Topic: Max Clifford gets 8 years in jail & Add Now ROLF GUILTY

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I don't think people are thinking through the potential ramifications for the reporting of news.

Do we want to live in a society where the media is afraid to report the police investigating the activities of the rich & famous for fear of being sued?

The police applied for and were granted a warrant by a judge so there must have been reasonable grounds for the search. The CPS made the subsequent decision that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial.

There has been wholesale condemnation about how the allegations of claimed victims have not previously been taken seriously. Experts in the field of preventing child abuse have explained time and again that the publicising of the other Operation Yewtree arrests have encouraged other victims & witnesses to come forward, as they had previously believed they'd been the only victims/would not be taken seriously/etc. One of the psychological weapons an abuser uses to intimidate a victim is to say nobody will believe them, that they have no evidence.

This is complete nonsense. Nobody is suggesting that the media is not allowed to report criminal proceedings against celebrities. What they (and in particular the BBC) shouldn't be doing is colluding with the police to create sensationalized coverage of the police on their way to exercise a search warrant - not an arrest, let alone a charge, let alone even further a prosecution.

I'm normally a real supporter of the BBC but in this case their behaviour was reprehensible by the standards of any news organisation, let alone a public broadcaster. I hope they get taken to the cleaners.

[TepidT2O]

So, it’s ok to report it, but not to hire a helicopter to fly overhead?

[CraigDS]

The CEO of my wife’s company got fired for fraudulently claim $200k or so of expenses..

He earned over $8m a year....  it’s simple greed

What's this got to do with anything at all?

[TepidT2O]

What's this got to do with anything at all?

Oops wrong thread entirely!

[Nobby Reserve]

But my point was that, really, his wealth is irrelevant if he is wishing to right-a-wrong / repair his reputation. Your mentioning his wealth strongly implied that he is being greedy. I am suggesting (irrespective of the merits of the case), restoring his reputation is probably the stronger motivating factor. The fact that the amount he is claiming is chicken feed compared to his wealth only strengthens my argument. Or, do you think merely by virtue of his wealth that he should not (be able to) file such a suit?

Firstly, £600k is not a trivial sum. Without getting into the topic of how much the BBC pays certain individuals, the organisation is facing big cut-backs, and it's often behind-the-scenes staff and non-flagship activities that face the cuts.

If Richard's aim is merely a public apology and acknowledgement that the BBC overstepped their coverage, then why try to take from them a not inconsiderable sum of money?

I also think he'd have more sympathy (from the Court also?) if he was simply seeking a public apology and not also a small fortune to be added to his bigger fortune.

[CraigDS]

Firstly, £600k is not a trivial sum. Without getting into the topic of how much the BBC pays certain individuals, the organisation is facing big cut-backs, and it's often behind-the-scenes staff and non-flagship activities that face the cuts.

If Richard's aim is merely a public apology and acknowledgement that the BBC overstepped their coverage, then why try to take from them a not inconsiderable sum of money?

I also think he'd have more sympathy (from the Court also?) if he was simply seeking a public apology and not also a small fortune to be added to his bigger fortune.

Aye, an apology is likely to be great motivation for them, and others given this would set a legal precedent, to not do something like this again in the future.

[CheshireDave]

Firstly, £600k is not a trivial sum. Without getting into the topic of how much the BBC pays certain individuals, the organisation is facing big cut-backs, and it's often behind-the-scenes staff and non-flagship activities that face the cuts.

What the BBC pay their staff, what budget cuts they are facing and whether or not people will lose their job is completely irrelevant to this civil case.

[Nobby Reserve]

What the BBC pay their staff, what budget cuts they are facing and whether or not people will lose their job is completely irrelevant to this civil case.

My point is that it perhaps should steer Richard's thinking on the amount of money he is seeking.

I hope he loses (if that wasn't already obvious). The police raid on his house was news. All the case really comes down to is whether the BBC was too boisterous in its reporting. I don't want celebrities being able to decide how much coverage/priority news about them is given by TV channels.

[So… Howard Philips]

My point is that it perhaps should steer Richard's thinking on the amount of money he is seeking.

I hope he loses (if that wasn't already obvious). The police raid on his house was news. All the case really comes down to is whether the BBC was too boisterous in its reporting. I don't want celebrities being able to decide how much coverage/priority news about them is given by TV channels.

What concerns me is the "boisterous" reporting of "celebrities" offences. Report them by all means, within the legal boundaries. Helicopters overhead, Sun photographers on Harry Redknapp's roof, South Yorkshire Police bending over backwards to curry favour with the BBC, all seems a bit tasteless to me.

And "Sir" Cliff needs to stay away from hysterical, religious fanatics in future. If he had done so in the past these allegations wouldn't have been swirling around.

[Qston]

The Cliff Richard debate, or rather the implications of a judgment either way, is interesting. On the one hand it is self evident that the basic principle of "innocent before proven guilty" applies and that there is a strong argument for a level of privacy/anonymity and on the other the press being able to investigate a story properly, report it and make public information that helps police investigate cases. I believe that the second part of that statement is where the BBC fails in its argument. They went well over the top and their reporting will have caused him, and anyone in his position, a great deal of distress.

I don`t believe a finding in favour of Cliff Richard impinges on the press and their ability to report accurately, fairly and publish information that is helpful to the general public. I suspect that the judgment, if in favour of Cliff Richard, will provide some inference on certain legal 'tests' to be met when any publisher or TV company decides to report on any unproven allegations.

As for the damages, as others have said, my view is that it is irrelevant to the central debate. The money isn`t the issue for the claimant in this instance.

[Nobby Reserve]

The money isn`t the issue for the claimant in this instance.

So why has he set the amount he is claiming at that level, if the money isn't the issue?

[Qston]

So why has he set the amount he is claiming at that level, if the money isn't the issue?

To make a point. You aren`t going to pursue civil proceedings for 'nil'. There has probably been a method to the calculation done by his lawyers but I strongly suspect that all he wants out of it is an apology and the money represents a slap across the collective face of BBC executives who sanctioned it in the first place. Yes, ultimately it is the taxpayer that pays, but any compensation paid in any claim is ultimately paid for by the public whether through insurance premiums, local or national taxes.

[Red-Soldier]

How would you feel if you were tarnished with being a paedophile without even a single charge or arrest, and had the police searching your house shown live on national TV.

I wonder how that would sit with your mental health.

[Nobby Reserve]

How would you feel if you were tarnished with being a paedophile without even a single charge or arrest, and had the police searching your house shown live on national TV.

I wonder how that would sit with your mental health.

Who are you blaming then?

The police for following up numerous allegations of child abuse and raiding his house?

The BBC/wider media for reporting that a prominent public figure was having his house raided by police?

Or just the BBC for giving it too much coverage?


People are saying that the BBC need to face some sort of punishment. I'm interested in what people think they should be punished for.

[Qston]

Who are you blaming then?

The police for following up numerous allegations of child abuse and raiding his house?

The BBC/wider media for reporting that a prominent public figure was having his house raided by police?

Or just the BBC for giving it too much coverage?


People are saying that the BBC need to face some sort of punishment. I'm interested in what people think they should be punished for.

Well my view is that the coverage was sensationalist, didn`t reflect the fact that he hadn`t been charged with anything other than the occasional caveat which they always use, allegedly put pressure on the police (the reporter anyway) and my firm view that innocent until proven guilty people should not be used as 'bait' for other allegations without very very careful consideration. Every man and his dog knows that the moment someone is accused of a crime like this that the old adages of 'mud sticks' or 'no smoke without fire' are used by many. Being accused of something like this is about as bad as it gets, and when you're in the public eye then millions of people will automatically tar you with the same brush irrespective of the outcome. Remember that this is the same country where a group of clearly highly educated individuals trashed the house of a paediatrician !

The BBC is meant to represent the very best of journalism and is meant to be utterly impartial. Their own charter says so. It is a fine line between their raison d'etre of educating and informing, to then have helicopters chartered to show wall to wall coverage of the roof or front window of someones flat. I don`t remember that happening with other people actually charged and convicted who are not in the public eye.

[So… Howard Philips]

Well my view is that the coverage was sensationalist, didn`t reflect the fact that he hadn`t been charged with anything other than the occasional caveat which they always use, allegedly put pressure on the police (the reporter anyway) and my firm view that innocent until proven guilty people should not be used as 'bait' for other allegations without very very careful consideration. Every man and his dog knows that the moment someone is accused of a crime like this that the old adages of 'mud sticks' or 'no smoke without fire' are used by many. Being accused of something like this is about as bad as it gets, and when you're in the public eye then millions of people will automatically tar you with the same brush irrespective of the outcome. Remember that this is the same country where a group of clearly highly educated individuals trashed the house of a paediatrician !

The BBC is meant to represent the very best of journalism and is meant to be utterly impartial. Their own charter says so. It is a fine line between their raison d'etre of educating and informing, to then have helicopters chartered to show wall to wall coverage of the roof or front window of someones flat. I don`t remember that happening with other people actually charged and convicted who are not in the public eye.

Back in the 1990s a taxidermist (who was later convicted of offences concerning endangered species) sought a judicial review after police invited television cameras to the execution of a search warrant at his business premises.

The Independent reported;

 THE GROWING practice of the media being invited to attend police raids during crime investigations and immediately broadcasting what they have seen was strongly criticised in the High Court yesterday.

A judge called for new Home Office guidance to police forces on relations between police and the media as he gave judgment in the case of a London shop-owner who protested that he was "humiliated on television" during a search for illegally held stuffed animals.

Lord Justice Rose said that "save in exceptional circumstances" it did not seem to him to be in the public interest for procedures such as the execution of search warrants and interviews of suspects that might involve innocent people to be published in the media immediately.

He added: "For my part, I would deplore a general practice by any police force of inviting the media along to be present when investigative procedures are being undertaken."

Despite the criticism, Lord Justice Rose, sitting in London with Mr Justice Bell, dismissed an application for judicial review by Robert Sclare, who protested over his ordeal when his shop Get Stuffed, in Islington, north London, was raided in March.

Up to 30 police officers, accompanied by reporters, a television crew, officials from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and campaigners against the trade in wild animals, were involved in the raid.

The judges ruled that although the raid caused them disquiet, there was no illegality or impropriety.

   

So judicial concern but no illegality or impropriety although each case would be judged on its merits, so more lolly for my learned friends.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Who are you blaming then?

The police for following up numerous allegations of child abuse and raiding his house?

The BBC/wider media for reporting that a prominent public figure was having his house raided by police?

Or just the BBC for giving it too much coverage?


People are saying that the BBC need to face some sort of punishment. I'm interested in what people think they should be punished for.

The way to check your bias in this is to consider what you would be arguing if it was the Daily Mail that had gone overboard and trashed someone's reputation. If that person then sued them, even unto oblivion, I think we'd all be having a party.

Just because the BBC is publicly funded should not give them a free pass to bathe in sensationalism.

The real question here is why an institution so valuable to public discourse feels pressured by politicians to engage in grubby news stunts (ie be more 'commercial' so they can remove the licence fee).

[TepidT2O]

The way to check your bias in this is to consider what you would be arguing if it was the Daily Mail that had gone overboard and trashed someone's reputation. If that person then sued them, even unto oblivion, I think we'd all be having a party.

Just because the BBC is publicly funded should not give them a free pass to bathe in sensationalism.

The real question here is why an institution so valuable to public discourse feels pressured by politicians to engage in grubby news stunts (ie be more 'commercial' so they can remove the licence fee).

So him being raided on suspicion of sex crimes isn’t a viable news story?

[Red-Soldier]

So him being raided on suspicion of sex crimes isn’t a viable news story?

Would you think the same if it was your house and name all over the TV??

Would you still be defending their "viable news story?"

[TepidT2O]

Would you think the same if it was your house and name all over the TV??

Would you still be defending their "viable news story?"

It happens all the time....

Of course it’s a news story.  One of  Britain’s most successful entertainers home is raided on suspicion of sex crimes... if that’s not news then very little is.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

It happens all the time....

Of course it’s a news story.  One of  Britain’s most successful entertainers home is raided on suspicion of sex crimes... if that’s not news then very little is.

its them going over the top, filming the arrest etc, had they just reported it then it’d all be fine but this was way, way beyond the pale

[Qston]

its them going over the top, filming the arrest etc, had they just reported it then it’d all be fine but this was way, way beyond the pale

My view as well. They wandered or rather waded into tabloid sensationalism

[TepidT2O]

its them going over the top, filming the arrest etc, had they just reported it then it’d all be fine but this was way, way beyond the pale

Hang on...

So reporting it is ok, but the style it was reported in wasn’t? 

That’s worth £600k? (Or whatever he’s claiming)

I’m at a loss to know what they’ve done wrong really... how should they have reported it?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Why was the BBC given a heads-up about a future search to potentially gather evidence of serious criminality? Surely, this is a serious breach of sensitive information and could compromise evidence gathering. It appears that the allegations which lead to the raid/search were spurious. However, the BBC were there to film the force simply following due diligence (given the seriousness of the allegations). Someone from the police force informing the BBC, and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire subsequently colluding with the BBC so that they could film the raid is quite astonishing. At the time of the raid, Richard had not been arrested or charged - he had not even been interviewed. The BBC's sensationalised live-action filming would only serve to provide unfounded weight to the impression that Richard was in fact guilty. This is law and justice, not a fucking football match. I also note that someone else was subsequently arrested for attempted blackmail of Richard at the time of the raid (threatened to generate false accusations against the singer).

No one is suggesting that the BBC and wider media cannot report upon 'news'. What is unacceptable is for the police to leak and collude with the media in their investigations for the purpose of creating spectacle.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Hang on...

So reporting it is ok, but the style it was reported in wasn’t? 

That’s worth £600k? (Or whatever he’s claiming)

I’m at a loss to know what they’ve done wrong really... how should they have reported it?

keep the cameras away when the police are doing their job (and yes the police aren’t blameless in this) and just report it as opposed to doing the type of the thing you’d expect from the rag, absolutely no reason for them to tag along like this and does set a very dangerous precedent if the bbc get away with it as mud sticks and anyone who wrongs the wrong person can easily be on the end of this sort of thing in the future

[A-Bomb]

Everybody is entitled to due process and if charged a fair trial - trial by media is predjudjce and dilutes the notion of fair due process, should somebody arrive at court having influenced a jury.

No need for the BBC to have sensationalised their reporting, just iterate the facts and move on to the next 'story'

[Red-Soldier]

It happens all the time....

Of course it’s a news story.  One of  Britain’s most successful entertainers home is raided on suspicion of sex crimes... if that’s not news then very little is.

Just because something happens all the time, doesn't make it right.  Not sure if this style of "sensationalised reporting" happens all the time.

BBC are broadcasting live outside the house of Tepid as police helicopters are circling above and units are inside searching the premises in relation to historical sex offences.

Tepid was quoted saying "I don't mind that my name was all over the news, this kind of thing happens all the time.  I was never arrested, let alone charged, but it's not a problem."

[Nobby Reserve]

I don't think anyone is disputing that the BBC's coverage was over the top and sensationalist.

But the argument is whether a news organisation should face legal action for reporting factual news (the BBC reported that Richard's home was being raided by police investigating allegations of sex crimes - which is fact) depending on the coverage and attention they give to the story.

If Richard wins this, then it's a slippery slope toward media censorship that could all too easily be abused by those with wealth and power.

[TepidT2O]

I don't think anyone is disputing that the BBC's coverage was over the top and sensationalist.

But the argument is whether a news organisation should face legal action for reporting factual news (the BBC reported that Richard's home was being raided by police investigating allegations of sex crimes - which is fact) depending on the coverage and attention they give to the story.

If Richard wins this, then it's a slippery slope toward media censorship that could all too easily be abused by those with wealth and power.

This is entirely my point.  You put it much better than me!

The BBC May need to clarify their editorial process, I could accept that.  The police shouldn’t have leaked it.. that’s been dealt with..

But to not report it would be wrong.

No one else would get compensation for this, if he does it will only be because he’s wealthy and that seems grossly unfair.

[CraigDS]

No one else would get compensation for this, if he does it will only be because he’s wealthy and that seems grossly unfair.

You could argue that the coverage was only what it was because he is wealthy and a 'normal' person on the street wouldn't really get that sort of coverage.

[Qston]

You could argue that the coverage was only what it was because he is wealthy and a 'normal' person on the street wouldn't really get that sort of coverage.

Absolutely the coverage was because who he is. There are, sadly, a lot of people out there who have committed some of the most awful crimes yet they tend to only become widely known once convicted, or at the very least, once charged.

This all reminds me of the Brass Eye episode.

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is entirely my point.  You put it much better than me!

The BBC May need to clarify their editorial process, I could accept that.  The police shouldn’t have leaked it.. that’s been dealt with..

But to not report it would be wrong.

No one else would get compensation for this, if he does it will only be because he’s wealthy and that seems grossly unfair.

As I said before, no one has suggested that the BBC should not report news. However, what happened in this case is that someone from the police force leaked information about a future raid (evidence gathering exercise of a possible serious crime) to a reporter; and the South Yorkshire Chief Constable colluded with the BBC so that they could be there to film the raid. Even the director of Public Prosecutions described these actions as potentially comprising the investigation and possible court case.

It strikes me as an invasion of privacy and a potentially prejudicial action. Again, no one is suggesting that the BBC should not report the news. I'm pretty sure that is not what the law suit will be seeking either.

[Eeyore]

I don't think anyone is disputing that the BBC's coverage was over the top and sensationalist.

But the argument is whether a news organisation should face legal action for reporting factual news (the BBC reported that Richard's home was being raided by police investigating allegations of sex crimes - which is fact) depending on the coverage and attention they give to the story.

If Richard wins this, then it's a slippery slope toward media censorship that could all too easily be abused by those with wealth and power.

It is also a slippery slope towards a situation in which it is almost impossible to receive a fair trial. For me the crux of the issue is not the actions of the Police force nor the actions of the BBC, it is the co-ordination between the two.

It reminds me of Orgreave where there was collusion between the Police and Journalists that led to footage being reversed so it appeared that the miners attacked the Police. As Liverpool fans we are painfully aware of what happens when the establishment closes ranks. So for me we should be railing against attempts to marry journalism and law enforcement.

[Eeyore]

As I said before, no one has suggested that the BBC should not report news. However, what happened in this case is that someone from the police force leaked information about a future raid (evidence gathering exercise of a possible serious crime) to a reporter; and the South Yorkshire Chief Constable colluded with the BBC so that they could be there to film the raid. Even the director of Public Prosecutions described these actions as potentially comprising the investigation and possible court case.

It strikes me as an invasion of privacy and a potentially prejudicial action. Again, no one is suggesting that the BBC should not report the news. I'm pretty sure that is not what the law suit will be seeking either.

Exactly News organisations should be impartial and should be there to report on the News not create it. This wasn't an example of investigative journalism that led to a conviction and airing of the events after the judicial process has been completed. This was a co-ordinated pre-emptive strike that probably voided any judicial process.

[So… Howard Philips]

It is also a slippery slope towards a situation in which it is almost impossible to receive a fair trial. For me the crux of the issue is not the actions of the Police force nor the actions of the BBC, it is the co-ordination between the two.

It reminds me of Orgreave where there was collusion between the Police and Journalists that led to footage being reversed so it appeared that the miners attacked the Police. As Liverpool fans we are painfully aware of what happens when the establishment closes ranks. So for me we should be railing against attempts to marry journalism and law enforcement.

Couldn't put it any better.

If anyone is charged with an offence the media have an absolute right to report the facts and the reports of any trial.

We need to be very careful how the media report any prejudicial, in the true sense of the word, material.

The media need to be very careful about reporting during the course of an investigation. We may or may not be fans of the Peter Pan of Pop or any other Christian Evangelist but they are entitled to the same respect under the law as our own individual heroes may be,