Forum menu
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.