|
18 Jul 18 - 05:05 PM (#3938155) Subject: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
18 Jul 18 - 05:34 PM (#3938161) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
18 Jul 18 - 05:50 PM (#3938162) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link 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 ) |
|
18 Jul 18 - 06:23 PM (#3938165) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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... |
|
19 Jul 18 - 06:13 AM (#3938222) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: banjoman 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. |
|
19 Jul 18 - 06:29 AM (#3938225) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Dave the Gnome 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! |
|
19 Jul 18 - 07:49 AM (#3938230) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons "In the public interest" should not be confused with "Being of interest to the public", although it often is. |
|
19 Jul 18 - 07:57 AM (#3938232) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Dave the Gnome Agreed, Nigel. It is the former that the media, particularly the gutter press, keep wheeling out though. |
|
19 Jul 18 - 09:32 AM (#3938254) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link 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.! |
|
19 Jul 18 - 09:55 AM (#3938257) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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...] |
|
19 Jul 18 - 09:56 AM (#3938258) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker I will add, I am a life long Cliff Richard & The Shadows fan... |
|
19 Jul 18 - 10:11 AM (#3938260) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
19 Jul 18 - 10:26 AM (#3938263) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
19 Jul 18 - 10:38 AM (#3938266) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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 ... |
|
19 Jul 18 - 11:25 AM (#3938276) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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? |
|
19 Jul 18 - 11:44 AM (#3938280) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
19 Jul 18 - 02:54 PM (#3938321) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and dam From: Pete from seven stars link 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 |
|
19 Jul 18 - 02:55 PM (#3938322) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link As well |
|
19 Jul 18 - 03:45 PM (#3938325) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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- |
|
19 Jul 18 - 06:19 PM (#3938344) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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 |
|
19 Jul 18 - 08:18 PM (#3938351) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw "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. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 03:26 AM (#3938381) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link And the results of that investigation resulted in 'nothing' |
|
20 Jul 18 - 03:56 AM (#3938382) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link Your link wouldn't play Iaians, but I think I get the gist from descriptor |
|
20 Jul 18 - 04:10 AM (#3938385) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains " 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? |
|
20 Jul 18 - 04:27 AM (#3938387) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw So you can't support your assertion. I knew it. And Pete, investigations that find no crime committed still need to have been made. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 06:14 AM (#3938404) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 11:21 AM (#3938446) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Clutching at straws, Niggles. Go and find something constructive to do, there's a good lad. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 01:28 PM (#3938478) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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/ |
|
20 Jul 18 - 01:51 PM (#3938481) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
20 Jul 18 - 02:00 PM (#3938483) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: DMcG 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. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 02:06 PM (#3938484) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
20 Jul 18 - 07:40 PM (#3938535) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
20 Jul 18 - 08:39 PM (#3938542) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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! |
|
20 Jul 18 - 08:57 PM (#3938547) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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! :-) |
|
20 Jul 18 - 09:07 PM (#3938550) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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". |
|
20 Jul 18 - 09:12 PM (#3938551) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Sleep tight, Niglet! |
|
21 Jul 18 - 04:45 AM (#3938579) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Senoufou 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 08:21 AM (#3938605) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 08:40 AM (#3938610) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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...!!! |
|
21 Jul 18 - 08:41 AM (#3938611) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Senoufou (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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 08:45 AM (#3938613) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Agreed. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 10:27 AM (#3938629) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator I object to that pathetic overrated,useless overprilkedge money grabbing leech getting a single pennu of my licence payers mpmney. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 10:27 AM (#3938630) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator I object to that pathetic overrated,useless overprilkedge money grabbing leech getting a single pennu of my licence payers mpmney. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 01:53 PM (#3938654) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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." |
|
21 Jul 18 - 02:17 PM (#3938658) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 03:03 PM (#3938666) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 03:30 PM (#3938673) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 04:08 PM (#3938676) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker But being so rich can also buy top lawyers to help get the wealthy guilty judged 'innocent'... |
|
21 Jul 18 - 05:32 PM (#3938682) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 06:49 PM (#3938686) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "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. |
|
21 Jul 18 - 07:57 PM (#3938695) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw What reputation? :-) |
|
22 Jul 18 - 12:40 AM (#3938706) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator 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. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 12:40 AM (#3938707) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator 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. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:38 AM (#3938738) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw You're trolling in two threads at once. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:06 PM (#3938814) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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'. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:09 PM (#3938815) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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? |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:12 PM (#3938816) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:14 PM (#3938818) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 07:26 PM (#3938820) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Donuel On my side of the ocean I see Trump creating non sensical cliff hangers daily to feed his reality based President show. |
|
22 Jul 18 - 08:18 PM (#3938826) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker "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... |
|
23 Jul 18 - 02:58 AM (#3938868) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 05:39 AM (#3938893) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw "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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 06:01 AM (#3938896) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 07:57 AM (#3938912) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
23 Jul 18 - 08:12 AM (#3938916) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 08:15 AM (#3938917) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 08:15 AM (#3938918) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 08:25 AM (#3938924) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 08:42 AM (#3938933) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker "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... |
|
23 Jul 18 - 09:38 AM (#3938948) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 10:00 AM (#3938957) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains As your little mate is wont to say: OH YES IT IS! |
|
23 Jul 18 - 11:27 AM (#3938991) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Good answer. As ever. |
|
23 Jul 18 - 12:25 PM (#3939005) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Pete from seven stars link 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 |
|
23 Jul 18 - 12:46 PM (#3939010) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
23 Jul 18 - 01:11 PM (#3939013) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "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. |
|
24 Jul 18 - 04:01 AM (#3939090) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator I didn't know that Mann could be fired |
|
24 Jul 18 - 04:01 AM (#3939091) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator I didn't know that Mann could be fired |
|
24 Jul 18 - 05:30 AM (#3939111) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains If you press send a third time you will still be generating nonsense. |
|
25 Jul 18 - 10:34 AM (#3939366) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: leeneia 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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 09:32 AM (#3939605) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 09:37 AM (#3939609) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 09:57 AM (#3939615) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw I get what you're saying, pfr. I could be alone in that... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:06 AM (#3939618) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:08 AM (#3939619) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:10 AM (#3939622) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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! |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:21 AM (#3939626) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:24 AM (#3939627) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I have explained clearly and objectively - though the merry tone of sarcasm seems to confuse you...??? |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:46 AM (#3939632) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:51 AM (#3939633) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Innocent until proven guilty under UK law.... Trial by combat was much more fun, and the resulting verdict perhaps not that much more unreliable... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 10:53 AM (#3939635) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw "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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:06 AM (#3939640) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - why have you moved on to nit picking finer points of bollocks with me... Won't anyone else argue with you any more...??? |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:24 AM (#3939644) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons "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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:35 AM (#3939647) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:39 AM (#3939649) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:40 AM (#3939650) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 11:45 AM (#3939653) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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... |
|
26 Jul 18 - 12:49 PM (#3939662) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains 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. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 12:58 PM (#3939664) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Senoufou I see that the BBC are now asking leave to appeal the decision of the High Court. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 01:02 PM (#3939665) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker 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...??? |
|
26 Jul 18 - 01:20 PM (#3939667) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "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." |
|
26 Jul 18 - 01:21 PM (#3939668) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I would suggest any career harm to Cliff is negligeble, and little to do with this case. He was in petty media publicised rows with the BBC years ago for no longer playing his records on Radio 1 - to a 21st cent teen audience with absolutely no liking for Cliff's music... His elderly & middle aged fan base is mostly rabidly loyal, and will support him unconditionally... He is now an old bloke and lucky to still be standing, let alone headlining packed out arenas... Which he can still do which no problem... Considering all this, some might still say he protests too much...??? |
|
26 Jul 18 - 02:18 PM (#3939676) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Would you risk the estimated £4million he has spent? You would have to be sure you were absolutely squeaky clean or one hell of a gambler. |
|
26 Jul 18 - 02:35 PM (#3939682) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker ..and have friends in high places...??? Who know's how much he is worth... and what value he places on his pride and ego...?????? I can easily imaging an upper echelon of very rich and powerful guilty old men, who would stop at nothing to leave the world and history with a false untarnished public reputation and legacy... Saville almost got away with that...!!! |
|
26 Jul 18 - 02:47 PM (#3939684) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Some conspiracy theories I find hard to believe, others I wish I did not believe. You could perhaps be correct about old men, or perhaps not. Rumours certainly abound. Who can be sure about anything? |
|
26 Jul 18 - 06:09 PM (#3939712) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker "https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2052385/sir-cliff-richard-age-net-worth-songs-houses/ How much is Sir Cliff Richard worth? According to the annual Sunday Times Rich List the 77-year-old icon was worth £58m in 2016. The three-time winner of The Sun's "Male Pop Personality" of the year award came 41st in the list of the UK's 50 richest musicians. Englebert Humperdinck (£70m), Gary Barlow (£75m), and Sting (£185m) all came higher. The list was topped by Sir Paul McCartney who is worth an eye-watering £760m. If the Sunday Times Rich list is correct, Richard's wealth rose by £3m between 2015 and 2016." Sort of put's things in perspective... |
|
27 Jul 18 - 06:49 AM (#3939801) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: SPB-Cooperator So the poor boy, who is likely to make millions every year from sell out tours, royalties, brand placement is suffering finacially????? If he is starving because of the media coverage, then all he has to do is approach social services or his GP to get a food bank referral. The upshot is he still makes more every year many times over to cover his basic needs, while those who need to make choices whether to pay rent, eat or heat their homes and can't even begin to dream about the social opportunities that the likes of Richard/Webb take for granted. And those for whom TV/radio is their only link to the outside world are persued with impunity is they cannot afford the license fee - yes by all means fine the BBC, but reduce it to a level to which it is needed to guarantee his basic survival after being means tested. say, £1. As an afterthought, before the award was made, Richard/Webb should have been put through the indignity of a means test which millions of people have to go through to secure their rights. |
|
27 Jul 18 - 07:00 AM (#3939807) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains SPB Cooperator. Do you bay at the moon as well? |
|
27 Jul 18 - 10:06 AM (#3939854) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I give you full credit for honesty - none of this namby pampy David Cameron Mr Nice Guy pretence... Just proper straight to the point callous disregard for less-abled less fortunate humanity.. that's my kind of tory...!!! I know exactly where I stand with them... Like I often say, I can get on with opponents I respect... ...mind you, even now there still remain some good decent people who misguidedly vote conservative, who would be appalled by your total lack of compassion..... Though I suspect you might dismiss them as silly soppy tory wets... good for you... |
|
27 Jul 18 - 11:38 AM (#3939873) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains PFR I think you are mistaken. My philosophy on here is very simple. I like accuracy and I like contributions that have some vestigial contact with reality. Distortions and off the wall, away with the faery constructions invite nothing but derision. |
|
27 Jul 18 - 12:30 PM (#3939881) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Most importantly, we all have to keep a good robust sense of humour and absurdity..... |
|
28 Jul 18 - 12:26 PM (#3940102) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Mr Red It ain't the damages, wot causes the damage, it's the bleeding lawyers. Multiply by 10. I take the viewpoint that the BBC foolishly jumped the gun to get the scoop. The raid was right and proper, shame the claimant had form, but that is the flip-side of fame, live with it Sir Harry. The helicopter and the Beeb was a step too far. And who got the back-hander for tipping the wink? Strange silences in that dept. When Harry Webb converted to Billy Graham he wanted to be a junior school teacher, Billy thought he was more useful as Cliffy. But you can see the connection made in the mind of a conman. But be fair, there had to be some form of retribution to warn off would be News of the Worlds (OH OK! Sun on Sunday) et al. And if innocent wouldn't you want some form of advert wot said it ain't so? Ohhhhhhh Yesssssssssss you would! |
|
28 Jul 18 - 04:36 PM (#3940137) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I would suggest any career harm to Cliff is negligeble, and little to do with this case. He was in petty media publicised rows with the BBC years ago for no longer playing his records on Radio 1 - to a 21st cent teen audience with absolutely no liking for Cliff's music... And for those of the teen audience who actually listen to Radio 1, how would anyone know that they had 'no liking for Cliff's music' if they're not hearing it? The BBC also removed Cliff from Radio 2 playlists, where there was (possibly) a more mature audience. Tony Blackburn got suspended for playing Cliff against the wishes of the powers-that-be. |
|
28 Jul 18 - 05:31 PM (#3940143) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker ""And for those of the teen audience who actually listen to Radio 1, how would anyone know that they had 'no liking for Cliff's music' if they're not hearing it?" you're having a joke... right...??? well there'll always be a minority of arty farty students enjoying a perverse post modernist piss take... ..and the few teens who'd might genuinely like it, are probably banned by strict evangelical christian families from ever listening to satan's depraved pop music station Radio 1...... |
|
29 Jul 18 - 01:50 PM (#3940254) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker ....anyway... To an objective observer who has dug a little into the background... It really could look as if Cliff has a long running petty vindictive grudge against the BBC...??? and is now acting like a spoiled diva with a massive sense of entitlement; spitefully biting the hand that fed him, that helped make him into a superstar...??? Reminiscent of a lengthy marriage which has turned sour and ended up in a bitter costly legal battle... where neither partner comes out of it smelling of roses... |
|
29 Jul 18 - 06:38 PM (#3940300) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Spot on. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 03:25 AM (#3940339) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains However the judge made a ruling in favour of Cliff Richard, despite the carping of the last two contributors! Therefore your conclusions are obviously incorrect. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 05:11 AM (#3940360) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons ....anyway... To an objective observer who has dug a little into the background... It really could look as if Cliff has a long running petty vindictive grudge against the BBC...??? and is now acting like a spoiled diva with a massive sense of entitlement; spitefully biting the hand that fed him, that helped make him into a superstar...??? Reminiscent of a lengthy marriage which has turned sour and ended up in a bitter costly legal battle... where neither partner comes out of it smelling of roses... Yes, and to an impartial observer it could also look as if it is the BBC which is throwing the hissy fit. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 05:28 AM (#3940365) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw I'd suggest that someone who regards a two-word post expressing no more than full agreement with another contributor as "carping" has definitely got something wrong upstairs... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 05:44 AM (#3940368) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Martin said to his man............................................! |
|
30 Jul 18 - 07:53 AM (#3940385) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I made no conclusions, I merely continue to playfully consider questions... where here have I ever expressed any dissatisfaction or disagreement with the court judgement...??? Your zealous bias against the BBC lets your imagination run away with you... ... now as to whether Cliff did the christian / right thing by running crying to money-grubbing lawyers to take it before a judge...??? ---------------- Nigel - hissy fit...??? which party was it who immediately resorted to high price parasitic lawyers...??? |
|
