Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Digger said:
mybrainhurts said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Hilts said:
Justayellowbadge said:
So.
Cliff Richard.
He's a one, eh?
You're on thin ice son.Cliff Richard.
He's a one, eh?
Just IMO.
Feel free to ignore.
As far as I know 'He's a one' has no negative connotations, it is akin to 'he's a card' or similar meaningless exclamations.
Merely attempting to remind that the thread is not about BV's opinion on Guam, DAs or any other recent tangent.
The clue being in the thread title.
Here, you hold the rope, I'll chuck it over the tree.
mybrainhurts said:
Digger said:
mybrainhurts said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Hilts said:
Justayellowbadge said:
So.
Cliff Richard.
He's a one, eh?
You're on thin ice son.Cliff Richard.
He's a one, eh?
Just IMO.
Feel free to ignore.
As far as I know 'He's a one' has no negative connotations, it is akin to 'he's a card' or similar meaningless exclamations.
Merely attempting to remind that the thread is not about BV's opinion on Guam, DAs or any other recent tangent.
The clue being in the thread title.
Here, you hold the rope, I'll chuck it over the tree.
Back on the Cliff, forthcoming mutual blamefest:-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/19/cli...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11042...
Whether Cliff is guilty or innocent, and whether or not there are or were conspiracies, space lizard or otherwise, the media hoo hah surrounding the search was a rum do. It seems to me surprising that the police, on being made aware of a leak of details of an operational matter, did not seek a short term injunction to restrain media coverage until after the search had been executed (that by the way, is not at all the same thing as a DA Notice). Such injunctions have been granted in the past, mainly in order to preserve the integrity of the operation, although the rights of the suspect are also a factor.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/19/cli...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11042...
Whether Cliff is guilty or innocent, and whether or not there are or were conspiracies, space lizard or otherwise, the media hoo hah surrounding the search was a rum do. It seems to me surprising that the police, on being made aware of a leak of details of an operational matter, did not seek a short term injunction to restrain media coverage until after the search had been executed (that by the way, is not at all the same thing as a DA Notice). Such injunctions have been granted in the past, mainly in order to preserve the integrity of the operation, although the rights of the suspect are also a factor.
Breadvan72 said:
Back on the Cliff, forthcoming mutual blamefest:-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/19/cli...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11042...
Whether Cliff is guilty or innocent, and whether or not there are or were conspiracies, space lizard or otherwise, the media hoo hah surrounding the search was a rum do. It seems to me surprising that the police, on being made aware of a leak of details of an operational matter, did not seek a short term injunction to restrain media coverage until after the search had been executed (that by the way, is not at all the same thing as a DA Notice). Such injunctions have been granted in the past, mainly in order to preserve the integrity of the operation, although the rights of the suspect are also a factor.
If the police try and restrict the ability of the media to report an incident, especially where they have information that other outlets do no, then they are also in for criticism.http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/19/cli...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11042...
Whether Cliff is guilty or innocent, and whether or not there are or were conspiracies, space lizard or otherwise, the media hoo hah surrounding the search was a rum do. It seems to me surprising that the police, on being made aware of a leak of details of an operational matter, did not seek a short term injunction to restrain media coverage until after the search had been executed (that by the way, is not at all the same thing as a DA Notice). Such injunctions have been granted in the past, mainly in order to preserve the integrity of the operation, although the rights of the suspect are also a factor.
The general rule is that the police do their job and the press do theirs. If the press overstep the mark then this should be dealt with by their discipline procedures. It is not up to the police to oblige them to conform to their guidelines - and this is something I think is as essential.
The press has too many restrictions on it already.
Reporting an incident is not the same as joining in the incident. I generally oppose prior restraint of the media, and such prior restraint is hard to achieve and therefore quite rare*; but when confidential operational details of police activity have been leaked, that is in my view one of those rare occasions which justifies limited prior restraint.
BTW, I speculated earlier that a court employee may have made the leak, but I gather that the BBC may have known of the investigation even before the warrant was applied for, so the leak presumably came from elsewhere. The BBC and the police appear to be agreed that the source was not the police.
* Arguably it should be even rarer - I think that the US First Amendment approach is better than our approach based on the qualified rights guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR.
BTW, I speculated earlier that a court employee may have made the leak, but I gather that the BBC may have known of the investigation even before the warrant was applied for, so the leak presumably came from elsewhere. The BBC and the police appear to be agreed that the source was not the police.
