On the Cliff (w)Edge

[snooky]

I see Sir Cliff is getting £850k from the BBC for them filming the cops raiding his house.
We can't afford hospitals yet there's plenty dosh available to splash out to millionaires.
Mind you, it was a henious crime. Imagine someone filming your house without your consent.
Hinging's too guid for them.

[DaveF]

Wee bit more to it than that I'd assume.

Beeb were tipped off by police, he was more or less labelled as guilty from the moment they filmed it all and has probably spend the millions trying to salvage his reputation.

I'd say he was entitled to the compensation.

[calumhibee1]

Wee bit more to it than that I'd assume.

Beeb were tipped off by police, he was more or less labelled as guilty from the moment they filmed it all and has probably spend the millions trying to salvage his reputation.

I'd say he was entitled to the compensation.

And then some. I’m surprised it’s not more.

[Chic Murray]

I see Sir Cliff is getting £850k from the BBC for them filming the cops raiding his house.
We can't afford hospitals yet there's plenty dosh available to splash out to millionaires.
Mind you, it was a henious crime. Imagine someone filming your house without your consent.
Hinging's too guid for them.

So, we don't have money to give to build hospitals/feed the homeless ex servicemen/clothe hard working families, yet we can spare £850k to spend on broadcasting? Is that really what you meant? :cb

Cliff is a UK citizen and is entitled to the same protection from the media as everyone else. Whether that protection extends to the media being prohibited from saying you are under investigation, is another thing.


You make it sound like "Through the Keyhole" - what kind of pervert lives in a house like this? Personally, I wonder if the raid had been on Boy George's house, whether the courts would have been quite as sympathetic.

[snooky]

So, we don't have money to give to build hospitals/feed the homeless ex servicemen/clothe hard working families, yet we can spare £850k to spend on broadcasting? Is that really what you meant? :cb

Cliff is a UK citizen and is entitled to the same protection from the media as everyone else. Whether that protection extends to the media being prohibited from saying you are under investigation, is another thing.


You make it sound like "Through the Keyhole" - what kind of pervert lives in a house like this? Personally, I wonder if the raid had been on Boy George's house, whether the courts would have been quite as sympathetic.

I didn't mean to make it sound like that at all.
While I agree that the Beeb - more so the polis for tipping them off - were to blame and Cliff is entitled to compensation, I think (nearly) a million quid is a bit much. The story would have probably come out anyway. They found nothing so if anything Cliffy comes out smelling of roses and fresher than he has been viewed for a while.

[Chic Murray]

I didn't mean to make it sound like that at all.
While I agree that the Beeb - more so the polis for tipping them off - were to blame and Cliff is entitled to compensation, I think (nearly) a million quid is a bit much. The story would have probably come out anyway. They found nothing so if anything Cliffy comes out smelling of roses and fresher than he has been viewed for a while.

I know you didn't.

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed about the whole business. Aparently it was about the helicopter, if they had just filmed a raid, like they often do, then that was OK, it was hiring a helicopter to do it that was the problem.

I think the judgement was mince to be honest. You either cover someone being raided, or you don't.

But, if he is entitled to compensation, I don't think £800,000 is excessive given the effect it had on his life. If a paper had published a story with the headline, "Cliff, or anybody else, is a Nonce", then you'd be looking for a million for that.

It's a pretty serious thing to be accusing somebody of.

[Steve-O]

For one thing, I can't imagine what a hospital built for £850k would be like...

Secondly, the BBC don't pay for hospitals as far as I'm aware...

The OP argument is just a bit of a reach IMO!

[lord bunberry]

The 850k isn’t for anything the BBC did, it’s because they lost the case and the £850k is Cliff’s legal costs.

[heretoday]

The price of justice in this country is ludicrous. Only the rich can get it. No wonder law courses at universities are stowed out.

[snooky]

For one thing, I can't imagine what a hospital built for £850k would be like...

Secondly, the BBC don't pay for hospitals as far as I'm aware...

The OP argument is just a bit of a reach IMO!

I know that. My point was the ludicrous difference in values. What is the cost of a hospital bed and what is the price for somebody filming your house (or lawyers fees as LB says it was). Okay, maybe still stretching things a bit but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.
Totally disproportionate.

[Smartie]

I know that. My point was the ludicrous difference in values. What is the cost of a hospital bed and what is the price for somebody filming your house (or lawyers fees as LB says it was). Okay, maybe still stretching things a bit but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.
Totally disproportionate.

Alternatively though, if you are arranging to film the police investigating an ultimately innocent man in the knowledge that his career may suffer irreparable damage by insinuation, do you not have to be aware that this may have serious financial consequences?

The people at the BBC are to blame for their own irresponsible, illegal and hurtful actions. I don't think anyone should be pointing a finger at Cliff Richard as being some sort of bad guy stealing from hospitals.

Those at the BBC who sanctioned the coverage failed in their duty to the licence payer to act responsibly.

[snooky]

Alternatively though, if you are arranging to film the police investigating an ultimately innocent man in the knowledge that his career may suffer irreparable damage by insinuation, do you not have to be aware that this may have serious financial consequences?

The people at the BBC are to blame for their own irresponsible, illegal and hurtful actions. I don't think anyone should be pointing a finger at Cliff Richard as being some sort of bad guy stealing from hospitals.

Those at the BBC who sanctioned the coverage failed in their duty to the licence payer to act responsibly.

I'm not pointing any finger at Cliff at all. Here's what I'm saying (or at least, trying to say) ....
These days the balance of the values of life are way out of kilter. This applies to footballers wages, celebrity lawsuit compensations, bankers bonuses, etc. This on the back of cuts to fundimental requirements of a civilized society.

Cliff : :angelic:
BBC : :turnevil:
Polis : :devil:

:coffee:

[Smartie]

I'm not pointing any finger at Cliff at all. Here's what I'm saying (or at least, trying to say) ....
These days the balance of the values of life are way out of kilter. This applies to footballers wages, celebrity lawsuit compensations, bankers bonuses, etc. This on the back of cuts to fundimental requirements of a civilized society.

Cliff : :angelic:
BBC : :turnevil:
Polis : :devil:

:coffee:

I see.

I think I agree with you.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not pointing any finger at Cliff at all. Here's what I'm saying (or at least, trying to say) ....
These days the balance of the values of life are way out of kilter. This applies to footballers wages, celebrity lawsuit compensations, bankers bonuses, etc. This on the back of cuts to fundimental requirements of a civilized society.

Cliff : :angelic:
BBC : :turnevil:
Polis : :devil:

:coffee:

I think you may be conflating a number of points here.

The £850,000 is payment of Cliff’s legal bills for his action against the BBC. An action he won and I assume in the course of the verdict was also awarded costs. Cliff therefore doesn’t gain personally from this money it only reimburses him for the cost of taking the BBC to court to prove their actions were wrong.

I believe the compensation he received from the BBC was £200k. He also received unspecified damages from the police for leaking the raid to the BBC.

As it is damages paid for the invasion of his privacy and the rather lurid coverage of the raid are completely unaligned to the cost of providing hospital beds and I don’t really understand how you would think the two are connected or comparable.

Your general point on footballers wages v the fundamental requirements of a civilised society I kind of get but again I don’t really see how that point relates to Cliff getting his legal fees paid by the losing party.

[snooky]

I think you may be conflating a number of points here.

The £850,000 is payment of Cliff’s legal bills for his action against the BBC. An action he won and I assume in the course of the verdict was also awarded costs. Cliff therefore doesn’t gain personally from this money it only reimburses him for the cost of taking the BBC to court to prove their actions were wrong.

I believe the compensation he received from the BBC was £200k. He also received unspecified damages from the police for leaking the raid to the BBC.

As it is damages paid for the invasion of his privacy and the rather lurid coverage of the raid are completely unaligned to the cost of providing hospital beds and I don’t really understand how you would think the two are connected or comparable.

Your general point on footballers wages v the fundamental requirements of a civilised society I kind of get but again I don’t really see how that point relates to Cliff getting his legal fees paid by the losing party.

