Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

BBC potential appeal re Cliff Richard

177 replies

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 18/07/2018 11:07

Aibu to think that the BBC, having had their arses handed to them this morning, have no business considering appeal against the judgement?
I don't agree with them spending even more of our money justifying their appallong behaviour.

OP posts:
Heyeeee · 18/07/2018 11:08

I agree. 100 per cent.

Mousefunky · 18/07/2018 11:09

I hope they don’t appeal. Poor Cliff looked knackered.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 18/07/2018 11:16

Their statement just sounds so arrogant. They seem not to care that they have helped to ruin an innocent man's life, cost him thousands in legal bills to try and restore his reputation, while their own cost are covered by our money. Having lost, they still seem to think it's okay to piss even more of our cash up the wall, so they can continue to do as they please.

Is there no one that the BBC has to answer to?

OP posts:
Heyeeee · 18/07/2018 11:28

Is there no one that the BBC has to answer to?

No*.

It was shocking what the Police and the BBC did to Cliff Richard. Absolutely shocking.

*See my thread on Eastenders.

FiveShelties · 18/07/2018 11:31

I agree - it was a dreadful thing to do. The BBC answers to no-one, I listen to Feedback on Radio 4 and the number of times they get someone on to answer listener's complaints, who then say they do not think there is an issue is amazing.

threecee · 18/07/2018 11:37

I never understood why the BBC thought that was a normal thing to do! Although why the Police felt they needed to do a dawn raid when he hadn't been charged with anything (and still hasn't) was also a mystery.

worridmum · 18/07/2018 11:47

Sadly even on here Cliff Richards name is still mud has a sizeable portion of the user base believes no smoke without fire.

This sort of shit is why their is a growing movement to give people accused of hideous crimes more protection until they are convicted.

PaulRuddislush · 18/07/2018 11:49

You're talking about a corporation we've since discovered was awash with sex offenders in the 70s and 80s and who even after Saviles death still tried to cover up.
Hypocritical, arrogant and entitled in the extreme. With having no sponsors to answer to they think they can get away with anything.

MaiaRindell · 18/07/2018 11:53

I work for the BBC and the man who was in charge of news output that day. There is a very off atmosphere in here. We're all wondering if he'll be held accountable.

BonnieF · 18/07/2018 12:07

The BBC is behaving disgracefully and with appalling arrogance. How the hell have Fran Unsworth & Tony Hall still got jobs today?

ForalltheSaints · 18/07/2018 12:07

South Yorkshire Police are the most culpable over this in my opinion, though the BBC not without blame. Coincidentally publicity over this during the Hillsborough inquests when South Yorkshire Police were under the microscope.

A proper Parliament made law on privacy of accused or those being investigated is long overdue.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 18/07/2018 12:29

Yes. I am very concerned that thr police consider it okay to tip off the media when they have dealings with a celebrity.

I'm thinking the govt needs to step in and tell the BBC that they will not be appealing, unless the people responsible would like to use their own money!

Are we still in favour of public finding for the BBC, since they cannot be trusted to spend it wisely and are not accountable to anyone? I'm having my doubts.

Cliff Richard fortunately had the funds to get justice, but what about everyone else who could find themselves in his position!

OP posts:
Curtainshopping · 18/07/2018 12:34

I am a big supporter of the BBC but they were bang out of order here. They should not appeal.

I’m also concerned that as the BBC are one of those organisations that people love to criticise, people will go for that and overlook the culpability of the police here. They are equally to blame and should be held up a higher standard than the BBC.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 18/07/2018 12:48

Absolutely agree that the behaviour of the police was worse and shouldn't be forgotten. But to defend them slightly, they have apologised to CR and paid damages and have not come out of this still banging on about their right to continue doing as they please (and with our money). Unlike the BBC.
That apology probably means something to Sir Cliff.

OP posts:
RedDogsBeg · 18/07/2018 12:54

MaiaRindell I hope he is held accountable. The BBC knew full well what they did that day was wrong but so desperate are they to take down a high profile celebrity in order to deflect the outrage against them over Jimmy Saville they did it anyway.

What they did could reasonably be considered as prejudicial to a fair trial if it had ever gone that far.

No way should License Payers money be used to fund an appeal, if they want to appeal they should crowd fund for it.

West Yorkshire Police behaved despicably, have admitted it and already settled with Cliff Richards.

I have no sympathy for either WYP or the BBC both behaved appallingly.

Backstabbath · 18/07/2018 13:04

£600k out of the public purse going to cliff Richard. Hope he gives it to charity, he hardly needs it.

SassitudeandSparkle · 18/07/2018 13:05

I don't see that the BBC have a leg to stand on. He hadn't been arrested or charged (or, let's face it, even spoken to by the Police at that point yet had to watch police searching through his home) so they should pay up and back off.

I don't think it does affect the principles of reporting either.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 18/07/2018 13:07

I think he should not be out of pocket at the end of this. I dread to think what his legal costs were. Not his fault the BBC is funded by the public and seemingly has free reign to behave like this.

OP posts:
RedDogsBeg · 18/07/2018 13:17

It is irrelevant whether or not he needs the money Backstabbath. Cliff Richards did not cause this, he is not responsible for WYP and the BBC's misuse of public funds.

BlueBug45 · 18/07/2018 13:25

The BBC are acting like some NHS trusts, police forces and LA I know who instead of settling drag a legal case out as long as possible because they can't believe they have done wrong and it's not their money.

Anyone making a legal case against a company/organisation should always name the person in charge as a co-defendant. In some cases they are then made personally liable for a percentage of the award.

Eliza9917 · 18/07/2018 14:35

@MaiaRindell Wed 18-Jul-18 11:53:21
I work for the BBC and the man who was in charge of news output that day. There is a very off atmosphere in here. We're all wondering if he'll be held accountable

Why isn't he in prison with Tommy Robinson? If what TR did warrants locking him up, then surely the same should stand for your boss.

MaiaRindell · 18/07/2018 15:34

@Eliza9917 Because there weren't reporting restrictions on this, he couldn't be held in contempt of court and the reporting wouldn't jeopardise a trail. These were the charges against Tommy Robinson.
The police informed the BBC of the raids and they covered it.

I am not defending anyone here. Just relaying the situation. No one here knows what will happen in the future.

DGRossetti · 18/07/2018 15:38

Just read the initial thoughts of a lawyer who's read the judgement ... apparently the BBC reporter and staff tried to mislead the court, and were roundly slapped down by the judge. Bet they leave that bit out of their "outrage".

RedDogsBeg · 18/07/2018 15:47

I disagree that the reporting of the raid on CR's house wouldn't prejudice or jeopardise a trial. Furthermore, CR had not been spoken to, arrested or charged and therefore saying there were no reporting restrictions is a pretty lame response as reporting restrictions couldn't be applied for in the circumstances.

Both the BBC and the Police acted very, very, badly and both knew exactly what they were doing was wrong and why. Both organisations are so desperate to fling dirt at someone else to deflect from their own reprehensible failings and cover ups relating to sexual abuse and abusers.

billysboy · 18/07/2018 15:48

Not only will the taxpayer bear the cost of the fine but also the lawyers costs etc I bet it is a fair few quid , but the arrogant fuckers at the bbc will just harp on about freedom of speech etc
And no one will be held accountable or fired