* Arguably it should be even rarer - I think that the US First Amendment approach is better than our approach based on the qualified rights guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR.
25NAD90TUL said:
What is a D/DA again?
What is a super-injunction?
I am not sure if those are real questions or rhetorical ones. If real:-What is a super-injunction?
A D Notice was and a DA Notice is an advisory notice issued by the UK Government to media asking them not to report something because doing so would pose a risk to a national security. The notice has no legal force. In an appropriate case, where the risk is serious and the media propose to publish something, the Government could apply for an injunction to restrain this. Injunctions that operate as prior restraints of free expression are subject to special rules and should not be readily granted.
People sometimes talk of "taking out an injunction", but this is inaccurate shorthand. You can apply for an injunction (in Scotland an interdict), but only a Court can grant one, and there are well established principles as to when they should and should not be granted, although ultimately an injunction is a discretionary remedy and each case turns on its facts.
A super injunction is an injunction which as well as prohibiting publication of something prohibits reporting of the injunction itself. This has never been a common thing, but it was getting too common a few years back, so Lord Neuberger, who was then Master of the Rolls (ie Head of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) and is now President of the Supreme Court (he's a very good egg, possibly the best Judge in the whole common law world, and not a space lizard when last I checked) wrote a report about super injunctions that discourages their use, but they could still be granted in rare cases.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 23 August 09:20
25NAD90TUL said:
I think this is probably the most interesting thread I've ever read on an internet forum, so many different fascinating things covered.
As for sir cliff, has anything emerged yet as to what he is actually accused of doing apart from crimes against popular music?
And what about those dodgy lawyers, politicians and cover-ups.
What is a D/DA again?
What is a super-injunction?
Cheers all great thread, the drinks are on me, when I get my royalty cheque!
It's basically the govt saying don't print/say about any of this stuff or bad things will happen to you. In effect it's little more than a civvy street version of signing the official secrets act. The difference is that most who sign the OSA willingly as part of work Eric couldn't give a damn about whether the general population knows a truth or not. Whilst those who get hit with a D preventing them are usually those who think everyone should know everything and it's of vital importance. It's not of course but they like the illusion and the chance of moral grandstanding.As for sir cliff, has anything emerged yet as to what he is actually accused of doing apart from crimes against popular music?
And what about those dodgy lawyers, politicians and cover-ups.
What is a D/DA again?
What is a super-injunction?
Cheers all great thread, the drinks are on me, when I get my royalty cheque!
The raid on Richard's flat would have been general knowledge within an hour or so of it starting. Therefore the delay would have been a short term restraint. The press had the information independent of the police and I think in that case it makes restraint more unreasonable, or rather would require more persuasiveness.
In this case, once the police knew of the breach, from whatever the source, they seemed to try and limit the problems.
Whilst a helio over the flat during the incursion, I can't see it made a massive difference to the post-incident fall out. Everyone would have known about it soon enough. This way, the BBC didn't get in the way.
There is a more or less open invitation to the press to go on raids in the Mets and it is only that there are now no journalists left that makes it pointless. My lad, when working on a local paper, went on a number of raids. They make excellent copy. Further, from a police point of view, there is a governor. With the press there it makes it more open, something we all want, surely.
My force had a number of 'lay' people who could come into the station at all time subject to operational limitations. There were visitors to the cells, the CCTV room and the local Argus often sent their crime reporter to the nick and he could more or less go where he wanted. If he published something inappropriate then that was down to them.
But Richard's flat being searched is massive news. There was no way a lid could have been kept on it.
Not really on topic, but when CID operated a firm within a firm in the City of London police a number of officers did their bit to bring it to the attention of the press. One of the problems was that the editors and the bent coppers met together on the third Thursday of every month so they had to be careful.
Information from the incident rooms found its way to the papers despite the risks. For the Telegraph payroll job the press knew what was going on almost as it happened. The SIO called all officers into a briefing and warned us all that 'it must stop now' and that if he found out who was giving the info they'd be prosecuted.
I left the nick, up by Holborn station, and walked to Fleet Street. By the time I got there the placards for the evening papers said that Police Chief Warns Officers.
Hilarious.
In this case, once the police knew of the breach, from whatever the source, they seemed to try and limit the problems.
