Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
What's Happened In The Cliff Richard Case Against The Bbc? Anything?
46 Answers
I just googled it and it's all stuff from ages ago. What am I doing wrong?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jno - // what's not in the public interest about investigating crime, andy? It's a shame they weren't so assiduous in dealing with allegations against another showbiz figure in recent memory, but that shouldn't stop them doing it with Cliff. It doesn't retrospectively become any more sinister because he's deemed to be innocent; at the time, it was a valid investigation and I believe validly reported.
The police may for all I know have been in breach of proper procedure in inviting a TV crew along (though it's hardly the first tiem this has happened); it doesn't follow that the BBC broke any rules in going. //
How many times does the BBC send a film crew to film the police searching someone's house?
Let's not pretend here - the BBC were not filming because the police were searching a house, they were filming because the police were searching Cliff Richard's house.
It's an invasion of privacy no matter whose house it is, but the BBC did it because Cliff Richard is a prominent show-business figure, not because it is 'news' per se, because searches like this go on every day throughout the year, and the BBC ignores them because they are not news.
As Cliff Richard correctly protests, if he were not who he is, the BBC would not have filmed the police searching his house.
So my point remains valid, it was not the public interest, it was what interests the public that was at the root of the BBC's filming and reporting, and that deserves a legal defence if you have deep enough pockets to mount one, and Cliff certainly does.
The police may for all I know have been in breach of proper procedure in inviting a TV crew along (though it's hardly the first tiem this has happened); it doesn't follow that the BBC broke any rules in going. //
How many times does the BBC send a film crew to film the police searching someone's house?
Let's not pretend here - the BBC were not filming because the police were searching a house, they were filming because the police were searching Cliff Richard's house.
It's an invasion of privacy no matter whose house it is, but the BBC did it because Cliff Richard is a prominent show-business figure, not because it is 'news' per se, because searches like this go on every day throughout the year, and the BBC ignores them because they are not news.
As Cliff Richard correctly protests, if he were not who he is, the BBC would not have filmed the police searching his house.
So my point remains valid, it was not the public interest, it was what interests the public that was at the root of the BBC's filming and reporting, and that deserves a legal defence if you have deep enough pockets to mount one, and Cliff certainly does.
Not banned as such but BBC stopped playing his records !
https:/
https:/
jno - // I don't think that's the case, andy, there have over the years been frequent examples of police raids - generally on complete nobodies - being filmed because the police felt the need for a little good publicity. You don't see them so much any more, but as I said, they're in no way unprecedented. //
Do you honestly believe that the BBC would have led its news items in the way it did, if the subject of the film was not an individual as famous as Cliff Richard?
As soon as you start biasing the level of coverage and frequency of broadcast towards someone who is anyone but an anonymous individual, then the BBC is straying from its remit - and this case that bias was enormous, and unjustifiable.
Do you honestly believe that the BBC would have led its news items in the way it did, if the subject of the film was not an individual as famous as Cliff Richard?
As soon as you start biasing the level of coverage and frequency of broadcast towards someone who is anyone but an anonymous individual, then the BBC is straying from its remit - and this case that bias was enormous, and unjustifiable.
The BBC were independently investigating allegations about CR before they learned that the police planned to search his house.
The Police should not have divulged that information, and have duly coughed up compensation.
But the BBC having learned of the raid, and being a news organisation, could not ignore the fact. They dispatched a film crew and reported that the police were searching Cliff’s house, which was factual, honest reporting.
The Police should not have divulged that information, and have duly coughed up compensation.
But the BBC having learned of the raid, and being a news organisation, could not ignore the fact. They dispatched a film crew and reported that the police were searching Cliff’s house, which was factual, honest reporting.
// As soon as you start biasing the level of coverage and frequency of broadcast towards someone who is anyone but an anonymous //
The BBC, just like everyone else, has done celebrity gossip for decades. The only newsworthiness of such stories, is that they involve someone who is well known. It is a strange notion, especially coming from a rock journalist, that news of famous people should not be reported because it is somehow intrusive to the star.
