Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
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.
Europe sure does a good line in sensible countries 
you should do standup...Derek Smith said:
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.
At the moment they're allegations and the news didnt appear until charges were made.
The Judge may have invented law due to the way the Beeb handled this saga
It probably does need to go to appeal to help draw up some lines that may or may not be crossed in future
saaby93 said:
as the MP story been held back as a result of his case?
At the moment they're allegations and the news didnt appear until charges were made.
The Judge may have invented law due to the way the Beeb handled this saga
It probably does need to go to appeal to help draw up some lines that may or may not be crossed in future
The media now has little or no contact with the police. We, that's the public, are not receiving the information we did even 10 years ago. The erosion of the ability of the press to hold people to account is something we should all be concerned about.At the moment they're allegations and the news didnt appear until charges were made.
The Judge may have invented law due to the way the Beeb handled this saga
It probably does need to go to appeal to help draw up some lines that may or may not be crossed in future
The fact that it was someone famous obscures the leap forward in restrictive laws that this single judge has decided is best for us. He should not have refused leave to appeal in circumstances where his decision changes the law to that extent.
25 years ago Brighton had a journalist walking through the nick, able to see what's going on. Now the PR part of forces gives no information.
There are no real local papers so no budding journos sit in courts and peruse lists to see what's happening. The police are frightened to give out information, and for good reason as we can see in this case.
If the BBC were putting a helicopter up every time a police force went to investigate a crime of this type, I would be more convinced on the freedom of the press angle which they are pursuing, but they don't pursue and report all cases of alleged child sex abuse in the way they did this one. In fact in many genuine cases of child sex abuse the BBC have been quite reticent in reporting it. I think this case was singled out for special treatment because Cliff Richard is famous
If a child is or has been abused then this is a terrible thing and should be reported, but not more so because the alleged perpetrator is famous. Is a child abused by a famous person more deserving of justice than a child abused by an unknown?
If a child is or has been abused then this is a terrible thing and should be reported, but not more so because the alleged perpetrator is famous. Is a child abused by a famous person more deserving of justice than a child abused by an unknown?
Camoradi said:
If the BBC were putting a helicopter up every time a police force went to investigate a crime of this type, I would be more convinced on the freedom of the press angle which they are pursuing, but they don't pursue and report all cases of alleged child sex abuse in the way they did this one. In fact in many genuine cases of child sex abuse the BBC have been quite reticent in reporting it. I think this case was singled out for special treatment because Cliff Richard is famous
If a child is or has been abused then this is a terrible thing and should be reported, but not more so because the alleged perpetrator is famous. Is a child abused by a famous person more deserving of justice than a child abused by an unknown?
That's not what the argument is. Read The Times. It's got two bits on it today, one the 3rd leader. I think it covers the salient points.If a child is or has been abused then this is a terrible thing and should be reported, but not more so because the alleged perpetrator is famous. Is a child abused by a famous person more deserving of justice than a child abused by an unknown?
The BBC was heavily criticised for not dealing with unproved child abuse reports, and quite rightly. It seems now that the judge would have preferred things to stay that way.
As I understand this, it is a case of the judge who first hears the case, and then pronounces judgement, being within the rules to decline to review his own judgement. It is then able to be reviewed and appealed in the normal way. There have apparently been no laws invented or sidestepped. But of course I am not a lawyer, and have no specific legal training giving me authority of opinion. I am however open to correction by a suitably qualified lawyer and indeed would be grateful for it.
Thorodin said:
As I understand this, it is a case of the judge who first hears the case, and then pronounces judgement, being within the rules to decline to review his own judgement. It is then able to be reviewed and appealed in the normal way. There have apparently been no laws invented or sidestepped. But of course I am not a lawyer, and have no specific legal training giving me authority of opinion. I am however open to correction by a suitably qualified lawyer and indeed would be grateful for it.
Exactly my thought. I've spoken to a lawyer and a journalist. It is clear that new law has been invented. The Times has no doubt. Now, after researching, neither do I. I talked this through with a news journalist and a lawyer. There are new restrictions and fundamental changes to what journos can report. Derek Smith said:
Exactly my thought. I've spoken to a lawyer and a journalist. It is clear that new law has been invented. The Times has no doubt. Now, after researching, neither do I. I talked this through with a news journalist and a lawyer. There are new restrictions and fundamental changes to what journos can report.
There's no argument about what journalists and commentators can report. That is not what the thrust of the action was about. Care is needed to ensure carefully set traps of lawyerly diversion shifting emphasis are kept on a leash. It was the invasion of privacy and the methods used and the collusion with police. Maybe timing of exposure in the offing. A narrow focus, maybe, but totally relevant purposely so, so that glib tongue cannot divert and ensuring specific issues are examined. Enough money invested in the possibility of loss to prove a grievance needs addressing. That's forensic at work. Still awaited: what laws have been invented, which ones broken or avoided. The very fact that those words can be said in public destroys the over-anxious and perhaps partisan screams about freedoms being abused and lost. Edited by Thorodin on Friday 27th July 18:46
Derek Smith said:
eldar said:
Which laws, have been invented?
Do you honestly not understand?He passed judgement in this case, on the circumstances and quite rightly so in the eyes of very many.
How can it be right to name someone with the clear and obvious damage that’s done, when there isn’t even enough evidence to decide whether that person should be charged? That doesn’t even consider the prime motive in this case which was the search for sensationalism and a scoop.
It’s been suggested that naming should wait until the person’s charged. I’ve heard no serious argument against that. In fact the only argument I’ve heard is that naming someone gives others the chance to come forward but that opportunity is still there at the point of charging.
By all means let the police investigate, enter homes in search of evidence etc. But do it quietly until there is some evidence.
As for freedom of the press; if the f
kwits who are so keen to push this are that committed let them do it with their own money, not the licence fee payers’. REALIST123 said:
No law has been invented. You should know better.
He passed judgement in this case, on the circumstances and quite rightly so in the eyes of very many.
How can it be right to name someone with the clear and obvious damage that’s done, when there isn’t even enough evidence to decide whether that person should be charged? That doesn’t even consider the prime motive in this case which was the search for sensationalism and a scoop.
It’s been suggested that naming should wait until the person’s charged. I’ve heard no serious argument against that. In fact the only argument I’ve heard is that naming someone gives others the chance to come forward but that opportunity is still there at the point of charging.
By all means let the police investigate, enter homes in search of evidence etc. But do it quietly until there is some evidence.
As for freedom of the press; if the fkwits who are so keen to push this are that committed let them do it with their own money, not the licence fee payers’.
I don't know better. That's why I sought the views of those who know better.He passed judgement in this case, on the circumstances and quite rightly so in the eyes of very many.
How can it be right to name someone with the clear and obvious damage that’s done, when there isn’t even enough evidence to decide whether that person should be charged? That doesn’t even consider the prime motive in this case which was the search for sensationalism and a scoop.
It’s been suggested that naming should wait until the person’s charged. I’ve heard no serious argument against that. In fact the only argument I’ve heard is that naming someone gives others the chance to come forward but that opportunity is still there at the point of charging.
By all means let the police investigate, enter homes in search of evidence etc. But do it quietly until there is some evidence.
As for freedom of the press; if the f
kwits who are so keen to push this are that committed let them do it with their own money, not the licence fee payers’. You suggest his decision is 'right in the eyes of many.' The guy should be making a decision that is right in the eyes of the law.
You suggest there's something wrong with going for a scoop. I'm not sure what that's got to do with it.
You totally miss the point of the media.
There are four parts to the safeguard of democracy in this country. The most important part is the fourth estate as if it was not there, we could be told lies on lies. You can see that in left wing and right wing countries where where the first move is to stifle the press. You can now see it in the UK, with the government putting restriction after restriction on the freedom of the press.
You seem to want the police to enter homes and stop the press reporting on it. You seem to be of the same mind as the judge: stop the populace knowing. Best way, I think, to keep them down.
The rather silly dig about the BBC can be dismissed but that's not for this thread.
