Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Thorodin said:
Do please address the questions that are put to the accusation about a judge ignoring settled law and inventing his own. To seek refuge in an irrelevant diversion is less than creditable. Alternatively, have the sense to withdraw a baseless allegation. To bluster about politics is foolish nonsense.
Sorry. I just expected people to do their own research. If I don't know something, I look it up. Otherwise, if I made stupid accusations without doing so, I might end up looking rather pathetic. Or do I mean nonsensically foolish.
If you think that the freedom of the press is an 'irrelevant diversion', then you've no idea of what is going on. It is the most important aspect of this case.
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
eldar said:
Which laws, have been invented?
Do you honestly not understand?The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cl...
https://inews.co.uk/news/sir-cliff-richard-verdict...
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/media-will-have-to-...
Derek Smith said:
The answer to the question is that it is simple enough to look things up. If you can't be bothered, is it up to me to do your work for you?
The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
Agreed.The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
However that article alone shows the way mis-reporting can easily occur
grauniad said:
But while the singer’s story drew individual sympathy, there was some alarm among media experts at the wider consequences that the ruling could bring with it. Lawyer David Malone of Red Lion Chambers, who specialises in cases involving serious sexual offences, said media coverage of alleged abusers often encouraged other victims to come forward.
Alleged victimsAs a normal TV viewer, I’d object to the BBC throwing my money at fighting a case.
All I pay them to do is make quality TV & radio shows.
Although Cliff has been exonerated & apologised to, dragging it on , on the basis of wider press freedom, would drag him back into it, which isn’t fair & should not to be funded by licence payers hard earned.
All I pay them to do is make quality TV & radio shows.
Although Cliff has been exonerated & apologised to, dragging it on , on the basis of wider press freedom, would drag him back into it, which isn’t fair & should not to be funded by licence payers hard earned.
Jimboka said:
As a normal TV viewer, I’d object to the BBC throwing my money at fighting a case.
All I pay them to do is make quality TV & radio shows.
Although Cliff has been exonerated & apologised to, dragging it on , on the basis of wider press freedom, would drag him back into it, which isn’t fair & should not to be funded by licence payers hard earned.
Not really - they've already settled with Cliff.All I pay them to do is make quality TV & radio shows.
Although Cliff has been exonerated & apologised to, dragging it on , on the basis of wider press freedom, would drag him back into it, which isn’t fair & should not to be funded by licence payers hard earned.
On the other hand Cliff may be useful to suggest where the lines should be
It might be possible to cover it with a report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 28th July 08:38
saaby93 said:
However that article alone shows the way mis-reporting can easily occur
The main problem with victims of abuse is that they feel unable to come forward. This is not a guess or whimsy. One only has to look at offenders who were MPs, those in the pop industry and various vicars to see that victims feel guilt. It is common in all crimes. Someone has their car broken into and stuff taken and they will tell you that they should not have left valuable items in the car. It's frustrating. grauniad said:
But while the singer’s story drew individual sympathy, there was some alarm among media experts at the wider consequences that the ruling could bring with it. Lawyer David Malone of Red Lion Chambers, who specialises in cases involving serious sexual offences, said media coverage of alleged abusers often encouraged other victims to come forward.
Alleged victimsI've never heard anyone call a person who complains of being beaten an alleged victim. I've never heard of someone reporting a theft being called an alleged victim of theft. When it comes to sexual crime things change. Part of the reason that victims of abuse and sexual crimes are reluctant to come forward is that they fear they will not be believed. Look on YouTube to see the victims of vicars in Ireland. To the shame of the catholic church out there, they covered up the criminality of their staff, normally moving them to new areas where they could offend again. One of the reasons that it went on for so long was that the victims felt they would be called liars. Of course, the catholic church, the police, parents even, knew it went on but there was no official recognition.
There's a particularly harrowing video of a victim in tears, not through pain but relief that at last he was not doubted.
The police were told not to modify any victims who reported any crime with the word alleged. In other words, treat the victims of sexual crimes in the same way as one would treat any other victim.
I can't remember any non sexual/abuse offence where there's a demand on PH to call the victim alleged.
The most common misrepresentation of a crime is burglary in my experience. Streets ahead of any other in fact. I'll have to start correcting the press when they don't call those who say they have been burgled as alleged victims.
98elise said:
We don't have the right to know where convicted kiddy fiddler's live, but when someone is accused we have the right to know?
I personally would not want my friends, neighbour's and employers to know if the police were looking into an accusation against me, especially if it was wholly untrue. I certainly wouldn't want pictures of my house being raided to be all over the press. I'd be especially unhappy if it was the police that invited the media a long.
This had nothing to do with public interest. It had everything to do with celeb headlines. If it wasn't the case then the BBC would be reporting every sex case investigation with the same enthusiasm.
The restriction on the press and reporting has nothing to do with celebrities. Ignore Richard. Look at the fact that we cannot now know which MPs are fiddling their expenses. Or that a police officer cannot tell a reporter how badly the towns and villages are being policed.I personally would not want my friends, neighbour's and employers to know if the police were looking into an accusation against me, especially if it was wholly untrue. I certainly wouldn't want pictures of my house being raided to be all over the press. I'd be especially unhappy if it was the police that invited the media a long.
This had nothing to do with public interest. It had everything to do with celeb headlines. If it wasn't the case then the BBC would be reporting every sex case investigation with the same enthusiasm.
A free press, like anything else worth having, is expensive. It is the one essential for a democracy as without it, we don't know.
What do you think of the comments on the attack of press freedom I linked to? There are many more as well. There's a list of countries, rated on how free their press is. Look it up, do a bit of research and then realised that we've since gone down the leader board even more.
Derek Smith said:
The main problem with victims of abuse is that they feel unable to come forward. This is not a guess or whimsy. One only has to look at offenders who were MPs, those in the pop industry and various vicars to see that victims feel guilt. It is common in all crimes. Someone has their car broken into and stuff taken and they will tell you that they should not have left valuable items in the car. It's frustrating.
I've never heard anyone call a person who complains of being beaten an alleged victim. I've never heard of someone reporting a theft being called an alleged victim of theft. When it comes to sexual crime things change. Part of the reason that victims of abuse and sexual crimes are reluctant to come forward is that they fear they will not be believed. Look on YouTube to see the victims of vicars in Ireland. To the shame of the catholic church out there, they covered up the criminality of their staff, normally moving them to new areas where they could offend again. One of the reasons that it went on for so long was that the victims felt they would be called liars. Of course, the catholic church, the police, parents even, knew it went on but there was no official recognition.
There's a particularly harrowing video of a victim in tears, not through pain but relief that at last he was not doubted.
The police were told not to modify any victims who reported any crime with the word alleged. In other words, treat the victims of sexual crimes in the same way as one would treat any other victim.
I can't remember any non sexual/abuse offence where there's a demand on PH to call the victim alleged.
The most common misrepresentation of a crime is burglary in my experience. Streets ahead of any other in fact. I'll have to start correcting the press when they don't call those who say they have been burgled as alleged victims.
Although it seems this didnt happen in the Cliff Richard case, an issue with sexual/abuse offences is whether it was an offence or one one of the parties changed their mind. We saw that with the footballer case a while back where due to discussion of previous history unusually being allowed, it was discovered the girl had a history of changing her mind afterwards. I've never heard anyone call a person who complains of being beaten an alleged victim. I've never heard of someone reporting a theft being called an alleged victim of theft. When it comes to sexual crime things change. Part of the reason that victims of abuse and sexual crimes are reluctant to come forward is that they fear they will not be believed. Look on YouTube to see the victims of vicars in Ireland. To the shame of the catholic church out there, they covered up the criminality of their staff, normally moving them to new areas where they could offend again. One of the reasons that it went on for so long was that the victims felt they would be called liars. Of course, the catholic church, the police, parents even, knew it went on but there was no official recognition.
There's a particularly harrowing video of a victim in tears, not through pain but relief that at last he was not doubted.
The police were told not to modify any victims who reported any crime with the word alleged. In other words, treat the victims of sexual crimes in the same way as one would treat any other victim.
I can't remember any non sexual/abuse offence where there's a demand on PH to call the victim alleged.
The most common misrepresentation of a crime is burglary in my experience. Streets ahead of any other in fact. I'll have to start correcting the press when they don't call those who say they have been burgled as alleged victims.
With only one person from each side in front of a court how do you decide who is most believable?
Should one side be publicised for representataions, both sides or none?
This ruling seems to go down the path of none
Thorodin said:
Do please address the questions that are put to the accusation about a judge ignoring settled law and inventing his own. To seek refuge in an irrelevant diversion is less than creditable. Alternatively, have the sense to withdraw a baseless allegation. To bluster about politics is foolish nonsense.
DS:
Sorry. I just expected people to do their own research.
If I don't know something, I look it up. Otherwise, if I made stupid accusations without doing so, I might end up looking rather pathetic. Or do I mean nonsensically foolish.
If you think that the freedom of the press is an 'irrelevant diversion', then you've no idea of what is going on. It is the most important aspect of this case.
It’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence to support an accusation of such seriousness concerning a high court judge and the implication of maladministration. To then mock those who ask for evidence by suggesting it is their responsibility to search for such evidence to support your views is, well, verging on arrogance. To then attempt to divert attention to other matters not part of the judgement is highjacking. There is no doubt there is concern about ‘freedom of the press’, there are plenty of threads concerning it, but statements you made were entirely directed to the judgement of a particular case that was about something else. So start a relevant thread. This is about Cliff Richard, your diversion is, in this instance, Fake News.
Do please address the questions that are put to the accusation about a judge ignoring settled law and inventing his own. To seek refuge in an irrelevant diversion is less than creditable. Alternatively, have the sense to withdraw a baseless allegation. To bluster about politics is foolish nonsense.
DS:
Sorry. I just expected people to do their own research.
If I don't know something, I look it up. Otherwise, if I made stupid accusations without doing so, I might end up looking rather pathetic. Or do I mean nonsensically foolish.
If you think that the freedom of the press is an 'irrelevant diversion', then you've no idea of what is going on. It is the most important aspect of this case.
It’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence to support an accusation of such seriousness concerning a high court judge and the implication of maladministration. To then mock those who ask for evidence by suggesting it is their responsibility to search for such evidence to support your views is, well, verging on arrogance. To then attempt to divert attention to other matters not part of the judgement is highjacking. There is no doubt there is concern about ‘freedom of the press’, there are plenty of threads concerning it, but statements you made were entirely directed to the judgement of a particular case that was about something else. So start a relevant thread. This is about Cliff Richard, your diversion is, in this instance, Fake News.
Thorodin said:
It’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence to support an accusation of such seriousness concerning a high court judge and the implication of maladministration. To then mock those who ask for evidence by suggesting it is their responsibility to search for such evidence to support your views is, well, verging on arrogance. To then attempt to divert attention to other matters not part of the judgement is highjacking. There is no doubt there is concern about ‘freedom of the press’, there are plenty of threads concerning it, but statements you made were entirely directed to the judgement of a particular case that was about something else. So start a relevant thread. This is about Cliff Richard, your diversion is, in this instance, Fake News.
You asked. You got it. The most important part of this case is the judge's decision. Everything else is just a normal civil action, apart from the massive award of course. If you don't want to Google then so be it. There was comment on the appeal, the refusal of a judge to allow an appeal, the fact that any appeal will cost a considerable amount of money, and that the BBC should not challenge the judge. It's all about this case. Derek Smith said:
Thorodin said:
It’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence to support an accusation of such seriousness concerning a high court judge and the implication of maladministration. To then mock those who ask for evidence by suggesting it is their responsibility to search for such evidence to support your views is, well, verging on arrogance. To then attempt to divert attention to other matters not part of the judgement is highjacking. There is no doubt there is concern about ‘freedom of the press’, there are plenty of threads concerning it, but statements you made were entirely directed to the judgement of a particular case that was about something else. So start a relevant thread. This is about Cliff Richard, your diversion is, in this instance, Fake News.
You asked. You got it. The most important part of this case is the judge's decision. Everything else is just a normal civil action, apart from the massive award of course. If you don't want to Google then so be it. There was comment on the appeal, the refusal of a judge to allow an appeal, the fact that any appeal will cost a considerable amount of money, and that the BBC should not challenge the judge. It's all about this case. saaby93 said:
Derek Smith said:
The answer to the question is that it is simple enough to look things up. If you can't be bothered, is it up to me to do your work for you?
The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
Agreed.The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
However that article alone shows the way mis-reporting can easily occur
grauniad said:
But while the singer’s story drew individual sympathy, there was some alarm among media experts at the wider consequences that the ruling could bring with it. Lawyer David Malone of Red Lion Chambers, who specialises in cases involving serious sexual offences, said media coverage of alleged abusers often encouraged other victims to come forward.
Alleged victims
techiedave said:
Has that ex copper "I was there you know" regaled us with his tapestry of life stories yet.
Has he defended plod because well he just cant do anything else
Etc
Well, whatever you do don’t tell him this but I occasionally enjoy some of the ‘nostalgia’. Has he defended plod because well he just cant do anything else
Etc
Of course I’ll deny any knowledge of this, but a recent ramble of his darn Memry Lane in the 60’s mentioned a TV personality and the pub that gent owned sarf of the river. In deference to earlier protocols he identified neither pub nor personality.
I knew the pub intimately but not, I hasten to add, the owner. Pub was Dirty Richards (in filter friendly lingo, and that bit is the 'on thread' bit) and the chap was a certain Daniel Farson. Aptly named, presumably deceased, and so no worries about libel. I. Hope.
Spent every weekiend in East End pubs then. Two Puddings, Stratford, Rising Sun, Bethnal Green where one night Welsh George came into the tiny bar on a huge white stallion (occasionally in a state of anticipation - unmaintained thankfully), Blind Beggar, Golden Lion, Leytonstone, Red Lion, Walthamstow (or was it the other way round?). Wherever I could get a gig. Those were the days!
Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 28th July 19:09
Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 28th July 19:12
Derek Smith said:
The answer to the question is that it is simple enough to look things up. If you can't be bothered, is it up to me to do your work for you?
The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cl...
https://inews.co.uk/news/sir-cliff-richard-verdict...
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/media-will-have-to-...
Those have a considerable number of 'could, possibly, potentially'. The upshot seemed to be that the existing laws will need to be more carefully adhered to. Nothing specific about new laws.The judge has made new law. Judges are allowed to do this in certain cases, but they must be prepared to have it tested by their bosses. There is nothing unusual about such decisions. This one, though, hits at the heart of the basis of freedom of the press. It must be tested. If the BBC does use their funding for this then we should praise them for doing something positive for our right to know, which is being eroded steadily.
Anyway, as you seem bemused by Google, try these. There's lots more. I'll quote The Times later.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/18/medi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cl...
https://inews.co.uk/news/sir-cliff-richard-verdict...
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/media-will-have-to-...
A simple question brought a patronising and evasive response from you, rather unusually. So I conclude that hyperbole and bluster is your order of the day. So I'll un-bemuse myself about google, and as you helpfully suggest, do my own research.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff