Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, bugger, does this mean we can't nail the warbling lizard to a bloody Christmas tree?
Unless the 'missing' (read thoroughly disappeared) dossier surfaces with any more information.http://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/jul/06/leon...
carinaman said:
Are the police a law enforcement agency or a PR and Marketing outfit?
Well, recent history suggests they are much more inclined to pursue famous people than the everyday man. This ridiculous publicity over Mr Plod's visit to Cliff Mansions was waaaay out of proportion. As will become clear in the libel case. IMO if the BBC had any sense they'd be apologising publicly and quickly and offering a cash settlement. But they're probably too scared of doing that, only to be followed by a chance-in-a-million outcome of some genuine scandal. Catch 22 for them. Either way they don't care; it's only licence payer money they are burning and it has no effect on BBC staff at all. Pathetic.
Breadvan72 said:
A report of a criminal investigation could be libellous if it inferred guilt.
I understand that. Is that what is being alleged here? Just reporting the fact that the police attended an address and searched whilst making it clear that no-one has been charged etc is doing nothing more than reporting facts though I would have thought.otolith said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Breadvan72 said:
A report of a criminal investigation could be libellous if it inferred guilt.
ImpliedA report couldn't possibly make an inference. It's authors might make an inference from the information that was used to compile the report, but the report can only imply guilt, from which it's readers might infer that it is libellous.
carinaman said:
'There's no smoke without fire....
And that is what can ruins someone's career and personal life while being totally innocent. Look at Freddy Star totally innocent but the stress has turned him from looking pretty normal for Freddy Star to being aged about 20 years and looking like its game over.
He will suffer the "no smoke" forever yet the persons who made the claims are never disclosed - horrible
Same for Cliff name tarnished with the same umbrella as J Saville
REALIST123 said:
otolith said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Breadvan72 said:
A report of a criminal investigation could be libellous if it inferred guilt.
ImpliedA report couldn't possibly make an inference. It's authors might make an inference from the information that was used to compile the report, but the report can only imply guilt, from which it's readers might infer that it is libellous.
otolith said:
Tenuous. If a report contains an inference, it infers, in the same sense that if it contains an argument it argues. I'm quite sure BV meant exactly what he wrote, it's a habit of lawyers.
I don't see how a report can contain an inference, but in any case it have to imply in order to be libellous. What the report writers inferred was entirely up to them.
"
Dr Jekyll said:
I don't see how a report can contain an inference, but in any case it have to imply in order to be libellous. What the report writers inferred was entirely up to them.
"X has been charged with sexual offences against children. From this we infer that he is a child abuser."otolith said:
"X has been charged with sexual offences against children. From this we infer that he is a child abuser."
And to complete the sentence: "...or to put it another way, the report implies that he is a child abuser."(I'm with Dr Jekyll on the difference between the meanings of 'infer' and 'imply': we readers of the report do the inferring; the report itself does the implying.)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff