Should the BBC be sued

jarraman

Prominent Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
551
Points
595
Age
75
Location
jarrow
Now that Sir Cliff Richard has being found totally innocent of all allegations made against him by the BBC, should he now sue.

It seems to me the BBC has some sort of agenda against celebrities of one sort or another. They did their best to deflect any accusations against them during the Jimmy Saville affair.

Should heads roll at auntie or at the very least a massive fine. With NOTHING coming out of the taxpayers pocket.

Is it not about time to that the punishment for not having a license be reduced to a fine rather than a prison sentence. When murderers, rapists and terrorists get parole, sending someone to goal for not having a license is totally wrong.
 
Unfortunately for him there was no such finding of totally innocent, the CPS just issued a derisory statement about not pursuing charges
“I know the truth and in some people’s eyes the CPS announcement today doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t expressly state that I am innocent, which of course I am. There lies the problem ...

“My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS policy is to only say something general about there being ‘insufficient’ evidence.

“How can there be evidence for something that never took place!”
As regards suing the BBC, not sure there are any grounds, despite what he's said to the press, and the BBC now bending over backwards to apologise over any distress caused by their dreadful coverage. Possibly has grounds to sue South Yorkshire Police though.

EDIT ...
Your non sequitur on the licence fee is discussed in numerous threads, unless this is a multi-bash the BBC thread?
 
I think you can sue for wrongful arrest. I don't think he was arrested though.
 
Oh if I was Cliff now I'd be looking to sue someone. No idea what a lawyer could do and with who but Cliff must have the money.
 
Sir Cliff Richard's privacy 'breached by raid details release' - Sir Cliff Richard's privacy 'breached by raid details release' - BBC News

Maybe this.

"The report concluded the South Yorkshire force should not have confirmed "highly sensitive and confidential" details to the BBC or facilitated a meeting between a senior detective and a corporation reporter."
 
@Fred Quimby I think this may be better off in GC as that's where most such discussions take place? Any objections if I move it?
 
I think you can sue for wrongful arrest. I don't think he was arrested though.

I think defamation of character is what he should be looking at and not wrongful arrest. Thats if he was arrested.

It seems the BBC THOUGHT they had enough evidence, to destroy him, but that has been proven to be not the case.

Although Cliff is knocking on a bit, he did lose out on concert appearances and such like.
 
How can you be on anyone's ignore list I've never seen you post anything that I didn't agree with. Hang on a minute... Am I on the OP's ignore list too?

I had to take your name out, so as not to let the cat out of the bag lol! :rotfl:
 
Noticed it a while back when my posts always seemed to be ignored whilst others who posted similar stuff would receive a response or rating, including a Sky renewal thread where I gave some helpful advice.
 
^^^ I was actually going to mention that (or a similar Fast Show sketch with Arabella Weir).

I've not rated your post, and removed my ratings from Sonic's posts as they might give me away :)
 
Not something I can check, want me to ask? :D
 
I don't think Cliff Richard has any grounds to sue the BBC. If he wants to sue anyone it's either the police or his accuser(s). It's probably not a very good tactical move as well. It'll keep this whole affair in the public eye reminding everyone the police didn't have enough evidence against him.
 
Well that's spoiled that game :D
 
I don't think Cliff Richard has any grounds to sue the BBC. If he wants to sue anyone it's either the police or his accuser(s). It's probably not a very good tactical move as well. It'll keep this whole affair in the public eye reminding everyone the police didn't have enough evidence against him.

Thats basically what I said. He should sue his accusers the BBC. As regards being in the public limelight he has being their for over 50 years. Go Cliff....sue the bussards
 
Then who did Krish??. It was orchestrated between the Police and them. Unless you know something different.
 
But they still didn't accuse him. I think the whole thing was shameful, but ultimately they made no direct accusations, just reporting allegations as allegations, as they and all UK broadcasters do with anyone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, let alone charged. Now if it was the US, the TV reporting would be shocking, of a standard that would be considered prejudicial and in contempt of court (if charged) here.

Police misconduct does appear to be a possibilty with breaching privacy, leaking raid details to the media/BBC. So a civil suit here could be successful, but does he want to continue this nightmare battling a body that might further smear him? The honourable thing would be for South Yorkshire Police to apologise and settle damages.
 
Noticed it a while back when my posts always seemed to be ignored whilst others who posted similar stuff would receive a response or rating, including a Sky renewal thread where I gave some helpful advice.
I must be on everyone's list as I'm forever ignored
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom