Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
La Liga said:
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
Quite right- everyone involved should get a promotion & a slot on the New Year's Honours list. It's not as if they hounded an innocent man & colluded with a news organisation to do so as a full public exhibition.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
Bravo to all concerned.
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?
Agreed - and an appalling episode in the life of the BBC.La Liga said:
hy 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.
No disrespect intended, you are about the only lawyer I have any respect for, that is a typical lawyer answer!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.
1. Thousands of decisions are relatively minor by comparison with this one and carry little or no risk of being challenged let alone sanctioned.
2. This decision could never in any circumstances be seen as prudent. Irresponsibly negligent? Deliberate wrongdoing.
3. Completed full service? So what? If you, I assume, or I broke basic ethical duties on such a damaging scale we would be summarily dismissed.
This is not mob rule, far from it. It is for a reasonable expectation of honourable people to do their extremely highly paid and protected jobs.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
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
Quite right- everyone involved should get a promotion & a slot on the New Year's Honours list. It's not as if they hounded an innocent man & colluded with a news organisation to do so as a full public exhibition.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
Bravo to all concerned.
Thorodin said:
No disrespect intended, you are about the only lawyer I have any respect for, that is a typical lawyer answer!
1. Thousands of decisions are relatively minor by comparison with this one and carry little or no risk of being challenged let alone sanctioned.
2. This decision could never in any circumstances be seen as prudent. Irresponsibly negligent? Deliberate wrongdoing.
3. Completed full service? So what? If you, I assume, or I broke basic ethical duties on such a damaging scale we would be summarily dismissed.
This is not mob rule, far from it. It is for a reasonable expectation of honourable people to do their extremely highly paid and protected jobs.
You've upgraded my legal status! 1. Thousands of decisions are relatively minor by comparison with this one and carry little or no risk of being challenged let alone sanctioned.
2. This decision could never in any circumstances be seen as prudent. Irresponsibly negligent? Deliberate wrongdoing.
3. Completed full service? So what? If you, I assume, or I broke basic ethical duties on such a damaging scale we would be summarily dismissed.
This is not mob rule, far from it. It is for a reasonable expectation of honourable people to do their extremely highly paid and protected jobs.
Point 3 was only relevant to any 'early retirement' comments.
I think motive and intention are very important to consider when judging conduct. From what I read from Fenwick (his statement and the coverage), his intentions were to protect the investigation. A not unexpected mindset for the police.
Even with those things in mind, even well-intentioned conduct can fall so far below the expected standard that it amounts to formal misconduct. Gross misconduct if we're talking dismissing people. I don't see any mention or consideration of misconduct from the police and IPCC. This doesn't surprise me as I don't think the decisions get near that from a legal point of view, but I'd suggest it's a strong indication. The problem with policing decisions is the outcomes tend to be vivid and impactive upon people. Most businesses won't have 'relatively minor' judgements ending up at the High Court.
The irony of the matter is the police appear to be at the root cause of the matter, regardless of the BBC's involvement. It appears there's a good chance the source of the information to the BBC reporter was a police source within Operation Yewtree.
If that's the case, then that would be a case of gross misconduct where we should be talking about someone being dismissed.
Mojooo said:
I suspect the SYP Police were somewhat concerned with the BBC totally f
king up their very expensive investigation. Of course the BBC had them over a barrel.
Given that the BBC does not need click-bait or celeb stories to fund its self, it should act with a bit more professionalism. I should not be forced to pay for a service that threatens a police investigation so it can get the dirt on what turns out to be an innocent person.king up their very expensive investigation. Of course the BBC had them over a barrel.boyse7en said:
The Police always hound innocent men (and women) as they are all innocent until found guilty.
They don't always have a huge BBC crew in attendance, do they? They could just as easily have quietly driven up to the door & said "Hello, sir- we have a warrant to search for xxxxxx, please stand aside while we do so" rather than the media frenzy.Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 17th April 16:58
Rovinghawk said:
They don't always have a huge BBC crew in attendance, do they? They could just as easily have quietly driven up to the door & said "Hello, sir- we have a warrant to search for xxxxxx, please stand aside while we do so" rather than the media frenzy.
But where's the showboating in that? Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 17th April 16:58
I believe that the BEEB got carried away with the whole ‘trial by public opinion’ thing. Cast aspersions about any public figure, the great unwashed are whipped into a frenzy, ttter goes into meltdown & they get hung drawn & quartered, as in other cases.
However this time they got found out, hopefully they will get a good kicking.
tter goes into meltdown & they get hung drawn & quartered, as in other cases.However this time they got found out, hopefully they will get a good kicking.
The Mad Monk said:
Why doesn't Sir Cliff attend court with one of his male friends?
Why is it always Gloria Hunnithing?
Why shouldn't it be?Why is it always Gloria Hunnithing?
I wonder how many time she has been referred to as his "celeb pal" in the tabloids?
I also wonder if we will see the usual interview with Cliff during the BBC's WImbledon coverage this year.
Europa1 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Where did the taxpayer spend £400k?
South Yorkshire Police paid £400k to settle out of Court with Sir Cliff Richard. How do you think things like the Police are funded?Home Office
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or the Welsh Assembly Government
Police precept component of local council tax
The Mad Monk said:
Europa1 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Where did the taxpayer spend £400k?
South Yorkshire Police paid £400k to settle out of Court with Sir Cliff Richard. How do you think things like the Police are funded?Home Office
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or the Welsh Assembly Government
Police precept component of local council tax
The Mad Monk said:
Thorodin said:
that's an unexpectedly Nelsonic one-eyed biased post,
You stand accused of tautology!How do you plead?
Rovinghawk said:
The Mad Monk said:
Europa1 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Where did the taxpayer spend £400k?
South Yorkshire Police paid £400k to settle out of Court with Sir Cliff Richard. How do you think things like the Police are funded?Home Office
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or the Welsh Assembly Government
Police precept component of local council tax
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff