Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Other aspects do however continue to provoke speculation. For a start, the vexed question of what 'facts' have emerged. None, apparently. Evidence was given and people questioned as 'witnesses' but witnesses to what? Did any 'witnesses' give their account of the original allegation? The case was only concerned with the BBC coverage in relation to the search and the involvement of the police for which they have paid compensation. Certainly nothing of the original allegation was examined because he wasn't charged with that. So nothing has been learned about that. Another aspect is the warrant. I would have thought the police would have obtained a search warrant through a magistrate in the normal way. Why go to the CPS? That seems irregular.
It seems probable that the police, under all the circumstances around this, will have sifted the available evidence and found nothing to support the allegation, hence no charges. Reasonable to expect them to dig quite deeply as well, given the bad publicity for them.
It seems probable that the police, under all the circumstances around this, will have sifted the available evidence and found nothing to support the allegation, hence no charges. Reasonable to expect them to dig quite deeply as well, given the bad publicity for them.
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 22 July 18:02
Thorodin said:
Other aspects do however continue to provoke speculation. For a start, the vexed question of what 'facts' have emerged. None, apparently. Evidence was given and people questioned as 'witnesses' but witnesses to what? Did any 'witnesses' give their account of the original allegation? The case was only concerned with the BBC coverage in relation to the search and the involvement of the police for which they have paid compensation. Certainly nothing of the original allegation was examined because he wasn't charged with that. So nothing has been learned about that. Another aspect is the warrant. I would have thought the police would have obtained a search warrant through a magistrate in the normal way. Why go to the CPS? That seems irregular.
It seems probable that the police, under all the circumstances around this, will have sifted the available evidence and found nothing to support the allegation, hence no charges. Reasonable to expect them to dig quite deeply as well, given the bad publicity for them.
has whoever has done the alleging somehow retained their anonimity?It seems probable that the police, under all the circumstances around this, will have sifted the available evidence and found nothing to support the allegation, hence no charges. Reasonable to expect them to dig quite deeply as well, given the bad publicity for them.
Why havent the press tried to publish more
I'm waiting for someone to say aleebeee
BBC controllers and management agree to pay £850k
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548
Are they having a quick whip round?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548
Are they having a quick whip round?
saaby93 said:
BBC controllers and management agree to pay £850k
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548
Are they having a quick whip round?
"Due to the unique way the BBC is funded..."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548
Are they having a quick whip round?
So assuming the BBC legal costs are anywhere near Sir Cliff Richard's legal costs, that's the thick end of £2 million this little escapade (I mean ground breaking piece of investigative reporting) has cost, by the time you factor in the helicopter hire and the bung to their man at SYP.
No wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
No wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
Camoradi said:
So assuming the BBC legal costs are anywhere near Sir Cliff Richard's legal costs, that's the thick end of £2 million this little escapade (I mean ground breaking piece of investigative reporting) has cost, by the time you factor in the helicopter hire and the bung to their man at SYP.
No wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
makes you wonder if the guy making the allegations was in any way funded by those hoping to publish a good storyNo wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
Camoradi said:
So assuming the BBC legal costs are anywhere near Sir Cliff Richard's legal costs, that's the thick end of £2 million this little escapade (I mean ground breaking piece of investigative reporting) has cost, by the time you factor in the helicopter hire and the bung to their man at SYP.
No wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
According to the bbc news report Cliff spent more than £3m on this so it will be a lot more than that for both of them! Scary.No wonder they can't afford to pay their female presenters a decent wage.
Halmyre said:
Hell hath no fury like an ageing pop star whose records don't get played on the BBC any more.
So, did Cliff start all of this, arrange for the police to raid his home and having to deal with the subsequent fallout, irrespective of innocence for the rest of his life, just to have a pop at the BBC.How does that work?
Europa1 said:
Cold said:
A judge has refused to give BBC bosses the go-ahead to take their privacy fight to the Court of Appeal.
Was that the judge that delivered the original verdict? If so, that was, as I understand it, expected.Thr Beeb now has to think about going to the Court of Appeal
saaby93 said:
Europa1 said:
Cold said:
A judge has refused to give BBC bosses the go-ahead to take their privacy fight to the Court of Appeal.
Was that the judge that delivered the original verdict? If so, that was, as I understand it, expected.Thr Beeb now has to think about going to the Court of Appeal
He comes up with new laws that are at best controversial and he has the cheek to stop it being questioned.
I would assume that the BBC would seek help from others to push this forward.
In the news recently we had a report of an MP, a whip no less, who'd appeared in court charged with an offence which would, if proved, most likely earn her a term of imprisonment, and we heard nothing until the need for her to vote was ended.And this judge seemingly wants more restrictions and less chance to challenge it.
Derek Smith said:
The judge has invented a new law, well laws actually. He's restricted press freedom to a massive extent. Remember that our press is more regulated than most sensible countries in Europe, with more restrictions pending. This judge seems to think we should go further down that path.
He comes up with new laws that are at best controversial and he has the cheek to stop it being questioned.
I would assume that the BBC would seek help from others to push this forward.
In the news recently we had a report of an MP, a whip no less, who'd appeared in court charged with an offence which would, if proved, most likely earn her a term of imprisonment, and we heard nothing until the need for her to vote was ended.And this judge seemingly wants more restrictions and less chance to challenge it.
Which laws, have been invented?He comes up with new laws that are at best controversial and he has the cheek to stop it being questioned.
I would assume that the BBC would seek help from others to push this forward.
In the news recently we had a report of an MP, a whip no less, who'd appeared in court charged with an offence which would, if proved, most likely earn her a term of imprisonment, and we heard nothing until the need for her to vote was ended.And this judge seemingly wants more restrictions and less chance to challenge it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff