Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 10:37

Jimmy Saville is innocent then?

In criminal law, yes. Hopefully we gave up trying dead people a while ago. (Gets a bit messy, if they're not fully decomposed. Oliver Cromwell springs to mind).

DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 10:40

I'm afraid Cliff Richard lost any sympathy I may have had for him when he said that he'd rather ten guilty people "get away with it" than one innocent person suffer like he had.

He was merely restating one of the supposed golden threads (thanks, Rumpole Grin) of English Law, if a tad clumsily.

Do you work for the Home Office? They appear to have a mania for innocent people on the basis they might go on to do something in the future.

DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 11:51

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548

The BBC has agreed to pay Sir Cliff Richard £850,000 within 14 days to cover his legal costs, following his privacy case against the corporation.

(contd)

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 12:14

There must be legal considerations that allow this appeal

At this stage all we can say is that the BBC thinks it has a case. The BBC has to convince the Court of Appeal that there is an arguable case that the judge interpreted the law incorrectly. If they don't they won't be allowed to appeal. Even if they are allowed to appeal that still doesn't mean the judge got the law wrong, just that the BBC may be able to make a case that he was wrong. Their statement isn't entirely clear but half suggests they want to row back on some things their lawyers accepted in court. If they try that it is unlikely to go well for them.

He was merely restating one of the supposed golden threads (thanks, Rumpole ) of English Law

Exactly. The state has far more resources than the defendant so the accused is at a disadvantage. Unless we stick to the "better that 10 guilty men go free" approach we will convict more innocent people than we do at the moment (and we already convict too many innocent people). If innocence is no protection against punishment, why bother obeying the law?

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 13:27

Just to add some statistics, despite the "better that 10 guilty men go free" approach, in an average week our criminal courts pass guilty verdicts against at least 80 innocent people. That is just the cases where the conviction is subsequently overturned. The true figure is probably much higher.

DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 13:46

To say nothing of people accepting cautions out of fear or ignorance ...

Fairyoriginal · 26/07/2018 13:49

If the BBC go ahead with an appeal I shall cancel my TV licence. They're not having my money to prop up their lack of judgement.

actualpuffins · 26/07/2018 14:03

Good on the BBC for taking it on. The case may make new law and I think it is important to establish where the limits of reporting fall.

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 16:01

The case may make new law

Journalists would like you to believe that this case makes new law. It doesn't. The law has not changed. A suspect in a criminal investigation may have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Whether or not they do depends on the facts of the case. That has been the position for a number of years and was accepted by the BBC during the hearing in the High Court. The suspect's right to privacy has to be balanced against the right of the press to freedom of expression. The BBC believes their rights outweigh Sir Cliff's. The courts disagreed. From the judgement, the fundamental problem for the BBC is that it failed to make a case that releasing the information, which the police did not want released, was in the public interest.

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 16:33

The BBC now seems to have backed down a little. Their application for leave to appeal has been refused. If they want to appeal they will have to go to the Court of Appeal to apply for leave. Having said this morning that they were appealing, they now say they haven't decided and they were applying for leave to keep their options open.

lola212121 · 26/07/2018 16:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 26/07/2018 16:46

I do lola since he has never been arrested, let alone charged. But your comment beautifully illustrates how mud sticks and the fact that CR will have to deal with damage to his reputation for the rest if his life due to how the police and BBC conducted themselves.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 16:47

Who actually believes cliff is innocent ?

Well, if people don't maybe this isn't the place to discuss it ?

DGRossetti · 26/07/2018 16:49

CR will have to deal with damage to his reputation for the rest if his life

And beyond - an eternally besmirched reputation.

longwayoff · 26/07/2018 16:53

Iola agreed. This is not an appropriate subject for discussion. He has never been arrested or charged. Therefore he is innocent.

DannyDogg · 26/07/2018 16:54

A person is not innocent because they haven’t been charged, they are innocent because they didn’t actually commit a crime. Who knows what he has or hasn’t done

SPOFS · 26/07/2018 16:58

I don't understand how CR brought this case forward given that he isn't a British citizen? He gave up citizenship a few years ago.

GnotherGnu · 26/07/2018 16:59

To be fair, CR had an iffy reputation well before any of this happened.

Original poster
IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 26/07/2018 17:02

Who knows what he has or hasn’t done

The police, despite their best efforts have found nothing to indicate any wrongdoing. The court has upheld that he was very badly wronged by both the police and BBC. That's good enough for me.

OP posts:
GladAllOver · 26/07/2018 17:05

It appears there was no real evidence against him anyway. Just the uncorroborated accusations of one person. The police fishing trip against CR's premises found nothing at all.
Any comparison with the high profile cases where dozens of victims came forward is totally unjustified.

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 17:07

I don't understand how CR brought this case forward given that he isn't a British citizen

He is not a British resident but he is still a British citizen. Even if he wasn't, that would not preclude him from bringing a case here. The BBC is a British organisation which broadcasts in the UK. Anyone who feels agrieved by the BBC can bring a case against them in the UK courts regardless of citizenship.

To be fair, CR had an iffy reputation well before any of this happened

The "no smoke without fire" crowd again. There have always been those who have wanted to besmirch his reputation, leading to all kinds of rumours being spread. I have not seen anything to suggest that any of the rumours had any basis in fact. Some of the rumours I have heard managed to directly contradict each other.

GladAllOver · 26/07/2018 17:08

To be fair, CR had an iffy reputation well before any of this happened.

Here we go... "no smoke without fire!"
Be careful or you may need a lawyer yourself. You are NOT anonymous on here.

billysboy · 26/07/2018 17:11

who the fuck do the BBC think they represent , their news channel have got well above themselves , bit more concentration on normal programming please

Do they really think it is in the public interest to spend more of our money pursuing this , just move on !

Perhaps they could get rid of a few overpaid radio and tv presenters to fund this

HattieAndHerBoy · 26/07/2018 17:16

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

It doesnt matter that he may not need it. He's been through a horrendous experience and there's not enough money in the world to make up for it.

GladAllOver · 26/07/2018 17:44

I suspect that if the BBC were to sack the senior managers who made the wrong decisions and refuse to accept their mistakes, CR might even forego the money.

It would certainly be a better outcome all round.

Swipe left for the next trending thread