The freedom of our right to know is being eroded year on you don't seem to care. Look beyond the nice Mr Richard and see what is happening. Or, better still, read about the problems the press currently had, made worse by this decision. It's in The Times. Ask a lawyer what the implications are of this decision and then, perhaps, you will know better.
This is a serious matter. It has little to do with Richard. It has more to do with you.
Do please address the questions that are put to the accusation about a judge ignoring settled law and inventing his own. To seek refuge in an irrelevant diversion is less than creditable. Alternatively, have the sense to withdraw a baseless allegation. To bluster about politics is foolish nonsense.
Europa1 said:
On this case, the BBC do seem to have confused themselves between "public interest" and "interesting to the public".
If another poster has the right angle on this, it may be that the judge has done the same from the other endCase law adjusts the limits of laws and the territory covered - call it inventing the law if you like.
If the Beeb covered too much of what might be interesting to the public rather than just public interest
It may be that the law has now shifted to cover not ony the interesting to the public but some public interest too.
it looks like it needs another round of testing
Derek Smith said:
REALIST123 said:
No law has been invented. You should know better.
He passed judgement in this case, on the circumstances and quite rightly so in the eyes of very many.
How can it be right to name someone with the clear and obvious damage that’s done, when there isn’t even enough evidence to decide whether that person should be charged? That doesn’t even consider the prime motive in this case which was the search for sensationalism and a scoop.
It’s been suggested that naming should wait until the person’s charged. I’ve heard no serious argument against that. In fact the only argument I’ve heard is that naming someone gives others the chance to come forward but that opportunity is still there at the point of charging.
By all means let the police investigate, enter homes in search of evidence etc. But do it quietly until there is some evidence.
As for freedom of the press; if the fkwits who are so keen to push this are that committed let them do it with their own money, not the licence fee payers’.
I don't know better. That's why I sought the views of those who know better.He passed judgement in this case, on the circumstances and quite rightly so in the eyes of very many.
How can it be right to name someone with the clear and obvious damage that’s done, when there isn’t even enough evidence to decide whether that person should be charged? That doesn’t even consider the prime motive in this case which was the search for sensationalism and a scoop.
It’s been suggested that naming should wait until the person’s charged. I’ve heard no serious argument against that. In fact the only argument I’ve heard is that naming someone gives others the chance to come forward but that opportunity is still there at the point of charging.
By all means let the police investigate, enter homes in search of evidence etc. But do it quietly until there is some evidence.
As for freedom of the press; if the f
kwits who are so keen to push this are that committed let them do it with their own money, not the licence fee payers’. You suggest his decision is 'right in the eyes of many.' The guy should be making a decision that is right in the eyes of the law.
You suggest there's something wrong with going for a scoop. I'm not sure what that's got to do with it.
You totally miss the point of the media.
There are four parts to the safeguard of democracy in this country. The most important part is the fourth estate as if it was not there, we could be told lies on lies. You can see that in left wing and right wing countries where where the first move is to stifle the press. You can now see it in the UK, with the government putting restriction after restriction on the freedom of the press.
You seem to want the police to enter homes and stop the press reporting on it. You seem to be of the same mind as the judge: stop the populace knowing. Best way, I think, to keep them down.
The rather silly dig about the BBC can be dismissed but that's not for this thread.
The freedom of our right to know is being eroded year on you don't seem to care. Look beyond the nice Mr Richard and see what is happening. Or, better still, read about the problems the press currently had, made worse by this decision. It's in The Times. Ask a lawyer what the implications are of this decision and then, perhaps, you will know better.
This is a serious matter. It has little to do with Richard. It has more to do with you.
I personally would not want my friends, neighbour's and employers to know if the police were looking into an accusation against me, especially if it was wholly untrue. I certainly wouldn't want pictures of my house being raided to be all over the press. I'd be especially unhappy if it was the police that invited the media a long.
This had nothing to do with public interest. It had everything to do with celeb headlines. If it wasn't the case then the BBC would be reporting every sex case investigation with the same enthusiasm.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff