Sir Cliff To Sue Bbc And South Yorkshire Police

[grumpy01]

It appears that Sir Cliff Richard has instructed his legal people to commence procedings in suing the BBC & South Yorkshire Police. The amount quoted is £1 million which has been calculated as loss of earnings.Hopefully he secures every penny and these two organisations will be more careful in future about how they conduct themselves.

[rsvp]

I believe it was fundementally wrong to name Cliff Richards and to film the raid before he was charged - had it been Joe Bloggs down the road then nothing would have happened - whilst I know 'stars' covet their media exposure concerning their careers it should not subject them to being the victims to unlawful proceedures.

[naomi24]

How horribly spiteful some of these comments are. I hope he is successful.

[naomi24]

It's almost as though some people WANT to find a reason to condemn him. Sick, sad, twisted minds.

[EDDIE51]

Gromit is correct, the Police were forced to act earlier than they intended to stop the investigation being exposed by the BBC journalist. If it had not been for that the investigation would probably have been closed without any action being taken. The BBC's 'reward' was an exclusive news story where they were able to set up cameras and wait for the police convoy to arrive at Cliff's house.
Basically it was a form of blackmail, the BBC were given exclusive coverage in return for not reporting the investigation and thereby sabotaging any chance of a prosecution. It is the BBC who should be sued.

[naomi24]

Eddie, the police, at that time, shouldn't have been 'rewarding' anyone. This was shameful.

[ummmm]

Who has a sad, sick, twisted mind?

[naomi24]

ummmm, read my post.

[ummmm]

I did, Naomi.

Just because some aren't 100% convinced of his innocence doesn't make them sick, sad or twisted.

[Gromit]

The BBC found out that the police were investigating Cliff Richard. They are a news organisation and it is their job to report such news. South Yorkshire Police had not concluded their enquiries, and made a deal with the BBC to hold off broadcasting anything until Cliff's house had been searched. No one was rewarded, it was an arrangement beneficial to both parties.

SYP concluded that there wasn't any evidence to prosecute. That is not an admission that the police were wrong to investigate the initial complaint.

My prediction is that Cliff will withdraw the complaint, or settle out of court for a much smaller amount.

[ummmm]

So does he have grounds to sue?

[EDDIE51]

naomi , divebuddy, Yes I agree it was shameful and that the police should not have been 'rewarding' anyone. My point was that if it were not for the BBC journalist threatening to reveal the information he had been 'leaked' the raid would not have taken place. The police thought that they had no option but to go in and try to get any evidence there may have been before the warning gave time to destroy it. However the police informed the journalist of the time of the raid which gave the BBC time to set up cameras to film it. I call that a 'reward'.

[naomi24]

Ummmm, //Just because some aren't 100% convinced of his innocence doesn't make them sick, sad or twisted.//

No, but wanting him to be guilty does – and that’s how some of the posts here come across. There are some very spiteful comments on this thread.

[Peter Pedant]

blimey most of the disapprovers are showing in their posts that Sir Cliff has a point.

// If it can be proved 100% that they lied then they should be prosecuted and named.//

and that would be perjury or some other 'witness crime' s.a.conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

perjury requires a second witness - which is why it is so rare ( and usually successful ) which sort of answers that question and accounts why he isnt suing his accusers. There is another technical reason which is probably not suitable for this thread ( perjury is not a tort )

I still dont see under what heading ( cause of action ) Cliff is gonna sue
Negligence I suppose...

[RandyMarsh]

The sentiment appears to be that cliff is due some compensation, which is interesting as often on here the victims of sexual abuse are labelled as money grabbers for asking for compensation.

[naomi24]

RandyMarsh, I don't think his intention is to seek financial compensation. He's lost something far more precious to him than money.

[ummmm]

So why is he seeking £1 million. I would have thought a grovelling apology would be suffice.

Naomi...I don't think anyone wants him to be guilty and I haven't read any comments I would consider spiteful.

[naomi24]

Haven't you?

[ummmm]

No but maybe that's because I don't really have an opinion on his innocence or guilt.

Obviously I would much prefer he was innocent.