Breaking News

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45183421

BBC won't be taking the Cliff Richard's case to the appeal court.

[jno]

a bad day for journalism, I think, and an easier ride for the next Savile.

[Zacs-Master]

I should think not! I'm a big supporter of the BBCs programmes and think the license fee is worth every penny but another expensive court case may have altered my opinion of them.

[Jackdaw33]

//a bad day for journalism, I think, and an easier ride for the next Savile.\\

Totally out of order in IMO, bordering on the libellous.

[andy-hughes]

JNO - //a bad day for journalism, I think, and an easier ride for the next Savile. //

I am intrigued by both points of your post - why is it a bad day for journalism, and why an 'easier ride'?

[LadyCG]

Glad to hear it. The "beeb" should hang their collective heads in shame.

[ToraToraTora]

jno - 14:15, what a disgusting thing to say.

[Gromit]

Richard argued that reporting on the police investigation was an invasion of his privacy. He won his case.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped.
In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes.

[baza]

He was never arrested nor charged with any offences, imo the BBC went over the top with coverage.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - // Richard argued that reporting on the police investigation was an invasion of his privacy. He won his case.
That means any people in the future who are arrested for child abuse can sucessfully have reporting on their cases stopped. //

No it does not mean that at all.

The entire thrust of Mr Richard's legal action hinged around the fact that he had not been arrested or charged.

People who have been arrested and charged will have no legal right to prevent the reporting of their case.

// In the many instances, the public reporting of arrests of abusers has had the effect of other victims coming forward. Under the Richard ruling, there will be no publicity, no victims coming forward and the bad people will get away with crimes. //

That is an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever.

You are assuming that the result of Mr Richard's successful action sets a legal precedent preventing the reporting of other arrests and trials, and there is no indication that this is the case at all.

Hopefully, what will come out of the court case, and its result, is that the media will be less keen to sensationalise the preliminary investigations of an innocent individual in the interest of prurient sensationalism, and restrict itself to reporting facts.

That will not impede anyone coming forward with additional evidence where and when it is appropriate.

[ToraToraTora]

gromit, so innocent people must be put through the ringer so more victims come forward? Yee gods and little fishes! The Accused should have the same anonymity as the accuser or this kind of disgusting circus happens.

[youngmafbog]

You had better hope no one on here knows you Gromit or some might try putting it o the test via a tip off to the old Bill with some false accusations as happened to Richard. Could tip the local rag off to get a nice piccie of your gaff being turned over by plodwithout you being arrested (but naming yo of corse).

Bet you would change your tune then

[youngmafbog]

jno's post I think is one of the most disgusting I have seen in a while.

[ToraToraTora]

yes YMB, TROB seem to showing their true nasty colours on this thread.

[jno]

because the next time media want to expose a Savile (not that anyone did last time) they'll be under more severe restrictions on what they can say. Even filming someone's house can cost them a fortune because hey, invasion of privacy, even if the guy himself is in Barbados at the time.

This is Celebrity 1, News Media 0. Don't imagine the media will be willing to risk a fortune telling you the next time they hear of anything bad about a celebrity.

[ToraToraTora]

What utter tosh, jno, like gromit you appear to be saying that innocent people are fair game. Would you like your drum turned over while you watch from your holiday home? Would you like all your private things gone through on the say so of some anonymous person that talked about something that allegedly happened in 1973? Anyway it’s not just that it’s the whole process of investigation and the worry for years whilst the authorities do their thing, slowly. Deal with real abusers by all means but do it when there is some evidence rather than on the say so some gold digger with nothing but a hope for some compo. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Tell you what if they must go after people on no evidence at least keep it out of the public eye until charges are brought. Gawd help us on planet jno/gromit we are all guilty before we start.

[murraymints]

should think not ..disgraceful way Cliff was treated...absolutely disgraceful..shame on the Police AND BBC

[jackthehat]

a) A sensible decision by the BBC.
b) jno and gromit have made perfectly sesible comments.
c) surely all this faux-outrage posturing (by contributors who should know better but find it hard to resist) is becoming old-hat?

[ToraToraTora]

b) so you agree that innocent people should have their lives turned upside down on the say so of some compo seeking neardowell with do evidence? right oh!

[ummmm]

jno and Gromit always make sensible comments. They state facts and don't post out of outrage.

[Old_Geezer]

I still feel it is the BBC's job to report news. The police's job, among other things, is not to leak raids.