The BBC, just like everyone else, has done celebrity gossip for decades. The only newsworthiness of such stories, is that they involve someone who is well known. It is a strange notion, especially coming from a rock journalist, that news of famous people should not be reported because it is somehow intrusive to the star.
Gromit - // It is a strange notion, especially coming from a rock journalist, that news of famous people should not be reported because it is somehow intrusive to the star. //
I am unsure why my profession as a rock journalist should make my view a 'strange notion'.
I am as aware as anyone of the nature of press intrusion on famous people - but my point is that fame is not an excuse for an invasion of privacy - and that view applies to anyone.
It is not 'somehow intrusive' - it is just intrusive, the same as it would be for you or I. It is wrong, and the BBC was wrong to be involved in it.
I am unsure why my profession as a rock journalist should make my view a 'strange notion'.
I am as aware as anyone of the nature of press intrusion on famous people - but my point is that fame is not an excuse for an invasion of privacy - and that view applies to anyone.
It is not 'somehow intrusive' - it is just intrusive, the same as it would be for you or I. It is wrong, and the BBC was wrong to be involved in it.
andy, are you saying it would have been better if the news had been lower down the running order? Or do you think it shouldn't have been mentioned at all?
Stuff that happens to celebrities is news. The BBC didn't invent that. But they are right to report on it. I hope the day never comes when news media are punished for having given an accurate report of something that actually happened. That happens in all too many countries already; Britain should never become one of them.
Stuff that happens to celebrities is news. The BBC didn't invent that. But they are right to report on it. I hope the day never comes when news media are punished for having given an accurate report of something that actually happened. That happens in all too many countries already; Britain should never become one of them.
jno - // andy, are you saying it would have been better if the news had been lower down the running order? Or do you think it shouldn't have been mentioned at all? //
Mention it - no problem.
Make a report with filmed footage - not fine. That is where the invasion comes in. And the only way the BBC could scramble a helicopter and film crew in time is if the police tipped them off.
Neither comes out of this with any credibility.
Mention it - no problem.
Make a report with filmed footage - not fine. That is where the invasion comes in. And the only way the BBC could scramble a helicopter and film crew in time is if the police tipped them off.
Neither comes out of this with any credibility.
Zacs - // Gromit, AH carries out pre arranged interviews. He doesn’t make up salacious gossip for the tabloids. Big difference. Cheap shot. //
Thanks for your defence.
I remember being on a TV shoot in Liverpool over a weekend, with a number of big pop bands. One of the journalists invited was a News Of The World reporter. Some of us were having dinner with Spandau Ballet and when the reported appeared after the dinner, the conversation, which had been free and easy, stopped, literally stopped. They old me when she had gone that they refused to open their mouths while she was there, because they couldn't say anything she would not use against them. They knew that I and the others knew that they were 'off duty' and what was said at the table stayed at the table. The reporter appeared not to notice, maybe it's the way it is for her - like priests thinking everyone's TV is broken because it's never on when they call, or the Queen thinking the world smells of fresh paint.
I remember thinking, I couldn't do a job where people were scared to speak in front of me.
Thanks for your defence.
I remember being on a TV shoot in Liverpool over a weekend, with a number of big pop bands. One of the journalists invited was a News Of The World reporter. Some of us were having dinner with Spandau Ballet and when the reported appeared after the dinner, the conversation, which had been free and easy, stopped, literally stopped. They old me when she had gone that they refused to open their mouths while she was there, because they couldn't say anything she would not use against them. They knew that I and the others knew that they were 'off duty' and what was said at the table stayed at the table. The reporter appeared not to notice, maybe it's the way it is for her - like priests thinking everyone's TV is broken because it's never on when they call, or the Queen thinking the world smells of fresh paint.
I remember thinking, I couldn't do a job where people were scared to speak in front of me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.