30 Jul 18 - 08:47 AM (#3940389) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons Nigel - hissy fit...??? which party was it who immediately resorted to high price parasitic lawyers...??? Only after the BBC had illegally invaded his privacy. There is a Christian requirement to 'turn the other cheek' but it often is taken as an excuse by the attacker just to escalate their actions. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:02 AM (#3940394) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Mr Red Do we need inyerface policing? Or would we prefer a little more sanguine law enforcement, and news reporting. The alternative is Rupert Merde-Hoc. Place your bets now.................... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:26 AM (#3940398) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains "where here have I ever expressed any dissatisfaction or disagreement with the court judgement...???" If you were happy with the outcome I doubt you would need to keep carping on. (30+ posts on this thread by your goodself!) Actions speak louder than words - so they say! |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:27 AM (#3940400) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker btw... postie just delivered my difficult to obtain German DVD "Die Schamlosen" featuring Cliff Richard and The Drifters... See.. even if it were to be proven he was a buggerer of young boys, I would never stop enjoying his classic 1950s Brit rock 'n' Roll records, and soppy early 1960s pop hits... ..that's real fan loyalty for you... sticking with his music regardless... ..as opposed to blind faith and denial that an idol could ever be less than perfect, or at worse vain, depraved and corrupt... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:32 AM (#3940401) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - yes we acknowledge you don't like the BBC... that's fair enough... You don't need to hitch yourself to the Sir Cliff opportunist bandwagon... This could back-fire on you, if further more convincing evidence were ever to come to light... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:34 AM (#3940403) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - now look what you achieved - another post to add to my total count... Which you can misinterpret as whatever your agenda dictates...??? |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:37 AM (#3940404) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Nigel Parsons This could back-fire on you, if further more convincing evidence were ever to come to light... If further evidence were to come to light it would not automatically vindicate the BBCs actions. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 09:58 AM (#3940408) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Pfr allegations of sexual activity with minors, or even alluding to the possibility, leaves a perpetual taint on the reputation of the alleged offender, even when cleared and found to have no case to answer. This is the reason I take issue with the over dramatisation of the property search by the BBC. The fact they allow Gary Lineker to politicise in direct opposition to the terms of their charter is entirely a separate issue . If he wants to get political he should become an MP and give up his taxpayer funded 1.7million annual salary. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 10:24 AM (#3940412) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains/Nigel - From my position, this whole sorry saga is a sad state of affairs because I have high regard for both Cliff's early career music [plus a handfull of post Billy Graham songs] and the BBC... Though neither Cliff nor the beeb have my unconditional blind faith worship, I am happy to continue supporting both institutions... I'd suggest I represent a significant demographic of mature adult license payers... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 10:26 AM (#3940414) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Proof reading correction - "both flawed institutions"... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 10:57 AM (#3940417) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw I'm no fan of Gary Lineker or indeed of any overpaid telly celeb. But here's the thing about the excessive wealth of Cliff Richard, Paul McCartney, Gary Lineker, Donald Trump and anybody else who makes money rather than earns money. They all do it by ruthlessly and capitalistically, exploiting "the system." And we all pay for all of it, maybe by paying more for advertised products, or because we have to pay higher taxes because their accountants can get them off paying their fair share, or because the Beeb/ITV/the gutter press can survive only by hiring them or allowing themselves to be exploited by them. I pay about ten quid a month to Sky and BTSport so that I can watch Premier League and Champions League matches on my iPhone, along with millions of others. Now you know why footie players get paid silly money. Unless you live in a cave and forage all your own food, you are as complicit in all this, to a greater or lesser extent, as all the rest of us. You've been using Google today to fish out your links or find stuff to buy online. Who do you think ultimately pays for all that advertising you see with every click? We all do every time we buy anything. The BBC is an easy target for the brainless because the money chain is dead easy to follow: you pay a fee, the Beeb gets the dough. The Beeb is no better or worse than any other setup that helps these celebs to become King Croesuses, in fact it makes a lot of money selling its dramas and programme formats, just like a good capitalist should. But as soon as they get into hot water we hear the bleats about the licence fee, etc. Well if the Beeb was forced to go commercial, you'd pay even more for stuff, whether you watched the telly or not, because of the advertising. You'd be paying that fee after all, just differently. At least with the licence fee you have a choice: don't pay it and don't watch telly. Easy. I bet some of the anti-Beeb moaners moan as they use Facebook or Amazon or over their Starbucks cappuccino. Another thing about our anti-Beeb moaners-in-chief here: they're Tory capitalists moaning because the BBC actually acts like a capitalist. You really couldn't make it up. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:00 AM (#3940420) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw I thought I'd nobbled that bloody comma. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:11 AM (#3940424) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains utter twaddle - not just "twaddle" |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:14 AM (#3940428) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains and a touch of the green eyed monster! |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:22 AM (#3940431) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - during the 'Russia' threads I began to regard you in a different more credible way.. Now you seem to be reverting back to the cartoonish 'Inanes' persona... Even if the Beeb hadn't botched the coverage with tabloid style over-sensationalist helicopter scoop stupidity.. the rest of the real tabloid pack would have descended on the story with even more of the usual extreme celebrity hounding paparazzi fury, they are so well renowned for... It's so long ago now, I can't remember if they did or they didn't... But for his own reasons Cliff only singled the BBC out for punitive court reprisals...????? |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:27 AM (#3940435) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains PFR because as the judge said in his findings that I have stated previously that not only did they sensationalize the story with a helicopter covering the search, but also subsequently entered the "scoop" for an award, thereby creating a further damages award. No one can deny the search would have been reported, the issue is very clearly stated to be the manner of the reporting. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:29 AM (#3940436) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Place your own commas! |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:40 AM (#3940441) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - no one here disagrees that some individuals in control of BBC News are complete fukwits... But the Beeb is far more value to British culture, than to be judged discardable by the actions of a [large ?] minority of it's managers... Remember both the right and the left can find valid reasons to attack the BBC... In areas that do need significant improvement... But at core the BBC is still a vital British establishment institution that surely deserves continued public support..... |
|
30 Jul 18 - 11:47 AM (#3940444) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains But at core the BBC is still a vital British establishment institution that surely deserves continued public support..... Worthy of a new thread I suggest. |
|
30 Jul 18 - 12:30 PM (#3940452) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Iains - I agree - but keep Cliff confined in this one... There are definitely serious diverse and contradictory issues regarding the beeb, and it's supporter's and enemies... Well worthy of civil debate... [ok as civil as BS can aspire...] |
|
30 Jul 18 - 01:17 PM (#3940459) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains No problem with any of the above. |
|
31 Jul 18 - 08:53 AM (#3940594) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains At last a reasoned argument. Will the BBC listen? or squander more public money? https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/bbc-watch-this-imaginary-quagmire-over-press-freedom/ |
|
31 Jul 18 - 09:07 AM (#3940598) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Wow, what a great source! Conservative woman, Cliff's auntie, eh? :-) Let's suppose that the due process of law runs its course (a process accepted by all except the Daily Mail, which you often quote, that calls democratically-minded judges "enemies of the people"), the Beeb appeals and wins. Just suppose. Would you then bloody shut up about the BBC at long last? |
|
31 Jul 18 - 09:17 AM (#3940602) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Tell me. Do you believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden as well? |
|
31 Jul 18 - 09:30 AM (#3940603) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Here is another old has been, like yourself, pontificating on what he knows nothing about. Judges for judging Newreaders for using an autocue(assuming they understand the occasional big words) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6901566/michael-buerk-cliff-richard-secrecy/ |
|
31 Jul 18 - 10:52 AM (#3940618) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Steve Shaw Well let's wait and see. And, while you're snarling at the Beeb for covering the raid on Cliff's house, let me take this opportunity of thanking you for pointing us to an item about it in a paper owned by phone hackers. I've said it before and I'll say it again about your links: you never see it coming, do you, and you certainly don't do irony. |
|
31 Jul 18 - 11:12 AM (#3940623) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Quite right I do not do irony especially from a whimsical person such as yourself, or perhaps, more accurately, a capricious person such as yourself. I deal in facts, you apparently only with fiction. Perhaps you are a silly billy? |
|
31 Jul 18 - 12:10 PM (#3940643) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker Another divisive dilemna for the tories [and even further right wing and beyond...] is that one 'faction' hates the BBC for various fanatical ideological reasons, yet the other 'faction' are the establishment traditionalists who love the BBC for the grand old British institution that it is... Obviously a simplification, but still a reasonably objective overview... Poor old Aunty is caught in no man's land in the cross fire... But it's always fun to watch tories at war with other tories... |
|
31 Jul 18 - 12:37 PM (#3940655) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: Iains Rather like Labour's travails with momentum and Peter Willsman. Is labour trying to self destruct? |
|
31 Jul 18 - 01:10 PM (#3940664) Subject: RE: BS: Cliff hanger ; damage , and damages From: punkfolkrocker All the usual fun and games... Meanwhile the Liberals are hiding under the table and hoping nobody too unfriendly notices and picks on them...??? Then again we, all sides, could moan rightly or wrongly, that it's actually the liberals who run and ruin the BBC...???? |