Can't see anyone resigning if the BBC are planning to appeal.
I have my doubts that the will appeal in the end. Fair chance BBC will eventually decide it will only make the reputation of the BBC worse and it be easier for the BBC in the long run to pay up and wait until parliament resolves it through statute or case against another media outlet comes to court for a resolution of the points they have raised in their statement. If it goes to appeal than they lose then Tony Hall is toast because he will be the one who formally authorises a decision as big as this (cost reasons and further distress to Sir Cliff)
Fran Unsworth's email to BBC Journalists today https://twitter.com/pressgazette/status/1019608298046345218
Last edited by BM11 on 18 July 2018 7:15pm - 8 times in total
With respect to Cliff, calling for someone to resign doesn’t mean they will or should.
It will start a frenzy that this and this person should go - It feels it is heading towards this - that will be the headlines in the papers tommrow and over the next few days.
It will start a frenzy that this and this person should go - It feels it is heading towards this - that will be the headlines in the papers tommrow and over the next few days.
The only frenzy is being caused by the voices in your head. After Russiagate it's clear you're trust trolling for attention
With respect to Cliff, calling for someone to resign doesn’t mean they will or should.
It will start a frenzy that this and this person should go - It feels it is heading towards this - that will be the headlines in the papers tommrow and over the next few days.
Can I call for you to resign?
Seriously, though, this story is currently number 10 on the list of the most read stories on the BBC News website. It's behind "Boater accidentally drains canal" and "Bacon roll row plane passenger fined".
It seems that more people are looking for a bacon roll than BBC heads to roll.
Intersetingly, there was a rape trial recently in Northern Ireland featuring two high profile rugby players. They were found not guilty, but BBC Northern Ireland named the two after they had been brought in for questioning by police.
No helicopter video, but their names were out there for being questioned over an offense before they were even charged.
They decided to try sue BBC Northern Ireland arguing this constituted a breach of privacy and that the BBC had not followed its guidelines on allowing sufficient time for a right of reply.
The case was dropped and the rugby players ordered to pay the BBC costs.
I suspect there is more to that story about the rugby players than is reported there. For the rugby club to revoke their contracts *after* the trial in which they were acquitted seems very unusual.
I don't find it offensive, just irrelevant. Media coverage which infringes privacy is a side issue to the justice system and people "getting away with it".
I don't believe there is any official suggestion that the police were wrong to investigate the allegation against him, although there is legitimate criticism of some of the fine detail of how they did it.