Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
Neither organisation could manage the proverbial drinks session at a brewery in any case.
Investigations have still taken place after S Yorks Police ignored people coming forward with abuse allegations, which resulted in wider knowledge of claimed events before any raids were staged, yet they were followed by arrests, charges and convictions.
If the BBC gets it wrong one way with Jimmy Savile, the answer is not to get it wrong the other way with Harry Webb. If SYP got it wrong in Rotherham the answer is not to get it wrong again any which way. Totally inept hardly does either organisation justice.
Reports commissioned by SYP from researcher Dr Angie Heal in 2003 and 2006 highlighted SYP failures to tackle the Rotherham abusers and listed a raft of recommendations. These reports were ignored by police and initially kept secret, but were published years later in 2015 after a freedom of information request. The Times published something in 2012 about a confidential police report that had warned thousands of child sexual exploitation crimes were being committed in South Yorkshire. Tick tock.
A beeb TV director chap by the name of David Nicolson, who worked with Savile on Jim'll Fix It and Top of the Pops for over 10 years, was ignored by his BBC bosses who 'just shrugged it off' when he told them what he had seen. Nicolson had walked into Savile's dressing room and caught him sexually abusing a young girl. As per the PH thread on Savile there's a lot more than that to demonstrate the complete failure of the BBC to act in a proper and timely manner, a trait they share with SYP.
Enough excuses already. Both of these organisations have been a disaster zone for years.
La Liga said:
he 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.
Thanks for that, agree with all. However all that was known at the time. The problem arises about the nous, or lack of it, they had concerning perception of their singular and joint activity. They seem to be either blissfully unaware of conspiracy to defame implications, or the complete arrogance of couldn't give a monkey's.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.
While insisting on confidentiality about investigations, the police have no objection to revealing details to a particular news agency, not particularly known for its soundness, and planning operations to use maximum public exposure of the search of private property before any actual evidence is found. All that they had was the much discredited rumour and malicious statement of an historical witness (the use of the word 'witness' instead of 'accuser' is significant). These are matters of collusion. Both the police and the BBC have colluded in presenting circumstantial evidence of a prima facie case in advance of an arrest! The use of the helicopter to get the best and most scaremongering pics of upper private rooms was disgraceful.
Re your last paragraph above: It seems realistic to assume they in fact did have that conversation - to plan the operation for maximum effect. That's the 'perception' at least.
Anyway my post above was in direct reply to someone who knows all this and now, only in my own unimportant and irrelevant opinion of course, suffers a drop in reputation. That's sad.
Cupramax said:
Am i the only one thats wondering why it was reported as he's settled with them? Surely if Cliff bought the case, theyve settled with him. Intentional, or just more poor journalism?
The whole thing stank, im not sure which more though, the police or the bbc.
Settled with SYP for an undisclosed sum.The whole thing stank, im not sure which more though, the police or the bbc.
BBC still saying fair game, and proceeding with defending.
Thorodin said:
Re your last paragraph above: It seems realistic to assume they in fact did have that conversation - to plan the operation for maximum effect. That's the 'perception' at least.
I don't get the impression they spoke, mainly because of what they said at the Select Committee. I imagine the last thing SYP wanted were complaints against someone high profile like Cliff Richard given all the issues were / have been juggling, let alone the BBC approaching them and 'forcing' them to make such decisions. La Liga said:
don't get the impression they spoke, mainly because of what they said at the Select Committee. I imagine the last thing SYP wanted were complaints against someone high profile like Cliff Richard given all the issues were / have been juggling, let alone the BBC approaching them and 'forcing' them to make such decisions.
Er... would that be the same select committee that the splendidly believable Vaz was on? And so far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion that the BBC made an approach to the police and doubt they could exert any force if they had. That's... sort of... counter-intuitive. Unless, of course, you know better!Thorodin said:
La Liga said:
don't get the impression they spoke, mainly because of what they said at the Select Committee. I imagine the last thing SYP wanted were complaints against someone high profile like Cliff Richard given all the issues were / have been juggling, let alone the BBC approaching them and 'forcing' them to make such decisions.
Er... would that be the same select committee that the splendidly believable Vaz was on? And so far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion that the BBC made an approach to the police and doubt they could exert any force if they had. That's... sort of... counter-intuitive. Unless, of course, you know better!Well Cliff has just won one battle in his court case with the BBC. Judge has ordered the BBC to reveal something about their sources. He has asked for the BBC to reveal whether their source came from someone within Opn Yew tree or someone who got information from Yewtree. Judge has ruled that his rights to a fair trial overrule BBC's right to protect sources. Good.
FiF said:
Well Cliff has just won one battle in his court case with the BBC. Judge has ordered the BBC to reveal something about their sources. He has asked for the BBC to reveal whether their source came from someone within Opn Yew tree or someone who got information from Yewtree. Judge has ruled that his rights to a fair trial overrule BBC's right to protect sources. Good.
Indeed. Someone about to get a roasting here.Cant see any news on the beeb site about this but sky have live reporting
https://news.sky.com/story/live-sir-cliff-richard-...
Apparantly Yorkshire police very unhappy about the pressure they were under from the Beeb and particularly the Beeb helicopter
https://news.sky.com/story/live-sir-cliff-richard-...
Apparantly Yorkshire police very unhappy about the pressure they were under from the Beeb and particularly the Beeb helicopter
saaby93 said:
Cant see any news on the beeb site about this but sky have live reporting
https://news.sky.com/story/live-sir-cliff-richard-...
Apparantly Yorkshire police very unhappy about the pressure they were under from the Beeb and particularly the Beeb helicopter
BBC version here:https://news.sky.com/story/live-sir-cliff-richard-...
Apparantly Yorkshire police very unhappy about the pressure they were under from the Beeb and particularly the Beeb helicopter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43783971
Seems to me the only person that comes out of this unsullied and perfectly proper is Cliff Richard. If, as I think he should, he comes out of it with a huge sum (spent millions on advice) the irony is of course the public pays yet again from taxation from one source or another. Why are these people in charge of the organisations so blasé with public funds? And how the hell do they keep their jobs?
Thorodin said:
Why are these people in charge of the organisations so blasé with public funds?
Because they are never personally accountable for their actions and will never suffer any form of consequence. A recent conversation on this subject had various plod here explain how it would be a terrible idea to blame people when they've made an almighty cock-up.It's 'only' £400k and it's not as if they ever claim a shortage of resources.
Thorodin said:
And how the hell do they keep their jobs?
Because those who are in a position to judge them don't want a precedent where they themselves might be held accountable for their actions. Sack incompetents? The public sector would be decimated.A much easier solution is to proclaim that lessons will be learned and then carry on pretty much as before, possibly with promotions when the furore has died down..
Thorodin said:
Seems to me the only person that comes out of this unsullied and perfectly proper is Cliff Richard. If, as I think he should, he comes out of it with a huge sum (spent millions on advice) the irony is of course the public pays yet again from taxation from one source or another. Why are these people in charge of the organisations so blasé with public funds? And how the hell do they keep their jobs?
I agree entirely on all points.Doesnt it sound as if south yorkshire police were getting so much bad publicity that when this one landed on their plate, they tried too much to placate whatever the Beeb wanted.
Then when it went pear shaped they paid out £400k just to get it out of the way quickly
Who was the mole in Yewtree feeding the Beeb with celebrities due for a witch hunt?
Then when it went pear shaped they paid out £400k just to get it out of the way quickly
Who was the mole in Yewtree feeding the Beeb with celebrities due for a witch hunt?
Thorodin said:
Why are these people in charge of the organisations so blasé with public funds? And how the hell do they keep their jobs?
Why would they not keep their jobs? Senior managers make thousands of decisions that carry the risk of civil action. Especially in a 'business' like the police.
"Actions that seemed prudent in foresight can look irresponsibly negligent in hindsight" - Kahneman
Regarding pensions - the senior officer in question completed his full service.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff