I was slightly shocked with some of the quotes in his interview on ITV last night:
"I'd rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer"
After Sir Cliff Richard's privacy win against the BBC, he calls for individuals accused of sex offences to have the right to anonymity unless charged.
Interview [url= https://bit.ly/2uxKkdv ]HERE[/url]
Not sure what to make of that - seems a bit of poor judgement on his part to say that.
Surely his gripe should be and appears to be with whoever tipped off the press and had a helicopter flying over his house when the Police rocked up.
If it hadn't been televised I'm sure we wouldn't have heard much about it straight away.
I agree with the innocent until proven guilty, but to condone people getting away with it is a bit rash.
I wonder who the other 9 are...
So he wants 9 innocent victims of a sex crime to be denied justice?
Nice.
I'm glad the police treated the accusations seriously and investigated. It's really bad for him and some better management of the situation and privacy should have taken place.
However deciding not to investigate because we don't have proof before we start is not a solution to that problem.
Stupid thing to say, not in his interest at all.
Tho I do feel for him, DLT and others wrongly accused...
“I’d rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer”
After Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy win against the BBC, he calls for individuals accused of sex offences to have the right to anonymity unless charged.
Some relevant bits of that quote seem to have been left on the cutting room floor... What he actually said was :
He added: "I quoted in my evidence a judge - Blackstone - from way back and he said he'd rather ten guilty people escape then one innocent person suffer. And I'm thinking, that's like what I've been through. I'm one innocent person but I'm not one, there's an army of us out there that have had to go through things like this."
Slightly different when you add the rest.
If I was the one innocent one suffering I imagine I might agree. However I've no idea what the actual ratio of guilty vs innocent is in reality.
Sorry, yes. I got carried away
...That's what Cliff said (allegedly)
What he actually said was : .....
.... clearly irrelevant when people have already got a sharpened pitchfork that’s ready to go.
when the he eventually does get convicted will the BBC get their money back tho
I had the distinct impression it was all dropped.
clearly irrelevant when people have already got a sharpened pitchfork that’s ready to go.
Pitchfork? Far too barbaric. Can't we throw him in a pond and see if he floats?
…That’s what Cliff said (allegedly)
😆
His music is rubbish anyway
I heard you quite liked his films though.
The Police tactic in these recent high profile sex cases is to get maximum media attention and then see how many other victims come forward.....
If the person is guilty and other credible victims come forward it strengthens the case. If not it backfires spectacularly and we end up with new laws.
when the he eventually does get convicted will the BBC get their money back tho
his innocence* or otherwise is irrelevant to this case.
If you read the full judgement (and I have, coz Im boring like that) you will understand that the argument was about the balancing of Articles 8 (privacy) and 10 (free press) of the European Convention on Human Rights. And the BBC had not got that balance right - by a very long chalk.
* although one of the reasons that the judge found that article 8 had been too greatly ignored is that the general public are shit at holding on to the idea of the Presumption of Innocence. And that it runs from investigation all the way through arrest and charging right until verdict.
The Police tactic in these recent high profile sex cases is to get maximum media attention and then see how many other victims come forward…..
that "tactic" was expressly understood NOT to be a factor in this case. Again, the judge goes over that quite a few times in his handing down.
The BBC have accepted that (now) and it centred around filming into his home and the use of the helicopter, not reporting that he was under investigation.
The judges went further and said that *no one* being investigated by police should be named - which the BBC (and others) are arguing is too sweeping and a) prevents journalists reporting and b) isn't in the public interest because it potentially prevents other victims coming forward.
that “tactic” was expressly understood NOT to be a factor in this case.
Agree.
This was handled appallingly, genuinely feel sorry for the bloke.
As above, it’s a quote from Blackstones ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ from the 1700’s - the seminal work which laid down in writing most of the fundamental principles of the Common Law.
All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.
Im surprised you’ve never heard it before, it been accepted as a basic maxim of the English and American legal system for hundreds of years - however the principle goes back much further, being found in both the Bible and the Koran. If I remember correctly it was also quoted in the Salem Witch Trials (which may be particularly pertinent....)
If Cliff is wrong about this, the entire legal foundation of our society must be wrong
The judges went further and said that *no one* being investigated by police should be named
no quite ww.
The judge said that his ruling was that there should be a "general principle" of expectation of privacy at the investigative stage of the process. He even said that should their be an operational need to "shake the tree" in the search for other witnesses then that expectation to privacy may rightly be lost.
I dont mean to be very dull and kill a thread with huge "hang 'im by 'is balls'" potential, but there'd be a lot fewer erroneous comments if everyone had a gander at this first
(I dint think the summary was very good though)
Im surprised you’ve never heard it before
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
I had the distinct impression it was all dropped.
yeah without getting all Jivehoneyjive, im sure this wont be the end of the story*
agree though, the whole point of this is how the BBC handled the reporting, helicopter etc, so in that respect hes due his compensation
* my wifes aunt was in a christian rock band in the 70s (biggest christian rock band in their day apparently) she did some stuff with Cliff (at the BBC iirc) & she has some very dodgy stories, I've no reason to believe she'd lie.
Even as a BBC fanboi, this just never sat right with me.
Why was this deal seen by anyone in the police or the BBC to be in any way beneficial to the public good?
A simple report would have been enough, this smacked of a witch-hunt.
the judge was generous in how he described the BBC putting the police in the position where they had to invite the BBC along or risk them buggering up the search
Thanks. I'll read up on that.
* my wifes aunt was in a christian rock band in the 70s (biggest christian rock band in their day apparently) she did some stuff with Cliff (at the BBC iirc) & she has some very dodgy stories, I’ve no reason to believe she’d lie.
I have no reason to disbelieve your lack of reason to believe she would lie.
However, that's a 40 year old recollection. Memory is demonstrably fallible.
Even as a BBC fanboi, this just never sat right with me.
Even as a former BBC Newsgathering employee, I thought it was pretty appalling. The collusion between a police force and broadcaster was so blatant and OTT that it's unsurprising that both have been punished for it. Sticking a long camera lens out of a helicopter showing police opening your cupboards and having a root around...and all for an individual who has not even been questioned, let alone arrested.
The ruling is problematic though, because in theory it means that news organisations can't report on any police investigation before formal action is taken and announced. I'm sure there will be instances where public figures will use this to avoid justified press scrutiny. I suspect that the BBC will be forced to appeal in order to get clarity on what they can report about police investigations and when.
Their actions can't be justified in this case though.
However, that’s a 40 year old recollection. Memory is demonstrably fallible.
agreed, though the story is quite specific, I have no idea whether shed be willing to take that to the police etc
However, that’s a 40 year old recollection. Memory is demonstrably fallible.
Inappropriate sexual behaviour is not something that you would "forget" easily.
Also, meeting somebody very famous would stick in your mind quite clearly.
They could have busted him for crimes against music with his god-bothering warbling.
i just think it’s quite sad that the BBC seems to have joined the tabloids in a race to the bottom in journalistic standards. What’s worse is they seem to be totally unapologetic in the ‘sorry, not sorry’ manner of a surly teenager.
Its hardly enhancing their reputation as a serious news organisation, is it?
His choice of words are a bit off, but why shouldn't those accused of sex crimes not have anonymity until convicted? There have been a few cases of accused rapists being plastered all over the press before it being found that there were no grounds for the case in the first place........and we know how measured the general public are
The judge made several references to the treatment of Christopher Jeffries in the Joanne Yeates murder investigation.
If Cliff is wrong about this, the entire legal foundation of our society must be wrong
Indeed, and many other things.
Having a legal principal of not naming the accused might seem like a great idea but it has the potential to generate problems not only for other victims but for the accused themselves. If the police are able to arrest someone without anyone knowing then that has the potential for far reaching abuse of power such a detention without trial. It’s the sort of power that is enjoyed in “Police States” and one that needs very careful consideration before it is brought in.
So he wants 9 innocent victims of a sex crime to be denied justice?
Nice.
So you want innocent people to be banged up for sex crimes they didn't commit?
Nice.
Have a think about it. It's all about burden of proof and we have it about right IMO.
The police/media collusion was disgusting. Justice is in the public interest, celebrity fascination isn't.
Were the BBC the only agency to cover it? ITV is usually the first in with any Yew Tree style accusations, the Beeb sort of half heartedly follows suit lest it looks like a cover up if the accused ever so much as stepped foot in a BBC building.
