“…they [SYP] didnt - The met did”
As is my usual won’t, Peter, I’m reading the full judgement. But it’s 122 pages and I’ve only read Mr Justice Mann’s “Executive Summary” so far. It says this:
5. The main area of disputed fact in this case revolves around dealings between the BBC and SYP in July 2014. There was a dispute as to whether the police volunteered such information as it provided (the BBC’s case) or whether SYP was manoeuvered into providing it from a fear and implicit threat that the BBC would or might publish news of the investigation before the police were ready to conduct their search (SYP’s and Sir Cliff’s case). As my judgment reflects, I have accepted the SYP/Cliff Richard case on this point, and rejected the BBC’s case. I have found that SYP did not merely volunteer the material for its own purposes; it provided it because of a concern that if it did not do so there would be a prior publication by the BBC, a concern known to and probably fostered by the BBC’s reporter, Mr Dan Johnson.
So no mention of the Met there. However, I will agree that buried in the full judgement (round about para 190) are references to a dispute concerning exactly where Dan Johnson got his information from and it certainly seems that the Met (under the guise of “Operation Yewtree”) definitely had some involvement, so thanks for pointing that out. The full judgement is a fascinating read (if you like that sort of thing!)