By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Popular singer and all round Ladies man Sir Cliff Richard has won his privacy case against the BBC for their intrusion during a police raid regarding historical sex allegations that definitely weren’t true.The judge has awarded him £210,000 of licence payers money but more could be added to the Kitty later.
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 15:50 - Jul 19 by WarwickHunt
Skippy?
Just admit you didn’t know the difference between sliver and slither, Dimi. Try to maintain a “sliver” of dignity instead of making a complete cûnt of yourself.
Given he spelt myriad as mirriad earlier in this thread it’s a safe bet you’re correct.
0
Congratulations to Sir Cliff (n/t) on 18:18 - Jul 19 with 2328 views
So to summarise, this is a thread about a man receiving a well deserved payout because someone at the BBC decided to inform the world that Cliff may be something he isn't.
In the same thread, someone claims that Cliff is something he has said he isn't, but they said this in some twisted attempt to try and point score and defend homosexuals. It's hilarious. You'd almost think this person was trolling.
No wonder your analysis of the Swans performances is a notch above most on here, that`s properly why you get so much stick from your inferiors who are a notch below your logical thinking.
-1
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 18:57 - Jul 19 with 2300 views
So I assume now we all believe that everyone being investigated for an alleged crime has a reasonable expectation of privacy and shouldn’t be named by the press?
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:11 - Jul 19 by exiledclaseboy
So I assume now we all believe that everyone being investigated for an alleged crime has a reasonable expectation of privacy and shouldn’t be named by the press?
There ought to be no reportage until a charge is brought. What happened to Cliff Richard was feckin rotten. Disgusting.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:17 - Jul 19 with 2256 views
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:11 - Jul 19 by exiledclaseboy
So I assume now we all believe that everyone being investigated for an alleged crime has a reasonable expectation of privacy and shouldn’t be named by the press?
As I said yesterday, I was pleased he won as I believed it to be a gross invasion of his privacy and an appalling misjudgment by the BBC.
The wider implications are, however, concerning. Particularly in the area of sexual offence since it is frequently the publicity that causes others to come forward.
The difficulty is that any attempt to ask the media for some modicum of self restraint has fallen on deaf ears. It’s almost expected of the gutter press, but when it is the BBC that’s a different matter.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in practice. The interpretation of the ‘public interest’ element is, of course, crucial. Equally the level of intrusion that is, or isn’t as the case may be, deemed acceptable. There are several different interpretations circulating from lawyer types at present.
0
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:22 - Jul 19 with 2248 views
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:14 - Jul 19 by Lohengrin
There ought to be no reportage until a charge is brought. What happened to Cliff Richard was feckin rotten. Disgusting.
Sir Cliff was badly treated by both the police and the BBC but the wider implications of this are concerning and I don’t agree with a blanket ban on naming suspects. Publicising names can prompt witnesses and other potential victims to come forward, leading to stronger evidence to support a charge and conviction. Without that many crimes may not get as far as a charge. What’s needed is responsible reporting and that’s where the British press always lets itself down, including the BBC in this instance.
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:22 - Jul 19 by exiledclaseboy
Sir Cliff was badly treated by both the police and the BBC but the wider implications of this are concerning and I don’t agree with a blanket ban on naming suspects. Publicising names can prompt witnesses and other potential victims to come forward, leading to stronger evidence to support a charge and conviction. Without that many crimes may not get as far as a charge. What’s needed is responsible reporting and that’s where the British press always lets itself down, including the BBC in this instance.
To quote my pal Richard Booth: ”The British press are the High Priests of human sacrifice.”
More prostituted scum you’d be hard pressed to find outside of the Palace of Westminster and the Square Mile.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Congratulations to Sir Cliff on 19:31 - Jul 19 with 2219 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
