Cliff Richard Innocent

[david small]

Poor Cliff, nearly four years of torment, exonerated at last.

[-Talbot-]

Really?

[Baldric]

Got a mention here

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1615401.html

[Tilly2]

Not sure you have that quite right, David.

[rowanwitch]

Not what the judgement was about just invasion of privacy and inappropriate reporting.

[New Judge]

There was never any question of Sir Cliff's innocence as he was never charged with anything. This was about the BBC's despicable behaviour acting on information received from the South Yorkshire police which they should not have disclosed.

[Canary42]

Yes NJ, sums it up well.

[DTCwordfan]

Absolutely, Kitty still looms.

[Garaman]

You can be innocent or guilty of doing wrong whether you have been charged or not, and your innocence can be put in question without charges being brought.

[Old_Geezer]

He was exonerated by not being charged.
That was ages ago.

[Canary42]

I may be wrong, but after the appalling example of their cover-up (or at least blind eye) in the case of the revolting Savile, the BBC over-reacted and tried to redeem themselves by striking out at all and sundry. An urgent management change needed I feel.

[jno]

what the judge seems to have ruled is that Cliff's name shouldn't have been mentioned at all. The BBC, knowing that allegations had been made against a celebrity, should not have mentioned them.

As this is exactly what they were criticised for (rightly) over Savile, it's hard to know exactly what the BBC, or any other media organisation, should have done.

I think the judge was wrong.

[Canary42]

Good point jno

[Peter Pedant]

// This was about the BBC's despicable behaviour acting on information received from the SYP which they should not have disclosed.//

and window decoration by the beeb - perjury see # 214 p.56

as in contemporaneous emails the judge finds er not contemporary

inconsistent pleading with emails manufactured to repair the inconsistency - no no surely not surely not

narfin to do wiv Cliffs innocence, yeah?

[Peter Pedant]

// it's hard to know exactly what the BBC, or any other media organisation, should have done. //

no actually it isnt
read the report
you will start blushing well before p.56
where the j sligz off incosistent pleading, evasive witnesses, manufactured emails and seriously pleading points not borne outby the evidence available

blush as in you think: good god we are paying for THIS!

[andy-hughes]

As advised David - this was a court case brought BY Cliff Richard, not against him.

[Peter Pedant]

I have of course bearded the Been for saying it is ALL about freedom of the press when it cd be cast as ALL about freedom to perjure itself in court.
It is table wivva leg knocked off - cliff they say must be named and shamed whereas the victim in the case is anonymous.

[ asymmetric thingey an intellect said]

( reasonable comment on a case is privileged just in case some concerned ABer makes up a rule - o! o! he cant say THAT!
I can)

[naomi24]

//Absolutely, Kitty still looms.//

That’s the second time I’ve read reference to that today – and I recall it being mentioned frequently when this first happened. I know what it refers to but are the people who are talking about this aware of a crime he’s committed – or are they just relishing casting aspersions and muddying the waters?

[Peter Pedant]

it refers to his gay name and the Elmtree Hotel which is another set of allegations scarred and wrecked by lying, gullible police, readiness to credit far fetched allegations,

as with more credible screw ups ( Kincora) we will never really know the truth.

this is connected with a police belief ( noble corruption) that some who were innocent - really did do it you know ....
such as the Brum Bombers, Guildford four, M62 bombers, Steven Waldorf....

The people who rule us really can turn out to be hopeless incompetents