For me, it was news worthy and every single other 'celebrity' who's been accused of anything has been fair game for the press unless they managed to get a super injunction in first.
As for the 9 v 1 thing, that's sort of the basis of our Criminal Justice system, innocent until proven guilty or in other words the onus is on the Police / Crown to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence - but in recent years this has been eroded, from small things like 'absolute offences' and assumption of guilt in motoring offences, to people being convicted by weight of accusation, like Rolf Harris.
what we need now is a pic of a younger cliff sitting next to someone in the underworld or some well known nonce. If we only there was someone to supply one...
They could have busted him for crimes against music with his god-bothering warbling.
There was a "The Reunion" on the beeb, about "the Young Ones" popular yoof comedy from the 1980s. One of the hip participants involved with the "re-boot" of the Sir Cliff song of the same name ("said" Sir Cliff Richard song, I suppose, in STW parlance) remarked on how once Sir Cliff started singing it was pitch perfect etc. etc. Funny how he had a great voice, good looks and yet was so uncool. And he never married. A bit like Sir Ted Heath, though Sir Ted wasn't good looking and was not known for his singing.
Has nobody checked yet for Elon Musk's opinion?
It’s a bit of a leep from revealing someone’s name, to hovering a helicopter over their gaff with a long lens filming the police rifling through they’re drawers. For all manner of reasons.
Thats absolutely indefiinsible, and you’d think an organisation like the BBC would know that and wouldn’t need it pointing out to them by a judge
the onus is on the Police to prove guilt
Another fallacy. Police duty is to investigate not to prosecute (save for a few summary offences). The recent noise over disclosure has been to reinforce this duty and stop police pre judging.
The recent book by https://thesecretbarrister.com as well as covering the failing of our judicial system, is very good at describing the judicial process and the roles of all the parties.
Inappropriate sexual behaviour is not something that you would “forget” easily.
Also, meeting somebody very famous would stick in your mind quite clearly.
That sort of wasn't my point, which was, details will be mis-remembered, timelines confused, names of places mixed up, etc. Stuff that is lodged in memory as 'fact' may have happened rather differently in reality.
Just for absolute clarity, I am not trying to suggest we should avoid attempting to prosecute people who have "got away with it" for 50 years.
It just s shame that the BBC are being so pompous about it ... and refusing to apologise.
If they want to be gutter press, that is fine... but then we should pay a mandatory licence fee for it.
The collusion between the police / BBC was out of this world media whoring .....
Due to the unique way that they are funded, the BBC can afford to have standards.
Or apparently not.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
It’s a bit of a leep from revealing someone’s name, to hovering a helicopter over their gaff with a long lens filming the police rifling through they’re drawers. For all manner of reasons.
Thats absolutely indefiinsible, and you’d think an organisation like the BBC would know that and wouldn’t need it pointing out to them by a judge
</div>
Pretty much this.
I'm on the fence with how the BBC run their affairs or News reporting, some of it reasonably balanced but in cases like this it's almost like they employed some intern from the Daily Star or Sun and said "you handle it"
It was from that moment on only going one way, and I do think the BBC has some other motive against Sir Cliff. What I have no idea, but they do seem to have taken a dislike towards him.
What I'd like to know, and this isn't prying, is what Sir Cliff will do with the £210k damages. He certainly doesn't need the money, so I propose he donate it to a Charity of some sort.. eh Cliff...
<div class="bbp-reply-author">gonefishin
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Having a legal principal of not naming the accused might seem like a great idea but it has the potential to generate problems not only for other victims but for the accused themselves. If the police are able to arrest someone without anyone knowing then that has the potential for far reaching abuse of power such a detention without trial. It’s the sort of power that is enjoyed in “Police States” and one that needs very careful consideration before it is brought in.
</div>
Thats a kind of massive jump. Firstly, I don't think anyone has suggested a person accused of a crime would not have the right to publicly discuss the accusation. Secondly, I don't quite get how you think the media not publishing the details* equates to "without anyone knowing". Thirdly its already common practice for the police to report vague details like, "a 32 year old man from West Yorkshire is a assisting us with our enquiries" without explicitly naming anyone. Finally the legal system is full of checks and balances and I see no reason to presume that any such approach would require more complex consideration than has delivered the current system - but I am sure that with an overarching set of rights (ECHR) that the courts would be able to manage any perceived unfairness to the accused.
* e.g. victims of sexual assault are normally afforded that anonymity, yet public trials are successfully held. The victims own name is used in the courtroom. Often the victim gives evidence. Anyone can sit in the court and hear that witness or other witnesses name the alleged victim. Its simply contempt of court to name the person in the media (including social media).
pjay - the onus is on the Police / Crown to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence – but in recent years this has been eroded, from small things like ‘absolute offences’ and assumption of guilt in motoring offences, to people being convicted by weight of accusation, like Rolf Harris.
By absolute offences do you mean "strict liability offences"? Like, for example, driving without insurance? Hardly a new idea, and makes sense for things where it would be virtually impossible for the state to prove definitively you did not do something but relatively trivial for the accused to show they did.
What do you mean by assumption of guilt in motoring offences? Read any thread on here on a careless/dangerous driving thread and you will quickly see that there is no such thing.
Really everyone is convicted by the weight of accusation. I'm not quite sure what your objection to that is. I didn't follow the Rolf Harris case(s) in any detail. Its surely better to convict when there is a weight to the case than when it is poorly constructed? I guess what you are implying is that there was a lack of other substantive evidence except the witness testimony of separate accusers? That is not an unusual situation especially in sex crimes - in Scotland where the key facts of a case must be corroborated there is even a widely used legal doctrine for how two or more similar cases can corroborate behaviour, the case it is based on (and frequently tested in the appeal court) is from the 1930s - hardly "recent years".
I have to admit I have a fair degree of sympathy with the statement that the accused should remain anonymous in sex cases. Its easy to say that it helps the police not to do so but I doubt that would be the view point if you had been on the end of a false accusation.
On a slightly related note..I remember when my mate at uni told me that hed been given a hand job by a very well known tv presenter when he was about 10. He told us this about 20 Years ago and we just looked at him in disbelief...when the whole yewtree thing kicked off it all kinda made sense.
Wont mention names..the perpetrator has never even been linked with anything..although hes been top of my pub's 'who is next' Peado sweepstake for quite some time.
For me it's all about the definition of 'public interest'. The media trot this statement out at every opportunity and nobody seems to have the balls to challenge it. Is it really in the public interest if the police are investigating some celebrity? a local school headmaster maybe, but not some silly celebrity who might have had his wicked way with someone 50 years ago. But then the anonymous local headmaster is not likely to generate the sales/clicks/newspaper sales etc. that a high profile celeb would.
If Cliff overstepped the mark 50 years ago in his dressing room with some star struck fan, is it really in the public interest to know about it until due process has taken its course and decided if he is guilty or not if he's not an immediate threat to the public?...I don't think it is..it's all about revenue generating headlines and getting one over the competing medial outlets...Its all about the SCOOP! If someone presents a clear and present danger to the public then fair enough, that's public interest. I don't think the Cliff situation was in the public interest, not at that particular moment that required a helicopter hovering overhead anyway.
It wouldn't be so bad if the media took the responsibility to properly return to the headlines they create..it's one thing to report a celebrity is under investigation for something, potentially trashing their reputation....as long as if they are found not guilty they make just as big a splash about it in an effort to restore their reputation...but unfortunately the 'guess what...he's not guilty after all' headline doesn't create as revenue generating prospects as the...'he's guilty and you heard it here first' headline does. Plus it doesn't fit with the BBC's political agenda that they feel guilty about turning a blind eye to Jimmy for decades, bordering on aiding and abetting his activities, and are trying to be seen to be stamping down hard on celebs they've previously supported, so have adopted a presumption of guilt at the slightest whiff of a complaint.
Ultimately it's our fault as we insist on buying the newspapers and paying for the media outlets irrespectively so send the messages to them that this is what we want. We ultimately create and generate the headlines, not the journalists or the media outlets. They're just fulfilling a demand.
It’s a bit of a leep from revealing someone’s name, to hovering a helicopter over their gaff with a long lens filming the police rifling through they’re drawers. For all manner of reasons.
Thats absolutely indefiinsible, and you’d think an organisation like the BBC would know that and wouldn’t need it pointing out to them by a judge
I agree but the ruling was about revealing his name, not the helicopter. Which has some pretty serious implications for press freedom and police investigations.