BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 07:57 PM

What reputation? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 12:40 AM

What I am ranting about is that Richard/Webb's pockets are being lined at the expense of people on low incomes such as carers, cleaners, people who work in hospitality, people who work in fast food chains, people on exploitative/zero-hour contracts, people living on benefits - who do work of benefit to society. personally, issues of guilt are irrelevant - it is enough for the court to make a public statement that in his opinion the BBC were out of order - end off! Then means test the award, so that the full £210,000 would be paid to someone on average wage or less, but thereafter the amount would be reduced pound for pound. Or even better - that Richard/Webb will get the money once his has done 1,000 hours doing some socially useful work.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 12:40 AM

What I am ranting about is that Richard/Webb's pockets are being lined at the expense of people on low incomes such as carers, cleaners, people who work in hospitality, people who work in fast food chains, people on exploitative/zero-hour contracts, people living on benefits - who do work of benefit to society. personally, issues of guilt are irrelevant - it is enough for the court to make a public statement that in his opinion the BBC were out of order - end off! Then means test the award, so that the full £210,000 would be paid to someone on average wage or less, but thereafter the amount would be reduced pound for pound. Or even better - that Richard/Webb will get the money once his has done 1,000 hours doing some socially useful work.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:38 AM

You're trolling in two threads at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:06 PM

From: punkfolkrocker - PM
Date: 21 Jul 18 - 04:08 PM
But being so rich can also buy top lawyers to help get the wealthy guilty judged 'innocent'...

In our justice system, which is the basis for others around the world, no-one is "Judged innocent". The assumption is that the accused is innocent, unless proved guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of his peers. I can only hope that you never have to undergo the 'trial' of defending your reputation against an unsupported 'smear'.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:09 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
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.

Yet another person commenting who has no understanding of the basic principal of English law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:12 PM

From: SPB-Cooperator - PM
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 12:40 AM

What I am ranting about is that Richard/Webb's pockets are being lined at the expense of people on low incomes such as carers, cleaners, people who work in hospitality, people who work in fast food chains, people on exploitative/zero-hour contracts, people living on benefits - who do work of benefit to society. personally, issues of guilt are irrelevant - it is enough for the court to make a public statement that in his opinion the BBC were out of order - end off! Then means test the award, so that the full £210,000 would be paid to someone on average wage or less, but thereafter the amount would be reduced pound for pound. Or even better - that Richard/Webb will get the money once his has done 1,000 hours doing some socially useful work.

One more. Sir Cliff is only getting a 'payout' because he has been subject to unsubstantiated allegations. The money comes from our pockets because the BBC chose to follow up on unsubstantiated allegations.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:14 PM

Of course there maybe some who will say "There's no smoke without fire." But, if nothing can be proved, the presumption of innocence must, under UK law, take precedence.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 07:26 PM

On my side of the ocean I see Trump creating non sensical cliff hangers daily to feed his reality based President show.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Jul 18 - 08:18 PM

"In our justice system, which is the basis for others around the world, no-one is "Judged innocent". The assumption is that the accused is innocent, unless proved guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of his peers.


Obviously.. I know that - I passed a Law A level 40 years ago....

I was being sarcastic...

Though in the real world outside of law text books, lotsa money can always trump nice idealised legal theory and principles..


"I can only hope that you never have to undergo the 'trial' of defending your reputation against an unsupported 'smear'."

I can only hope that for any of us, if a hostile tabloid fueled mob is out to lynch us;
and even if can be awarded legal aid,
all that can afford is a cheap hack barely qualified defence lawyer...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 02:58 AM

If he pockets the money, then he is spitting in the face of those who are on low incomes who are ultimately coughing up the money. If he gives the money to a charity of his choice that is even more condescending as local charities of my choice are suffering from government cuts which results in cuts to services for the most disadvantaged in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 05:39 AM

"One more. Sir Cliff is only getting a 'payout' because he has been subject to unsubstantiated allegations. The money comes from our pockets because the BBC chose to follow up on unsubstantiated allegations."

You really don't get any of this, do you, Nigel? At the time of the raid, no-one knew whether the allegations were unsubstantiated or not. You're not even exercising hindsight here, are you?   The BBC were reporting a raid on a celeb's flat. At that time, neither you, the police nor the Beeb knew whether the allegations were substantiated or not. The whole point of a criminal investigation is to find out whether or not a claim can be substantiated. In Nigel's world, it seems that a nice guy like Sir Cliff should be automatically beyond reproach and should be left to enjoy his unbesmirched reputation, whether that's deserved or not. Well we don't agree, some of us. We don't want a world any more in which victims of sexual abuse are too scared to come forward for fear of being shat on by the the best lawyers that celeb money can buy. One more thing. You are targeting the BBC for wasting public money by having to pay it out to a mega-rich celebrity. Well every time any organisation is fined, whether it's Google, Apple, Amazon, big banks or your local water company, or when a company advertises on X-Factor obliging them to put up their prices for the goods advertised, guess who it is who ultimately pays... Odd that you seem able to follow the money trail only when it's dead simple, i.e., you to the Beeb...Or would that really just be your opportunistic attack on an organisation that you resent, along with most of you Tories...

The troll accusation wasn't levelled at you, SBS.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 06:01 AM

More of standard Steve Shaw:
You really don't get any of this, do you, Nigel? Yes

At the time of the raid, no-one knew whether the allegations were unsubstantiated or not. Surely the police knew that the allegations were not substantiated, otherwise there would have been an arrest, not just a search.

You're not even exercising hindsight here, are you? Yes, with hindsight I can clearly state that there was no further action brought against Sir Cliff.

The BBC were reporting a raid on a celeb's flat. At that time, neither you, the police nor the Beeb knew whether the allegations were substantiated or not. (see above)

The whole point of a criminal investigation is to find out whether or not a claim can be substantiated. And until it is the alleged perpetrator should not be hounded by the media. Once one allegation has sufficient evidence to make a successful prosecution likely then I can understand making the name known to see if others come forward, but not before.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 07:57 AM

So basically, if Cliff is guilty, all the most incriminating evidence was made to conveniently disappear just in time for the raid...

..and correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't he safely out of the country at the time of the raid...

Only returning to 'voluntarily' turn himself in for questioning,
after the police failed to find sufficient evidence...

No please correct me... I am after all a lifelong Cliff and the Shads fan...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 08:12 AM

You really do not get this. Do you Shaw, You appear to be letting a vendetta get in the way of common sense.
Try and understand what points the judgement made and put to one side your glaring hatred of Cliff Richard.

""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”.

What is so difficult to understand about the judgement. The BBC were obviously in the wrong and to further rub salt in the wound they had the audacity to enter the news item up for an award (luckily it was not placed, otherwise the payments would no doubt have been higher).

Fortunately the real world carries on and blithely ignores the rantings of a bigoted ex teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 08:15 AM

From: punkfolkrocker - PM
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 07:57 AM
So basically, if Cliff is guilty, all the most incriminating evidence was made to conveniently disappear just in time for the raid...

Here we go again. Yesterday you admitted that the UK has a presumption of innocence. So Cliff is innocent.

..and correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't he safely out of the country at the time of the raid... Yes, but the authorities would have known (or been able to find out) that. Perhaps the search was timed so that there would be no chance of Cliff preventing the search while he discussed it with his lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 08:15 AM

There was no hounding. There was one-off filming of a police raid while he was out of the country. And, until the law in this country is changed to give anonymity until charged/found guilty, it would be a good idea not to suggest that Sir Cliff is turned into a privileged exception. You're just rampantly anti-BBC, Nigel, that much is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 08:25 AM

"There was no hounding"

Mr Justice Mann obviously disagrees with you;
I fink he knows a bit more about the subject than a squawking ex teacher, that claims to be well educated.

Keep on digging laddie.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 08:42 AM

"Here we go again. Yesterday you admitted that the UK has a presumption of innocence. So Cliff is innocent."

Sorry.. am I on trial.. you talk down to me as if you are a pompous pantomime prosecution lawyer in a cack daytime TV legal melodrama...

I admitted nothing... I merely confirmed my knowledge of an obvious tenet of UK law,
in order to counter your arrogant presumption that none of us know anything about legal matters...

Btw... I said "IF"... I'd prefer it if Cliff is innocent...

I hope he is not one of those daytime TV villains who gets off with a not guilty verdict,
only to be tricked by Columbo into a taped confession in the last 5 minutes before the end credits roll...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 09:38 AM

Give us the details of the hounding by the BBC. Whatever the gutter media were up to, there was no hounding by the BBC. This is all about the inappropriate filming of a police raid while Cliff was overseas. That is not hounding.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 10:00 AM

As your little mate is wont to say:
OH YES IT IS!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 11:27 AM

Good answer. As ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 12:25 PM

Here's hoping that this case leads to the protection of innocent people from being tainted with crimes they are innocent of . .    Let's hope too that the BBC and any other big boys , think twice before spending the hard earned contributions from most of the public , on speculative and unfounded enterprises. And failing that admit their error and apologise sooner and sincerely, and thus avoid using even more of joe publics money for their own errors

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 12:46 PM

Let's hope Sir Cliff does the right thing and return the money to a BBC viewers association of some sort...

He certainly owes the viewers as much for all the exposure his many BBC series and concerts gave him
on his rise to phenomenal fame and a knighthood...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 18 - 01:11 PM

"Good answer. As ever." Glad you see it my way for once. You are normally an argumentative little shit!

From the times May 31st concerning Mr Richards: " you don't deserve to be hounded."

and a further little gem, as yet ignored. From BBC breaking News:
"Sir Cliff Richard awarded £210,000 in damages after winning High Court privacy case against BBC. Judge says star is entitled to further sums to be decided at later date.

There are reports the BBC is thinking of appealing. I trust those responsible will be fired when the appeal fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Jul 18 - 04:01 AM

I didn't know that Mann could be fired

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Jul 18 - 04:01 AM

I didn't know that Mann could be fired

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jul 18 - 05:30 AM

If you press send a third time you will still be generating nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: leeneia
Date: 25 Jul 18 - 10:34 AM

Whenever somebody is accused of sexual misbehavior, media and many individuals seem to assume right away that the charge is true. Actually, it may not be, so give the accused a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 09:32 AM

leeneia - yes give the likes of Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE the leeway to grow old and die peacfully
without all the fuss and distress of that police arrest, court appearance, and prison discomfort...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 09:37 AM

Pfr So you have zero respect for the law?
A slippery road you embrace!



    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 09:57 AM

I get what you're saying, pfr. I could be alone in that...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:06 AM

Iains - are you talking one bollock or both... what...???

Like any sane person I have respect for the rule of law,
and honest unbiased application of good modern relevant to the our times laws...

What's up with you just lately.. too much time arguing with other obsessive mudcatters in a heatwave...???

leeneia - I suspect you have sparse knowledge of the scale of recent UK celebrity sex scandals...
and the alleged/proven network of offenders in such a small nation's pool of showbiz veterans...???

If I as an ordinary average bloke was to have one false accusation from a single adult woman,
then obviously I wouldn't want my name broadcast in public pending investigation and being found innocent...
But any massively worshipped elder showbiz idol atracting dozens of plausible accusations from children victims
is bound to elicit more public attention...

Since Saville escaped scott free because our society did not want to believe the mass of rumours and accusations,
Britain has adopted a more proactive response to investigating allegations regarding the famous and worthy pillars of society...

No approach is perfect, but we would rather see our celebrity sex monsters in prison,
rather than escaping justice in a gilded coffin...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:08 AM

NEWS
26/07/2018 11:01 BST | Updated 3 hours ago
BBC Agrees To Pay Sir Cliff Richard £850,000 Over Police Raid Coverage
Follows ruling that corporation infringed singer's privacy.

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

Innocent until proven guilty under UK law.

" yes give the likes of Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE the leeway to grow old and die peacfully
without all the fuss and distress of that police arrest, court appearance, and prison discomfort... "

I think you are the one that needs to explain yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:21 AM

I will add that Gary Glitter had a house for partying in not far from where some of my family lived...
Locally folks were aware of his preference for teenage girls,
but as it was the early 1980s,
it was mostly accepted, joked about, and brushed off as the enviable sex party antics of a rich pop star...
The area felt lucky to have been chosen by him, a real huge pop star living so close...

It was only after his arrest when facts emerged that the young girls were far younger,
and the party antics more sordid, than locals could ever have imagined...

The villagers reeled in shock and betrayal.
But perhaps some knew exactly what had been going on and kept silent
for whatever personal reasons... financial gain...??? fear...??? party invites...?????

Though - it's not stopped the music.. I still enjoy listening to his greatest glam rock hits...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:24 AM

Iains - I have explained clearly and objectively - though the merry tone of sarcasm seems to confuse you...???

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:46 AM

"Like any sane person I have respect for the rule of law,
and honest unbiased application of good modern relevant to the our times laws..."

In other words you wish to cherry pick by placing non existant qualifiers before your interpretation.

Sorry! The real world does nor work like that. You may feel the law is an ass, but without it you would be in deep shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:51 AM

Innocent until proven guilty under UK law....

Trial by combat was much more fun, and the resulting verdict perhaps not that much more unreliable...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 10:53 AM

"Innocent until proved guilty" does not imply that defendants shouldn't be named. There's no law that says that you can't name a person before they've even been charged. There's a debate to be had on all this for sure, and there is ongoing debate in high places. "Innocent until proved guilty" as a principle doesn't work very well in sex abuse cases, largely because in that area of criminality more than most "mud sticks," "there's no smoke without fire," etc. If a court finds you innocent of an armed robbery, simply because you didn't do it, your good name is restored. But in sex abuse cases there are grey areas left, right and centre, and you can be "not quite guilty," even though you were involved in stuff you wouldn't want your mother to hear about, for example in the case of the footballer and the very drunk young woman in the motel...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:06 AM

Iains - why have you moved on to nit picking finer points of bollocks with me...

Won't anyone else argue with you any more...???

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:24 AM

"Innocent until proved guilty" does not imply that defendants shouldn't be named. There's no law that says that you can't name a person before they've even been charged.
Except the law of 'defamation of character' should it turn out that they are not charged.

There's a debate to be had on all this for sure, and there is ongoing debate in high places. "Innocent until proved guilty" as a principle doesn't work very well in sex abuse cases, largely because in that area of criminality more than most "mud sticks," "there's no smoke without fire," etc.
Unfortuately, in sex cases, the 'mud' only sticks to the defendant, as they can be identified while the complainant can't.

If a court finds you innocent of an armed robbery, simply because you didn't do it, your good name is restored.
Only if you can prove you didn't do it. If it's just a case of 'insufficient evidence' then an element of doubt remains. anyway, The court doesn't find you 'Innocent', it finds you 'not guilty', at which time the 'presumption of innocence' becomes the fall back position again.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:35 AM

While preaching the finer theories and principles of law...

remind yourselves that such an ivory tower does not exist in isolation
above the real 'real world' of social media naming and shaming
and the court of public opinion...

21st Cent real life is far more complex and awkward...

Seeing celebs deploy their wealth and high society networking,
hiring the most expensive cynical corrupted lawyers,
in an attempt to evade justice,
has soured the integrity of law as we knew it...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:39 AM

Pfr. You have your view, I have mine.
In the case of minors being charged names are rarely mentioned. RAPE and sex offence victims are automatically given lifelong anonymity under UK law. Media are required to avoid publishing any details.
Unfortunately those accused of sexual offences can be named, if adult.
In such a case for those accused and found innocent they fall under the Scottish "not proven", even though this does not exist in English Law.
It is this not proven-mud sticks situation that I have a problem with.
The over sensationalised coverage of the search with police collusion is
why I fully support Cliff Richard. In my view all that was justified was a 10 second soundbite outlining the facts of the search. Had charges and an arrest followed far greater coverage may have been justified.
I can appreciate journalists going into grey areas in order to generate their scoops, but in this case they were bang out of order and the BBC News bosses should have stopped it. They did not. They deserve everything coming their way and in my view should be fired for gross misconduct. Should the BBC wish to go to the high court to appeal the judgement I would say the public has a right to be informed of the legal advice given. It is time for the BBC to cough up, apologise to Mr Richards and the fee payers.

    If you are trying to say existing law is inadequate you may be right.
    If you are making the case that sufficient rumours existed concerning Saville that he should have been outed years ago, I doubt any would argue with you.
    It merely demonstrates to me that the BBC needs to be made far more accountable. It relies on a past glory. It is now a liability and needs to make it's own way in the world, without funding.

and anyway it is tipping down with rain and too wet to put the engine back in one of the tractors.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:40 AM

Of course, in a climate of ruthless agenda driven beeb bashing and 'free tommy' pantomime,
the law becomes even more of a dysfunctional partisan gloves off battle zone...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 11:45 AM

Iains - we cross posted....

Basically we are fairly close in agreement on much of this...

Even some of us BBC fanboys were dismayed by the clumsy tabloid style sensationalist reporting
and money wasting hiring of a helicopter...

..and remember I am the only one here so far with big enough balls to out myself as a lifelong Clif Richard fan...

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 12:49 PM

PFR I was not ever a fan of his. His private life is his own affair.
He has had his life turned upside down and his career stalled, simply because the BBC sensationalised the reporting. For that they should pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 12:58 PM

I see that the BBC are now asking leave to appeal the decision of the High Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 01:02 PM

But... like it or not.. innocent or guilty - the preceding rumours were circulating widely and prominently on the internet,
long before this ineptly reported police search....
and the rumours are still out there gaining traction, and will never go away...

What's sir Cliff going to do next - sue the internet...???

Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 18 - 01:20 PM

"What's sir Cliff going to do next - sue the internet...??? "

Highly unlikely. Therefore his best way of quashing rumours is to take the BBC to the cleaners and make that a very clear statement. It is sad the fee payers will pick up the tab but that is what happens when an unaccountable organisation goes off the rails. Even more reason to make them exist in the commercial world.
An appeal has been refused. The BBC now has to go to the High Court to pursue their case.

"Ultimately, the legal advice and cost will determine the BBC's actions. Any prudent organisation has insurance for crises like this. But BBC News needs to save tens of millions, and the rest of the BBC much more.

At the best of times, every penny spent by the BBC has to be justified.

During austerity, that gets ever harder. If the BBC fights, loses, and is seen to have wasted public funds, the current support from Fleet Street could switch to anger, and brutally fast."