« Topics
1234...192021
BM11456 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London
So they're still not giving up and will carry on spending money, contrary to your claims?

Probably not much money- nothing compared to legal bills. Also money that is less identifiable and not having to be mentioned in court or bringing uther bad headlines when verdicts are revealed,
But on the case itself money was clearly an import along with the legal advice given,
The attorney general has already responded and told them to redirect the letter
DE88508 posts since 8 Jan 2017
UTV Newsline
With the greatest of respect, I'm pretty sure this is meant to be a thread and not a blog/soapbox for BM11... Embarassed
"Channel 5! The channel that brings you England goals!" -- Jonathan Pearce, 31 May 1997
2
dosxuk and London Lite gave kudos
Fluffy Bunny Feet375 posts since 11 Mar 2003
PM actually had a Sun journalist disappointed about the BBC not appealing.


The Sun, along with some other papers have their own agenda.
They'll soon get around to bashing the BBC again.
To repeat - the court have refused permission to appeal.
BM11456 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London
PM actually had a Sun journalist disappointed about the BBC not appealing.


The Sun, along with some other papers have their own agenda.
They'll soon get around to bashing the BBC again.
To repeat - the court have refused permission to appeal.

Incorrect- That was the High Court and the Judge who did the original trial. The BBC could have asked permission of the court of appeal but that is what they announced yesterday they were not doing.
If they was no further legal options existing the BBC would have framed the press release around that rather than a choice not go for further appeal angles.
Fluffy Bunny Feet375 posts since 11 Mar 2003
From Huff Post:
''However, the corporation on Wednesday said its lawyers had found that the decision to find in favour of Sir Cliff could not be separated from the ruling on reporting live police investigations.

“Given this advice the BBC will not be appealing,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “It would inevitably mean an expensive legal cul-de-sac and one that would simply prolong Sir Cliff’s distress.''

Nothing to do with costs which I believe you had suggested before.
The cul-de-sac they refer to is what got them to court in the first place...
They were wrong and have admitted it as such - they and you need to move on.
BM11456 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London
From Huff Post:
''However, the corporation on Wednesday said its lawyers had found that the decision to find in favour of Sir Cliff could not be separated from the ruling on reporting live police investigations.

“Given this advice the BBC will not be appealing,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “It would inevitably mean an expensive legal cul-de-sac and one that would simply prolong Sir Cliff’s distress.''

Nothing to do with costs which I believe you had suggested before.
The cul-de-sac they refer to is what got them to court in the first place...
They were wrong and have admitted it as such - they and you need to move on.

It even says expensive in the article.
Fluffy Bunny Feet375 posts since 11 Mar 2003
From Huff Post:
''However, the corporation on Wednesday said its lawyers had found that the decision to find in favour of Sir Cliff could not be separated from the ruling on reporting live police investigations.

“Given this advice the BBC will not be appealing,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “It would inevitably mean an expensive legal cul-de-sac and one that would simply prolong Sir Cliff’s distress.''

Nothing to do with costs which I believe you had suggested before.
The cul-de-sac they refer to is what got them to court in the first place...
They were wrong and have admitted it as such - they and you need to move on.

It even says expensive in the article.


Still wrong.
Sorry, I'm not bothering to reply to anymore from you on this as you don't seem to understand the basics of a responsible TV newsroom.
1
London Lite gave kudos
Charlie Wells3,709 posts since 26 Nov 2003 Moderator
Anglia (West) Look East (West sub-opt)
In light of the BBC's statement I think this thread has reached it's natural conclusion. The BBC is writing to ask the Government to consider a review of the law as such goes beyond news presentation, and is perhaps best discussed elsewhere. Therefore this thread is now closed.
"Listen, we've all got something to bring to this conversation, but from now on what I think you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
No further posts are being accepted for this topic