM

Come on then Sir Cliff, say it was never about the money but the principle,
and hand the dosh back over to a license payers kitty...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jul 18 - 05:50 PM

Yes, it's a shame that these things inevitably cost the public. But it's certainly true that Cliff had a case financially, as well as the emotional damage, as it put his professional career on hold for a long time . I believe he has always donated generously to charities, and it remains to be seen what he will do with the damages ( should he choose to disclose it )

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 18 - 06:23 PM

I'm totally with the Beeb on this. I don't know why Cliff bothered. I can't see the difference between this case and lots of others involving celebs. To me, it's the price they pay for spending a lifetime making bloody easy money for doing, well, not a lot. They play the tabloids for decades for all it's worth, then squeal when the tabloids bite back...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: banjoman
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 06:13 AM

Although I think the BBC was wrong in this case, I did hear a comment on the today prog. this morning praising Cliff Richard for
A his persistence and B having the money to be able to do so.
However, if the BBC don't appeal it will ultimately be the licence payers who foot the bill for their misdemeanour.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 06:29 AM

No axe to grind about Harry but surely it is time to put an end to any trial by media. Celebrity or not, the accused has the right to remain just that, accused, until after any investigation and/or trial has been concluded. These high profile cases will engender speculation which could well result in the justice system's impartiality becoming breached. The 'in the public interest' argument is nonsense. It is only in the interests of making money for the media!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 07:49 AM

"In the public interest" should not be confused with "Being of interest to the public", although it often is.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 07:57 AM

Agreed, Nigel. It is the former that the media, particularly the gutter press, keep wheeling out though.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 09:32 AM

Totally agree Dave . The media besmirch a persons character and cause great misery before any guilt is established. Fortunately for Cliff , he had the money to fight it . Let's hope this victory , helps those who cannot pay as well, so the innocent are not condemned by a mud slinging media.                                                                                  Banjo man , if the beeb do appeal and lose again , that will be even more money taken from thee license payer.!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 09:55 AM

Sir Cliff can gain satisfaction from punishing the BBC/licence payers.
But all the allegations, speculation, gossip and rumours, behind the police search,
will always remain easily available widely dispersed and archived on the internet...

...and frankly, the dark scandalous urban legends are so shocking and entertaining...
they ought to be true - it'd make a bloody good comedy drama musical movie...

Maybe just change names to protect the 'innocent'...???

It'd be one of the best dark underbelly of showbiz films since the classic "Expresso Bongo"...

[full uncut version now finally available on Blu-ray...]

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 09:56 AM

I will add, I am a life long Cliff Richard & The Shadows fan...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 10:11 AM

You're quite right punkfolkrocker , that the nasty stuff will still hang on , but as well as a vindication for Cliff, it may help future accused . There's always some dirt that sticks , guilty or not , but the BBC aggravated it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 10:26 AM

Cliff Richard was accused of nothing. Publicising investigations into celebrities is fully in the public interest. Celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic have been involved in serial sexual misdemeanours and have used their celebrity to protect themselves. Publicising investigations has often encouraged victims to gain the courage to come forward. That is absolutely what we mean by "in the public interest." In no way am I saying that Cliff is guilty of anything or that the Beeb didn't handle the thing in a clumsy manner, but the principle stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 10:38 AM

ok... it's a hot sunny afternoon. it's nearly the weekend, in essence it's so close enough to a summer holiday...

so here's the trailer for Expresso Bongo ...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 11:25 AM

The police realised they were on a no winner and made an out of court settlement. The BBC fought on through the courts. All those involved should be terminated immediately and any pension entitlements taken to pay both the award for damages and the resultant legal fees.

"Cliff Richard was accused of nothing. Publicising investigations into celebrities is fully in the public interest."

It was a publicised investigation into nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 11:44 AM

This must be a very confusing time for UK far right conspiracy theorists,
because as much as they hate the Beeb and relish any opportunity to bash it,
they even more really really hate rumoured celebrity 'ponces'...


[unless they get bingo lucky and can link the kiddie fiddlers to the BBC, scoring bonus hate points...]


Might be entertaining uploads on youtube right wing rabble rouser channels from today...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and dam
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 02:54 PM

Fully agree Ian's . Unfortunately , if anybody s head does roll after this , it will probably be into a fat pension pot !    And of course he had been accused. Isn't that why they had this investigation !?    And whereas , it might encourage victims to come forward in the event of a real crime , it encourages fakers to come forward as we'lll

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 02:55 PM

As well

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 03:45 PM

Pete from seven......

Aah Yes. The mysterious trouble maker/s**t stirrer Nick.

Strange the BBC mobilises a chopper for Cliff Richard's gross invasion of privacy and yet had an in house pedo/necrophiliac for decades and did absolutely nuffink! I still await an investigation into that particularly sordid story.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/jimmy-savile-report-stuart-hall-bbc-employees-who-knew-about-sexual-predators-

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 06:19 PM

oh ffs... when I look back at all the stupid petty spelling mistakes I make at mudcat...
and think is it worth corecting, or sod it, life's too short...

Ok - this one above - 'ponces' should actually be 'nonces'...

a very significant error in context of my post.. [19 Jul 18 - 11:44 AM ]...

rock on Sir Cliff...

Serious Charge 1959 Trailer

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 18 - 08:18 PM

"It was a publicised investigation into nothing?"

Nope. It was a publicised investigation into a matter for which the police considered they had grounds to investigate. If you have information that is so strong that you are able to say that the police were investigating nothing, let's be having it, right now, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 03:26 AM

And the results of that investigation resulted in 'nothing'

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 03:56 AM

Your link wouldn't play Iaians, but I think I get the gist from descriptor

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 04:10 AM

" If you have information that is so strong that you are able to say that the police were investigating nothing, let's be having it, right now, please."
The resident pedant froths with words!

let's be having it, right now, please."
is getting as boring as different planet
different morality
bullshit, bullshit.

Have you another 78 to play?

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 04:27 AM

So you can't support your assertion. I knew it. And Pete, investigations that find no crime committed still need to have been made.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 06:14 AM

Basically, The police have accepted they acted wrongly, and have compensated Sir Cliff. The BBC may not accept that they acted wrongly, but that is the decision of the court.

To claim "investigations that find no crime committed still need to have been made. " is typical Steve Shaw bollocks.
As a 'well-educated scientist' he should be aware that it is not possible to prove the negative that "no crime has been committed". There is the possibility to disprove individual allegations, but to prove that "no crime has been committed"? Impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 11:21 AM

Clutching at straws, Niggles. Go and find something constructive to do, there's a good lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 01:28 PM

Had the BBC treated the claims and resulting search of Cliff Richards property with the same degree of coverage as similar claims against Sir Edward Heath; the former head of the Army, Field Marshall Lord Bramall; the former Home Secretary, Lord Brittan and the former Tory politician, Harvey Proctor, then it could be regarded as in the public interest.
    However both police and the BBC colluded together to over dramatize the event,even to the extent of chartering a helicopter for aerial footage of events on the ground in order to make the event even more sensational.

This was not live coverage of the SAS entering a foreign embassy, it was a totally over the top treatment of unfounded allegations. If the BBC news service cannot see this vital distinction they are clearly unfit for purpose and should sink or swim with no further aid from the public purse.

Like many contributors here, it would seem the BBC cannot differentiate between fact and fiction, unfounded allegation and proven guilt.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/revealed-the-remarkable-texts-between-the-police-and-the-bbc-bef/

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 01:51 PM

Hands up who don't want to pay the licence fee...

..and would jump on any political bandwagon attacking the beeb to make that reality...???

Other hand up in the air if you want the beeb abolished because it is too left/right wing...???

..and the licence fee saving would just be nice bonus beer money...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 02:00 PM

I would make a distinction that does not seem to have been made above, unless I missed it.

News-as-news: A celebrity is being investigated for possible child offences? Tricky, but I can see circumstances in favour of making that public. We can't ban it entirely without making things easier for the Savilles of this world. A judgement call will always be required.

News-as-entertainment: Helicopters, scenes as if from some Holywood blockbuster chase, photographing and broadcasting a search through windows? 100% no. BBC completely wrong on that aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 02:06 PM

I used to prefer the ITN 24/7 News channel - until commercial expediency forced it to shut down...

That's the price of profit driven news services...

BBC News is highly flawed and annoying, but it's still preferable to have a public service broadcaster..

Though plenty of room for improvement...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 07:40 PM

I do agree with the last two posts. I've said repeatedly that the BBC was clumsy in the way it handled this. However, at the time of the broadcast in question, it was not known that the allegations were "unfounded." I don't necessarily trust the judgement of the police but I assume that they took the allegations seriously enough to come to the conclusion that they needed to be investigated. That's the only way that they could have ascertained whether the allegations were "unfounded" or not. There's some wonderfully-quaint hindsight being adopted by two or three of the posters here. I don't question the right of the police to investigate Cliff, nor the BBC's right to report what was going on. But both the police and the Beeb acted clumsily, in the best traditions of the Sun and Daily Mail. That's what's objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 08:39 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 11:21 AM
Clutching at straws, Niggles. Go and find something constructive to do, there's a good lad.

Once again Steve Shaw has been shown to be talking total crap, so attempts to belittle the person who points it out.

What a total toss-pot!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 08:57 PM

You've been insulting me incessantly over this and other matters over the last few days, Nigel. Your input has been a series of niggles, Niggles. Just make your points and back off is my advice. That's what I've tried to do in this thread, but, as we can all see, your agenda is different. If you don't want the piss to be (deservedly) taken out of you, just take the advice. You do appear to be rather sensitive, unlike me, so why invite the hurt? And bear in mind that your allies here are few. Nighty night! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 09:07 PM

I did make my point. Rather than accepting that you were wrong you came up with "Clutching at straws, Niggles. Go and find something constructive to do, there's a good lad".
I think we all realise you are unable to accept that you are ever wrong, and become overly defensive, or claim that your previous postings were just whimsy.
I don't require 'allies' to respond to your ill-thought out comments.

I think calling you a 'toss-pot', while thoroughly deserved, was probably the first time I've used anything that could be described as an insult to you, never mind your idea of "insulting me incessantly".

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 18 - 09:12 PM

Sleep tight, Niglet!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 04:45 AM

I believe Harry was a frequenter of the Elm Guest House in West London, under the pseudonym of 'Kitty'. That alone would require further investigation surely?

It's the same venue that the Roman Catholic priest Tony MacSweeney (whom I knew!) visited, to abuse boys from the nearby children's home, who were taken there for the 'amusement' of paedophiles.

Now I can't believe Harry was unaware of the Ring that operated there. He must have known the couple who organised it. Why did he stay there?

I'm afraid I think that the CPR rejected the possibility of a prosecution/conviction due to lack of solid evidence.
The involvement of the BBC may have actually jeopardised any further action by the Police.

But without having undergone a trial, the man must be viewed as innocent, this being one of the most sacred tenets of our legal system.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 08:21 AM

I agree with all that. What I don't agree with are claims that there was "nothing to investigate." The police and the Beeb may have been guilty of inappropriate behaviour, but I'm not having it that they are guilty of "investigating nothing" or that allegations were "unfounded." Yes there have been celebrity casualties but there have also been celebrity sexual crimes, and plenty of 'em, and the said celebs can hide behind the reputations the media have been complicit in building for them. Unless allegations are clearly vexatious, the police have an obligation to investigate, and the Beeb has a duty to report. We would like them to do a better job of it in future, that's all. Celebs use and manipulate the media all the time, lest we forget. It can be a high-risk game.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 08:40 AM

Some might say Cliff got away with that then, but ought to quit while he is ahead...

He may though be completely innocent.

Whatever, I'll still enjoy his records, along with Gary Glitter's greatest hits...
Nothing will stop the music...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 08:41 AM

(I meant to type CPS, not CPR in my last post!)

From watching the many programmes on TV about the activities of the Police (especially Channel 4's '24 Hours in Police Custody') I've concluded that it is rather difficult to persuade the CPS to agree that a case should be undertaken and a prosecution set in motion, unless one has all the necessary evidence, reliable witnesses, acceptable motive and so on..

This is as it should be of course, but it must result in quite a few instances of potentially guilty people being set free.

The Police probably know full well a miscreant is guilty, and must get very frustrated with the system.

Free Press and open reporting is worth safeguarding. We have a right to know what's going on. But not flying a helicopter over a person's property after an apparent 'tip-off'. That's a bit sensation-seeking and shady in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 08:45 AM

Agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 10:27 AM

I object to that pathetic overrated,useless overprilkedge money grabbing leech getting a single pennu of my licence payers mpmney.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 10:27 AM

I object to that pathetic overrated,useless overprilkedge money grabbing leech getting a single pennu of my licence payers mpmney.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 01:53 PM

I wonder why the police made an out of court settlement and the BBC decided to fight? I presume both had access to equally esteemed legal advice. If the BBC disregarded that advice and decided to fight on, we need to know, as it is public money that has been squandered.

"The judgement, handed down by Mr Justice Mann, said that Richard “had privacy rights in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights without a legal justification” and that it did so “in a serious way and also in a somewhat sensationalist way”.

    I have rejected the BBC’s case that it was justified in reporting as it did under its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. I did not find it necessary to rule on the claim under the Data Protection Act. Sir Cliff therefore wins on the privacy point and has established liability.

The judge awarded basic general damages of £190,000, and an added £20,000 for nominating the live broadcast as in the Royal Television Society Awards. " which I have assessed at £20,000."

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 02:17 PM

Who does Mann think he is the majority of licence payers earn a tiny fraction of what nasty money grabbers like Richard/WEbb earn. I pay my licence fee for broadcasting services, nottoline the already over stuffed pockets, If I wanted trash like Richard to have any of my mopney I would buy the crap records he has churned out. If Richard had even a smkidgen of dece, he would pay the settlement back to the BBC to be spent on services foviewers and listeners.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 03:03 PM

Who does Mann think he is the majority of licence payers earn a tiny fraction of what nasty money grabbers like Richard/WEbb earn. I pay my licence fee for broadcasting services, nottoline the already over stuffed pockets, If I wanted trash like Richard to have any of my mopney I would buy the crap records he has churned out. If Richard had even a smkidgen of dece, he would pay the settlement back to the BBC to be spent on services foviewers and listeners.

Your whole rant is based on the assumption that Cliff Ricahrd is guilty of something for which the courts believe there is no evidence.

What Cliff Richard earns is nothing to do with the case, except, possibly, to explain why some people think it worth making unfounded allegations.

He should not be paying the money back to the BBC. If they couldn't support the action they took, they need to pay for that action. If it is with taxpayers money, then they need to answer questions as to why they took actions to besmirch his name when they had no evidence to back up their actions.

Whether you are rich, or poor, you deserve the right to an unblemished reputation unless something can be proven against you. Unfortunately the rich are more likely to be subject to dubious calims as they have the money to make payouts to the claimants.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 03:30 PM

Mr Justice Mann does not give a hoot what the average punter thinks. His function is to administer the law. If you have a problem with his findings I am afraid you will just have to live with it. Also your viewpoint has precious little in the way of logic to support it. Your personal axe to grind has no place on this forum. What Cliff Richard earns has absolutely no bearing on this case other than the fact he could afford to seek justice, an avenue denied many of us these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 04:08 PM

But being so rich can also buy top lawyers to help get the wealthy guilty judged 'innocent'...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 05:32 PM

Spot on, pfr.

"guilty of something for which the courts believe there is no evidence"

That is not the finding of the court. Our justice system has to look at balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt. No judge worth his/her salt is going to declare that there was "no evidence" in a case that has been taken that far. Insufficient evidence, unreliable evidence, evidence to the contrary, sure. The trouble with both Nigel and Iains is that they are right-wing Tory anti-BBC Daily Mailites. The rest of us can take a more nuanced view, that there was an investigation that needed to be made but it was badly botched by both the police and the BBC. I think Sir Cliff can count himself lucky, both in this matter and in life in general. Frankly, I don't want to hear any more from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 06:49 PM

"The rest of us can take a more nuanced view, that there was an investigation that needed to be made but it was badly botched by both the police and the BBC. I think Sir Cliff can count himself lucky, both in this matter and in life in general. Frankly, I don't want to hear any more from him."

The above diatribe can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to smear a person's reputation. Lets be having your proof for such a totally unwarranted attack.
I assume nuanced for the well educated scientist revolves around the mantra "no smoke without fire."

"No judge worth his/her salt is going to declare that there was "no evidence" in a case that has been taken that far. Insufficient evidence, unreliable evidence, evidence to the contrary, sure."
The poor boy does make some quite stupid statements at times. If there is no case to answer a judge has no business commenting on a non issue. Shaw, at times you are a complete idiot. If you cannot make sensible comments try simply shutting up.