Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
eccles said:
Robertj21a said:
Astacus said:
Couldn't agree more. Utter failure of judgement on the part of the Beeb. I'd like to see them eviscerated over this, but can't help reminding myself that the people paying their legal bills are the license payer.
Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
+ 1Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
A disgraceful episode from the BBC. What on earth were they thinking ?
What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
And you ask if I'm being serious!
eccles said:
Robertj21a said:
Astacus said:
Couldn't agree more. Utter failure of judgement on the part of the Beeb. I'd like to see them eviscerated over this, but can't help reminding myself that the people paying their legal bills are the license payer.
Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
+ 1Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
A disgraceful episode from the BBC. What on earth were they thinking ?
What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
Thorodin said:
Heaven knows what he ever did to deserve it.
And therein lies the rub, an awful lot of people seem to think he's guilty of something; hell, I'd be rather less than surprised if it were shown that he was up to any amount of unsavory behaviour; I accept that, to date, no evidence has come to light however, and indeed that I may be doing the man a gross injustice. At the back of my mind however... tumble dryer said:
eccles said:
You're having a go at the Beeb? The police phone them up and say do you want to film a big raid on a celeb, and you're having a go at the beeb!
What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
Any media outlet with half a brain, unless it considered itself unaccountable. Obviously.What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
Don’t you think it just a bit reasonable, before hanging your balls out to dry (well, the taxpayer’s balls, to make my point) that you might consider ‘what if’?
They displayed a serious lack of judgement; you don’t work for them by any chance…
Do you not know what news media do?
If the commentary was in error, by suggesting things that are actionable, then so be it; they are liable. But the problem nowadays is that the news media are frightened of doing their job.
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
eccles said:
Robertj21a said:
Astacus said:
Couldn't agree more. Utter failure of judgement on the part of the Beeb. I'd like to see them eviscerated over this, but can't help reminding myself that the people paying their legal bills are the license payer.
Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
+ 1Shame the producer responsible isn't personally liable.
A disgraceful episode from the BBC. What on earth were they thinking ?
What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
Derek Smith said:
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
turbobloke said:
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.
That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
It was a scoop, what every news outlet wants. That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
Inept, eh? Obviously it wasn't after the fact. That's a preposterous suggestion. Your comments may or may not be correct, but it doesn't affect the fact that the BBC News did what they were supposed to do.
The BBC did not make the news. The raid on Richard was big news and the BBC were there. They didn't get it illegally. You could argue that the information should have been given to other news media, but that's not the fault of BBC News, except in the minds of those who believe the rubbish published by the right wing press.
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.
That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
It was a scoop, what every news outlet wants. That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
Inept, eh? Obviously it wasn't after the fact.
Curiious - has the serial ineptitude of the BBC escaped your notice? From the inept and costly £100m failed digital project to the inept HR fiasco around Clarkson's sacking where every middle and senior jonny was chipping in with a comment to the media (scoop!) they have a lot of form. Likewise SYP; if you were looking the other way by chance on numerous occasions you could search online for SYP (in full) + failure, then + scandal, then + corruption.
One article you will find, from The Guardian, comments thus "...the latest controversy to hit South Yorkshire Police, with the force becoming a byword for incompetence and corruption in recent times..." another this time the Express states "...Britain's most inept police force is on the verge of being disbanded..." while another notes "...the Leader of Yorkshire First, Richard Carter, has joined those calling for the scrapping of South Yorkshire Police and suggested it be replaced by a unified..."
Wakey Wakey Derek.
eccles said:
You're having a go at the Beeb? The police phone them up and say do you want to film a big raid on a celeb, and you're having a go at the beeb!
What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
One that had a certain amount of judgement? This was all about an ill judged leap onto the "paedo celeb" train, using helicopter back-up and minute by minute coverage.What media outlet in their right mind would turn down that chance?
They were a bunch of salivating idiots and should be hung out to dry
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
98elise said:
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
turbobloke said:
98elise said:
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
On this disgraceful occasion they were in on the making of news, not merely reporting it.That would have been after the fact.
S Yorks plod gave the BBC an aerial photo of Sir Cliff Richard's home in advance, the night before the raid no less, so a beeb helicopter could find it easily.
SYP later claimed no knowledge of any helicopter involvement, commenting that they expected land-based coverage of police in action once entry had been gained. If so a map would have sufficed.
Both SYP and BBC were misguided and inept and as such criticism of both is richly deserved, the additional problem being use of public money in settling the case(s).
Per your other post, DS does need to wake up indeed.
Derek Smith said:
Jesus. Do you seriously think that any media outlet would have turned it down? Nonsensical idea. The BBC were doing what any news outlet would do in such circumstances, which was report the news. If the police were in error then it has nothing to do with the BBC. At least one news outlet got very upset that they weren't informed as well.
Do you not know what news media do?
If the commentary was in error, by suggesting things that are actionable, then so be it; they are liable. But the problem nowadays is that the news media are frightened of doing their job.
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
Sorry Derek, that's an unexpectedly Nelsonic one-eyed biased post, presumably from the current BBC 'How to Do it' archive.Do you not know what news media do?
If the commentary was in error, by suggesting things that are actionable, then so be it; they are liable. But the problem nowadays is that the news media are frightened of doing their job.
By all means criticise the BBC, let's face it, it is one of the main past times of PH, but not for reporting the news. That's rather pointless.
To communicate about a news item is one thing, to use long lenses to intrude into bedrooms quite another. Why would the police believe it was necessary to work so closely with the BBC? Why would the BBC, without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever take advantage of such an offer? Why should the BBC descend to gutter press levels? They are not merely a press agency, they are much more. You know better, you should be ashamed.
Thorodin said:
Why would the police believe it was necessary to work so closely with the BBC? Why would the BBC, without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever take advantage of such an offer? Why should the BBC descend to gutter press levels? They are not merely a press agency, they are much more. You know better, you should be ashamed.
The BBC have approached the police about knowing there's an investigation into Cliff Richard. This was a month before the police were ready to move forward with a warrant. The police have been focused on not compromising the investigation. Part of the point of executing warrants is the element of surprise so any material can't be disposed of. Even historic allegations can have material such as diaries and there can be more modern-related material. Some historic offenders who use computers to download images etc. A perfectly legitimate focus.
However, the issues arise when the police and the BBC have come to an agreement. The agreement being the BBC won't run the story but the police will let them know about the date of the warrant. From a media point of view I think it's a matter that is justified to be covered, but it is how it was done that is questionable.
When the DG was questioned about it at the Select Committee (chaired by the honourable Vaz
), he suggested that had he or other senior members been approached about concerns, they'd have not run the matter. Whether he's saying that in hindsight or not, I think the Chief Constable should have had a conversation with the DG about the matter before any agreement making. CC Crompton said he didn't go to anyone senior at the BBC as he didn't have faith the story wouldn't be run. I don't find that a good enough reason.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff