Cliff Richard wins substantial damages from BBC.

[Miss Taken Identity]

 Congratulations to Sir Cliff winning his claim against the BBC. A vile corporation IMO.

"Sir Cliff Richard wins £210,000 in damages in privacy case against BBC"

Evening Standard - 18 July 2018

snip
"Sir Cliff Richard has been awarded more then £200,000 after winning a High Court battle against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.
The 77-year-old singer claimed he was left "shocked and upset" when helicopter footage of officers searching his Berkshire home was screened on the 1pm news.

South Yorkshire Police had briefed a reporter from the corporation in advance of the August 2014 raid, which followed a child sex assault allegation.

But once Sir Cliff had been told he would not face any criminal charges, he sued the BBC and the police force over the damage done to his reputation and career.
The BBC insisted it had a "strong journalistic right" to report on events at Sir Cliff's home, arguing a ruling against it would curb the media's ability to cover police investigations.
But at the High Court today, Mr Justice Mann ruled the singer should be awarded damages for invasion of privacy.


Sky News/MSN news feed.

This was an absolute disgrace!  them knowing about Jimmy Savilles 'little sex corporation'  OPEN SECRET -and doing the dirty on a man who had not been charged with anything!


17

[Vertigo Swirl]

Would you describe Sir Cliff as having been cleared of all suspicion then?  Because some people seem to think once a suspect always a suspect if the case is never tried in court, and if no other culprit is found guilty.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Would you describe Sir Cliff as having been cleared of all suspicion then?  Because some people seem to think once a suspect always a suspect if the case is never tried in court, and if no other culprit is found guilty.

Oh I think you are getting confused about 'some people and suspicion'.

Cliff Richard was not even suspected by the police for any crime. Claims were made against him, and investigation ensued,rather than have the investigation part involve interviewing the person said allegations were made against they just skipped that part and went straight to a fully blown public show of contaminating a persons privacy and was an assault on his actual person. with no evidence of any wrong doing by him.

Now if those same accusers were found 'disappeared'  or murdered on his property then well yes place him under suspicion...even arrest him!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh I think you are getting confused about 'some people and suspicion'.

Cliff Richard was not even suspected by the police for any crime. Claims were made against him, and investigation ensued,rather than have the investigation part involve interviewing the person said allegations were made against they just skipped that part and went straight to a fully blown public show of contaminating a persons privacy and was an assault on his actual person. with no evidence of any wrong doing by him.

Now if those same accusers were found 'disappeared'  or murdered on his property then well yes place him under suspicion...even arrest him!

If the police had no grounds for suspicion did they enter his property illegally then?

[Miss Taken Identity]

If the police had no grounds for suspicion did they enter his property illegally then?

I am going to try and explain this in a very simple manner.

the Police did not suspect Cliff of any crime until an 'allegation' without any evidence was made. Cliff was not informed of these allegations or that his home was going to be 'invaded' and allegations broadcast to a nation without having been interviewed.

Now if you are trying the same thing with the McCanns it doesn't work. The police KNEW a crime had been committed in that they were told a child was 'missing' they then began to investigate...after a while they interviewed the parents as they had some evidence of them not being honest about the situation...

so the difference is: 1st scenario no knowledge of crime- no physical evidence of a crime having been committed.
                              2 nd scenario   a CRIME was committed ... investigation threw up some evidence to alert the
                                  PJ to interview the parents.

I would like to add that I am not claiming Cliff is innocent because I don't know. However, as ,much as I don't like his singing or 'music' I do believe he was set up,and the police and BBC acted disgracefully.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am going to try and explain this in a very simple manner.

the Police did not suspect Cliff of any crime until an 'allegation' without any evidence was made. Cliff was not informed of these allegations or that his home was going to be 'invaded' and allegations broadcast to a nation without having been interviewed.

Now if you are trying the same thing with the McCanns it doesn't work. The police KNEW a crime had been committed in that they were told a child was 'missing' they then began to investigate...after a while they interviewed the parents as they had some evidence of them not being honest about the situation...

so the difference is: 1st scenario no knowledge of crime- no physical evidence of a crime having been committed.
                              2 nd scenario   a CRIME was committed ... investigation threw up some evidence to alert the
                                  PJ to interview the parents.

I would like to add that I am not claiming Cliff is innocent because I don't know. However, as ,much as I don't like his singing or 'music' I do believe he was set up,and the police and BBC acted disgracefully.

The police were told of a crime of child sex abuse and investigated it.  There was a lack of evidence to support the allegation and the case was dropped.  In the McCann case Martin Smith pointed the finger at Gerry McCann, there was a lack of evidence to support the allegation, the case was shelved.  Have both men been cleared of suspicion or not?

[Miss Taken Identity]

The police were told of a crime of child sex abuse and investigated it.  There was a lack of evidence to support the allegation and the case was dropped.  In the McCann case Martin Smith pointed the finger at Gerry McCann, there was a lack of evidence to support the allegation, the case was shelved.  Have both men been cleared of suspicion or not?

now now... both cases are NOT the same. Read the post again... here is the clue.... ALLEGATIONS were made against CLIFF it was NOT investigated fully to establish said crimes were committed.

Their is evidence that  MBM went to PDL on holiday with her parents and had not been seen /was reported missing. SO CRIME was committed!

Martin Smith has nothing to do with this scenario.

If you say it slow it will read better

[Robittybob1]

one day it will be sorted!

[Vertigo Swirl]

now now... both cases are NOT the same. Read the post again... here is the clue.... ALLEGATIONS were made against CLIFF it was NOT investigated fully to establish said crimes were committed.

Their is evidence that  MBM went to PDL on holiday with her parents and had not been seen /was reported missing. SO CRIME was committed!

Martin Smith has nothing to do with this scenario.

If you say it slow it will read better

What do you mean by “it was NOT investigated fully”?  Are you saying when the police receive an allegation of child abuse from an alleged victim all they do is raid the alleged perpetrator’s house and then fail to investigate any further if they find nothing incriminating ?  Interesting.   In such a scenario can the alleged perpetrator consider themselves cleared, ie innocent or not?

Presumably in the unlikely event that one of the McCanns or their friends is ever arrested in this country you will support the Cliff’s Law media blackout on reporting that ensues?   

[Miss Taken Identity]

What do you mean by “it was NOT investigated fully”?  Are you saying when the police receive an allegation of child abuse from an alleged victim all they do is raid the alleged perpetrator’s house and then fail to investigate any further if they find nothing incriminating ?  Interesting.   In such a scenario can the alleged perpetrator consider themselves cleared, ie innocent or not?

Presumably in the unlikely event that one of the McCanns or their friends is ever arrested in this country you will support the Cliff’s Law media blackout on reporting that ensues?

"The 77-year-old singer claimed he was left "shocked and upset" when helicopter footage of officers searching his Berkshire home was screened on the 1pm news."

Obviously, they had not fully investigated because they were not there to arrest him- Just to gather 'evidence' of sorts. He had not been questioned about his where about when these crimes were alleged AND he was NOT charged and prosecuted as a crime was not established with evidence.

"Presumably in the unlikely event that one of the McCanns or their friends is ever arrested in this country you will support the Cliff’s Law media blackout on reporting that ensues?"

I would expect them to be arrested in accordance within the law. A crime was committed by someone, if the parents are to be questioned with this regard. It should NOT be a media trial and conviction. I would also expect CPS are happy they have enough evidence to take to trial. I would expect it to be reported responsibly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

"The 77-year-old singer claimed he was left "shocked and upset" when helicopter footage of officers searching his Berkshire home was screened on the 1pm news."

Obviously, they had not fully investigated because they were not there to arrest him- Just to gather 'evidence' of sorts. He had not been questioned about his where about when these crimes were alleged AND he was NOT charged and prosecuted as a crime was not established with evidence.

"Presumably in the unlikely event that one of the McCanns or their friends is ever arrested in this country you will support the Cliff’s Law media blackout on reporting that ensues?"

I would expect them to be arrested in accordance within the law. A crime was committed by someone, if the parents are to be questioned with this regard. It should NOT be a media trial and conviction. I would also expect CPS are happy they have enough evidence to take to trial. I would expect it to be reported responsibly.

Because of the Cliff thing if any of the Tapas 9 are arrested for any crime (even one that has nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance) the media will not be allowed to report it unless they are charged.  I trust you support this change to the law?

[Brietta]

Congratulations to Sir Cliff winning his claim against the BBC. A vile corporation IMO.

"Sir Cliff Richard wins £210,000 in damages in privacy case against BBC"

Evening Standard - 18 July 2018

snip
"Sir Cliff Richard has been awarded more then £200,000 after winning a High Court battle against the BBC over its coverage of a police raid on his home.
The 77-year-old singer claimed he was left "shocked and upset" when helicopter footage of officers searching his Berkshire home was screened on the 1pm news.

South Yorkshire Police had briefed a reporter from the corporation in advance of the August 2014 raid, which followed a child sex assault allegation.

But once Sir Cliff had been told he would not face any criminal charges, he sued the BBC and the police force over the damage done to his reputation and career.
The BBC insisted it had a "strong journalistic right" to report on events at Sir Cliff's home, arguing a ruling against it would curb the media's ability to cover police investigations.
But at the High Court today, Mr Justice Mann ruled the singer should be awarded damages for invasion of privacy.


Sky News/MSN news feed.

This was an absolute disgrace!  them knowing about Jimmy Savilles 'little sex corporation'  OPEN SECRET -and doing the dirty on a man who had not been charged with anything!

Fortunately Sir Cliff had the resources at hand to pay for legal assistance against those who took to the internet to abuse him.
I wonder if any feel the black burning shame they should now that his name has been cleared ... or have they just continued and found someone else to abuse with their unfounded opinions who has less money to deal with them?

One can only make comparison with Sir Cliff's ordeal of trial by the media and those others on whom it has been decided there is "open season".


Sir Cliff Richard spends £70,000 dealing with online trolls after BBC revealed he was child abuse suspect
The singer, who was never charged, is claiming his costs for money spent on hiring solicitors and PR agents to deal with defamatory posts, including those on the Christians Against Cliff Facebook page

ByTom Pettifor
21:00, 29 JUN 2017

SIR Cliff Richard spent over £70,000 dealing with online trolls after the BBC revealed he was a child abuse suspect.

Sir Cliff’s lawyers said the corporation’s coverage of a police raid on his home made people think it was “open season” on the star.

The singer, 76, is suing the BBC over identifying him as a suspect i a child sex abuse investigation.

He is claiming his costs for money spent on hiring solicitors and PR agents to deal with defamatory posts, including those on the Christians Against Cliff Facebook page. It is part of total costs of £279,261 he is demanding.

Sir Cliff also spent £15,000 on legal fees over a suspected blackmail plot after a man demanded money in return for not spreading false sex claims about him.

The star, who was never charged, is suing the BBC for broadcasting South Yorkshire Police’s raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, in 2014.

High Court papers seen by the Mirror claim Sir Cliff is entitled to special damages because he is a “well-known individual” named in a “lurid and sensational” story. He is also claiming for £105,000 spent on media inquiries and £37,000 on media interviews.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sir-cliff-richard-spends-70000-10711294

[Miss Taken Identity]

Because of the Cliff thing if any of the Tapas 9 are arrested for any crime (even one that has nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance) the media will not be allowed to report it unless they are charged.  I trust you support this change to the law?

Yes I do support that in the instances where no crime  established and or  has been investigated fully and charges brought.

What you need to keep reminding yourself of is it was the McCanns who contacted the media-not the other way round. When awkward questions were asked they claimed they were sworn to judicial secrecy as per Portuguese laws.

The trolls for the McCanns were, and probably still are, vexed to some degree by their story and their behaviour and the level of protection they have been seen to have received. Their daughter disappeared and they have no case to answer.. yes seems strange.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fortunately Sir Cliff had the resources at hand to pay for legal assistance against those who took to the internet to abuse him.
I wonder if any feel the black burning shame they should now that his name has been cleared ... or have they just continued and found someone else to abuse with their unfounded opinions who has less money to deal with them?

One can only make comparison with Sir Cliff's ordeal of trial by the media and those others on whom it has been decided there is "open season"."

The BBC started the abuse by their 'reporting'.  They should fork out to cover all costs pertaining to dealing with trolls and such. Cliff doesn't need the media to enhance his career or good name, he is well loved by many and established as an artist.

The Mccanns courted the press against the advice of the police [Re secrecy laws]. They also used the media with various spokespeople to slag off the whole community of PDL the GRN the PJ and even here they have a little spawn of mouth pieces slagging off any one and everyone who dares to challenge the McCanns various versions of what happened.

This was done within hours of MBM's reported Disappearance!

[Robittybob1]

Shame.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes I do support that in the instances where no crime  established and or  has been investigated fully and charges brought.

What you need to keep reminding yourself of is it was the McCanns who contacted the media-not the other way round. When awkward questions were asked they claimed they were sworn to judicial secrecy as per Portuguese laws.

The trolls for the McCanns were, and probably still are, vexed to some degree by their story and their behaviour and the level of protection they have been seen to have received. Their daughter disappeared and they have no case to answer.. yes seems strange.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fortunately Sir Cliff had the resources at hand to pay for legal assistance against those who took to the internet to abuse him.
I wonder if any feel the black burning shame they should now that his name has been cleared ... or have they just continued and found someone else to abuse with their unfounded opinions who has less money to deal with them?

One can only make comparison with Sir Cliff's ordeal of trial by the media and those others on whom it has been decided there is "open season"."

The BBC started the abuse by their 'reporting'.  They should fork out to cover all costs pertaining to dealing with trolls and such. Cliff doesn't need the media to enhance his career or good name, he is well loved by many and established as an artist.

The Mccanns courted the press against the advice of the police [Re secrecy laws]. They also used the media with various spokespeople to slag off the whole community of PDL the GRN the PJ and even here they have a little spawn of mouth pieces slagging off any one and everyone who dares to challenge the McCanns various versions of what happened.

This was done within hours of MBM's reported Disappearance!

Of course, Cliff has never courted the media once.