Sorry, I appear to be having some difficulty in explaining my point.
As I freely admit, I'm comparing apples with oranges here, but only to try and show the imbalance in how money is deemed to have different values in different situations.

[RyeSloan]

Sorry, I appear to be having some difficulty in explaining my point.
As I freely admit, I'm comparing apples with oranges here, but only to try and show the inbalance in how money is deemed to have different values in different situations.

Ahh no probs..I’m far too literal to understand points made when comparing apples and oranges so I’ll bow out and let ya crack on [emoji3]

[snooky]

Ahh no probs..I’m far too literal to understand points made when comparing apples and oranges so I’ll bow out and let ya crack on [emoji3]

Better watch out, I'll be using pears & plums next time :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Better watch out, I'll be using pears & plums next time :wink:

Ahh but that has alliteration so already appeals..I’d suggest plums n pears works better though 🤪

[snooky]

Ahh but that has alliteration so already appeals..I’d suggest plums n pears works better though 🤪
Now that's just sour grapes :greengrin

[Bangkok Hibby]

I see Sir Cliff is getting £850k from the BBC for them filming the cops raiding his house.
We can't afford hospitals yet there's plenty dosh available to splash out to millionaires.
Mind you, it was a henious crime. Imagine someone filming your house without your consent.
Hinging's too guid for them.

Whilst I cannae really summon up the energy to be arsed about this I should point out that he's reportedly spent over three million on this. Bottom line is an innocent man is well out of pocket

[LustForLeith]

I think he’s entitled to whatever he gets from the BBC. They must have turned a blind eye to so much going on with its stars that maybe this was something to put them back in the countries good books and it misfired terribly.

[Steve-O]

Whilst I cannae really summon up the energy to be arsed about this I should point out that he's reportedly spent over three million on this. Bottom line is an innocent man is well out of pocket

Interesting that an innocent man would have to spend so much on a defence...:duck:

[Chic Murray]

Interesting that an innocent man would have to spend so much on a defence...:duck:

Innocent of what, he was never charged with anything.

[Steve-O]

Innocent of what, he was never charged with anything.

Innocent of whatever someone was accusing him of.

[lord bunberry]

Interesting that an innocent man would have to spend so much on a defence...:duck:
He didn’t spend anything on his defence as he was never charged with anything. He spent the money taking the BBC to court for how they covered the story.

[RyeSloan]

He didn’t spend anything on his defence as he was never charged with anything. He spent the money taking the BBC to court for how they covered the story.

And if anything shows just how difficult it would be for most people to protect their name / reputation in similar circumstances.

[lord bunberry]

And if anything shows just how difficult it would be for most people to protect their name / reputation in similar circumstances.
Absolutely. Mud sticks especially in allegations of a sexual nature.

[Chic Murray]

Innocent of whatever someone was accusing him of.

Yes, but nobody actually accused him of anything.

[Smartie]

Yes, but nobody actually accused him of anything.

So why were the police searching his house with the BBC cameras parked outside?

[Chic Murray]

So why were the police searching his house with the BBC cameras parked outside?

To exclude him from an investigation?

That's what they ultimately ended up doing and said there were no charges to answer.

Edit: but I do take the point that he was accused by the alleged victim.

[Smartie]

To exclude him from an investigation?

That's what they ultimately ended up doing and said there were no charges to answer.

Edit: but I do take the point that he was accused by the alleged victim.

Yes, he was accused by a supposed victim but there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime.

And in the eyes of the law you are innocent until proven guilty.

Although you wouldn't think it these days - funnily enough I was just reading this article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

Pretty poor that someone can be charged, acquitted, but still have their future career prospects affected by having the fact that they were charged put on their disclosure forms.

[Steve-O]

I was fishing for a bite with my innocent man jibe...apologies :greengrin

But he was accused of something, by someone. Not enough evidence to lay charges though.

My point was that he spent a lot of money about his name being smeared when he, if innocent, presumably knew that he'd be cleared anyway.

Alas, I can understand the other side of the coin that if you're innocent, you don't want to be tarnished with such allegations at all, for any period of time.