Whilst a helio over the flat during the incursion, I can't see it made a massive difference to the post-incident fall out. Everyone would have known about it soon enough. This way, the BBC didn't get in the way.
There is a more or less open invitation to the press to go on raids in the Mets and it is only that there are now no journalists left that makes it pointless. My lad, when working on a local paper, went on a number of raids. They make excellent copy. Further, from a police point of view, there is a governor. With the press there it makes it more open, something we all want, surely.
My force had a number of 'lay' people who could come into the station at all time subject to operational limitations. There were visitors to the cells, the CCTV room and the local Argus often sent their crime reporter to the nick and he could more or less go where he wanted. If he published something inappropriate then that was down to them.
But Richard's flat being searched is massive news. There was no way a lid could have been kept on it.
Not really on topic, but when CID operated a firm within a firm in the City of London police a number of officers did their bit to bring it to the attention of the press. One of the problems was that the editors and the bent coppers met together on the third Thursday of every month so they had to be careful.
Information from the incident rooms found its way to the papers despite the risks. For the Telegraph payroll job the press knew what was going on almost as it happened. The SIO called all officers into a briefing and warned us all that 'it must stop now' and that if he found out who was giving the info they'd be prosecuted.
I left the nick, up by Holborn station, and walked to Fleet Street. By the time I got there the placards for the evening papers said that Police Chief Warns Officers.
Hilarious.
Police leaking info to journos appears to have been routine for quite a while. It is not clear whether post Leveson this practice has been much abated.
I advised an unpopular high profile person a while back on a beef that he had with the Met. He had agreed to attend a station to be interviewed about some allegations of groping a young person that in the event went nowhere, but when he got to the nick the press were waiting for him in force. A bit shabby, I think.
I advised an unpopular high profile person a while back on a beef that he had with the Met. He had agreed to attend a station to be interviewed about some allegations of groping a young person that in the event went nowhere, but when he got to the nick the press were waiting for him in force. A bit shabby, I think.
Breadvan72 said:
It seems to me surprising that the police, on being made aware of a leak of details of an operational matter, did not seek a short term injunction to restrain media coverage until after the search had been executed (that by the way, is not at all the same thing as a DA Notice).
Do you think the police were privately happy for the raid to be publicised in the hope that it might lead to new information coming forward from the public, but were somewhat naive in underestimating the amount of coverage and the critical response it received?I would have thought that the objective of encouraging complainants or witnesses to come forward could be achieved by publishing the fact that there is an investigation, but after the search. As for the police being naive about the media frenzy, that is possible, but recently UK police and prosecutors seem to align themselves with US style perp walks, grandstanding press conferences and so on.
V8 Fettler said:
Did all 8 plod on the "raid" have different roles? Although I suppose 5 could have been plod drivers.
It's easy to underestimate how long searches take in real life. If you're looking for small media and thinking where it could be hidden, it can take a proper search team hours to clear a property. RYH64E said:
Do you think the police were privately happy for the raid to be publicised in the hope that it might lead to new information coming forward from the public, but were somewhat naive in underestimating the amount of coverage and the critical response it received?
The same degree of media coverage would have been generated in any event. Especially as the BBC knew there were an on-going investigation. How long do you think it would have taken the media to find out his property was being searched? The risk of misinformation with a spontaneous, reportable event is significant. They'd have had an idea how big-a-story this would have been and the benefits of encouraging additional complainants to come forward. Do you not think they've seen how this has worked with all the other investigations?It's important to remember they contacted the police stating they knew there were an investigation. None of us know what information the BBC had and who the source was, and what their communications with the police were.
Minimising the risk of the investigation by bringing the BBC 'on-board' with he consequence that the media frenzy started a little earlier than it otherwise would have was the balance and judgement made in the circumstances. If you don't have the information in which that judgement was made then you can only make superficial judgements of it.
Breadvan72 said:
I am not sure if those are real questions or rhetorical ones. If real:-
A D Notice was and a DA Notice is an advisory notice issued by the UK Government to media asking them not to report something because doing so would pose a risk to a national security. The notice has no legal force. In an appropriate case, where the risk is serious and the media propose to publish something, the Government could apply for an injunction to restrain this. Injunctions that operate as prior restraints of free expression are subject to special rules and should not be readily granted.
People sometimes talk of "taking out an injunction", but this is inaccurate shorthand. You can apply for an injunction (in Scotland an interdict), but only a Court can grant one, and there are well established principles as to when they should and should not be granted, although ultimately an injunction is a discretionary remedy and each case turns on its facts.
A super injunction is an injunction which as well as prohibiting publication of something prohibits reporting of the injunction itself. This has never been a common thing, but it was getting too common a few years back, so Lord Neuberger, who was then Master of the Rolls (ie Head of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) and is now President of the Supreme Court (he's a very good egg, possibly the best Judge in the whole common law world, and not a space lizard when last I checked) wrote a report about super injunctions that discourages their use, but they could still be granted in rare cases.
Thanks Bread, they were real questions. Thanks for enlightening me.A D Notice was and a DA Notice is an advisory notice issued by the UK Government to media asking them not to report something because doing so would pose a risk to a national security. The notice has no legal force. In an appropriate case, where the risk is serious and the media propose to publish something, the Government could apply for an injunction to restrain this. Injunctions that operate as prior restraints of free expression are subject to special rules and should not be readily granted.
People sometimes talk of "taking out an injunction", but this is inaccurate shorthand. You can apply for an injunction (in Scotland an interdict), but only a Court can grant one, and there are well established principles as to when they should and should not be granted, although ultimately an injunction is a discretionary remedy and each case turns on its facts.
A super injunction is an injunction which as well as prohibiting publication of something prohibits reporting of the injunction itself. This has never been a common thing, but it was getting too common a few years back, so Lord Neuberger, who was then Master of the Rolls (ie Head of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) and is now President of the Supreme Court (he's a very good egg, possibly the best Judge in the whole common law world, and not a space lizard when last I checked) wrote a report about super injunctions that discourages their use, but they could still be granted in rare cases.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 23 August 09:20
TKF said:
TheExcession said:
I can fully understand why Guam does not want to commit ANY OF IT to public record on an Internet forum.
So why bring up ANY OF IT? Apart from a pointless internet brag.BV is just one of several PHers thinking that Guam's claim doesn't actually inform the subject matter - paedophiles being protected by a conspiracy of government agencies - at all.
Breadvan72 said:
BTW, I speculated earlier that a court employee may have made the leak, but I gather that the BBC may have known of the investigation even before the warrant was applied for, so the leak presumably came from elsewhere. The BBC and the police appear to be agreed that the source was not the police.
My speculation is the ex-cop, now self-appointed PaedoFinder General (I keep forgetting his name, it's a double-baralled one).La Liga said:
It's easy to underestimate how long searches take in real life. If you're looking for small media and thinking where it could be hidden, it can take a proper search team hours to clear a property.
Can I hire them next time I lose my car keys or specs? It can take me hours when I haven't actually hidden them!25NAD90TUL said:
Thanks Bread, they were real questions. Thanks for enlightening me.
You are welcome. Summarising broadly, in general, to obtain an injunction before the trial of a civil claim, you have to show that you have an arguable case (you don't have to prove the case at this stage), that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of relative fairness and unfairness favours restricting whatever it is you are seeking to restrict, or mandating whatever you are seeking to mandate (an interim mandatory injunction is rarer than an interim prohibitive injunction). If you are trying to restrict the exercise of the right to free expression (that right includes the right to give and the right to receive information), and in some other circumstances, then you have to meet a higher test and show that your claim is likely to succeed at trial.
Quite often the trial never takes place because the interim result practically determines the issue and/or the parties then settle the dispute, but an interim injunction works on the basis that in theory there could be a trial of the claim one day.
It is almost impossible to obtain prior restraint of a defamatory statement, but you can sometimes obtain prior restraint of a statement that would infringe privacy. This leads to the (to my mind) somewhat perverse outcome that you can't usually be stopped from telling a fib before you tell it (later on you can be told not to tell it again), but you sometimes can be stopped from telling the truth.
In a case involving alleged disclosure of secrets, a public interest test may apply, as the disclosure may be in the public interest. (This was extensively debated in the Spycatcher litigation in the mid 1980s, which happened to be the case that I worked on for much of my pupillage year, as two of my pupil masters were acting for the newspapers resisting the Government's injunction claims, so I have maintained an interest in this sort of thing ever since. I still have my copy of Spycatcher. It's rubbish.)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff