Daily Mail front page has the headline Tearful Cliff: Heads must roll but also has the first paragraph of a comment piece attacking the verdict on the same grounds the BBC does.
The Sun through are clearly not happy at the Verdict and their main headline, 'it's not funny, we can't talk anymore' is about the effect on the press - but they also imply that the BBC will have to pay £5million in damages and legal costs. The Guardian and the Mirror also give prominence to the effects it could have on the press.
Wierdly it doesn't seem to have made the front of the The Times despite them being the people with a strong legal industry readership
Last edited by BM11 on 18 July 2018 10:58pm - 2 times in total
Daily Mail front page has the headline Tearful Cliff: Heads must roll but also has the first paragraph of a comment piece attacking the verdict on the same grounds the BBC does.
The Sun through are clearly not happy at the Verdict and their main headline, 'it's not funny, we can't talk anymore' is about the effect on the press - but they also imply that the BBC will have to pay £5million in damages and legal costs. The Guardian and the Mirror also give prominence to the effects it could have on the press.
Wierdly it doesn't seem to have made the front of the The Times despite them being the people with a strong legal industry readership
They can’t appeal
and
have resignations. Resignations would be an acceptance of guilt.
Not necessary- it is possible to say the helicopter and that the coverage in this case was ott and totally wrong while the legal principle the case has decided is incorrect and would affect press freedom.
They can’t appeal
and
have resignations. Resignations would be an acceptance of guilt.
Not necessary- it is possible to say the helicopter and that the coverage in this case was ott and totally wrong while the legal principle the case has decided is incorrect and would affect press freedom.
Well you’ve clearly made your mind up on that already.
Virtually all the press backing the BBC on this one and it is an unprecedented reinterpretation of the law. This is far from over and what BM11 doesn't understand (well, one of the many many things BM11 doesn't understand) is that it is in the licence fee payers interests to appeal against possibly paying millions of pounds in costs.
Off topic but disgraceful how any case could cost £1m a year to defend. Really is time rip-off legal fees were addressed.
BM
BM11
Lord Patten through is saying the BBC shouldn’t appeal, seems like he thinks on cost grounds and BBC's reputation grounds.
The BBC are damned both ways unless they win a final appeal - don’t appeal and the press might seem betrayed and attack, appeal and lose and they get a story out of the cost.
Remember the press are angry that the BBC didn’t settle before it went to the court because that wouldn’t have created a legal precedent.
Having had more time to reflect I feel the judgement is somewhat problematic.
Had the judge's decided that the use of the helicopter was the subject of gross invasion of privacy then I suspect neither the BBC or the newspapers would be taking issue with the verdict. However it appears to the judge decided that the (non-helicopter) reporting of the fact the police were raiding Cliff's house was an invasion of privacy. It potentially opens the floodgates for individuals who've been named as suspects (but never charged) by BBC and/or newspapers in similar cases to sue for invasion of privacy, citing this court case as case law.
It's reasonable to assume that had anyone else been sued by Cliff (e.g. Sky News or Daily Mail) then they would definitely be appealing the verdict. However as the BBC is funded by the licence fee and regularly subject to pressure from government and newspapers it's harder to know whether they'll appeal. Any appeal will see the legal costs increase further, and potentially cost the BBC far more should they lose. However if they don't appeal the newspapers won't be happy, and without proper updated laws from government the verdict will likely be used as case law in future cases.
Having had more time to reflect I feel the judgement is somewhat problematic.
Had the judge's decided that the use of the helicopter was the subject of gross invasion of privacy then I suspect neither the BBC or the newspapers would be taking issue with the verdict. However it appears to the judge decided that the (non-helicopter) reporting of the fact the police were raiding Cliff's house was an invasion of privacy. It potentially opens the floodgates for individuals who've been named as suspects (but never charged) by BBC and/or newspapers in similar cases to sue for invasion of privacy, citing this court case as case law.
It's reasonable to assume that had anyone else been sued by Cliff (e.g. Sky News or Daily Mail) then they would definitely be appealing the verdict. However as the BBC is funded by the licence fee and regularly subject to pressure from government and newspapers it's harder to know whether they'll appeal. Any appeal will see the legal costs increase further, and potentially cost the BBC far more should they lose. However if they don't appeal the newspapers won't be happy, and without proper updated laws from government the verdict will likely be used as case law in future cases.
As I said the BBC can't win unless they actually win any appeal - otherwise they will be criticized for costs and not settling before the trial. Newspapers of course will only actually care about the later but they will (prehaps rightly) run with both.
Having had more time to reflect I feel the judgement is somewhat problematic.
Had the judge's decided that the use of the helicopter was the subject of gross invasion of privacy then I suspect neither the BBC or the newspapers would be taking issue with the verdict. However it appears to the judge decided that the (non-helicopter) reporting of the fact the police were raiding Cliff's house was an invasion of privacy. It potentially opens the floodgates for individuals who've been named as suspects (but never charged) by BBC and/or newspapers in similar cases to sue for invasion of privacy, citing this court case as case law.
It's reasonable to assume that had anyone else been sued by Cliff (e.g. Sky News or Daily Mail) then they would definitely be appealing the verdict. However as the BBC is funded by the licence fee and regularly subject to pressure from government and newspapers it's harder to know whether they'll appeal. Any appeal will see the legal costs increase further, and potentially cost the BBC far more should they lose. However if they don't appeal the newspapers won't be happy, and without proper updated laws from government the verdict will likely be used as case law in future cases.
As I said the BBC can't win unless they actually win any appeal - otherwise they will be criticized for costs and not settling before the trial. Newspapers of course will only actually care about the later but they will (prehaps rightly) run with both.
You're forgotting the other point of an appeal - to clarify a point of law. The BBC could appeal the language of the judgement that is now being taken as creating a precedent, while allowing that they have breached Sir Cliff's privacy in this case. Clarification on the grounds of when they would have been able to name him, if at all, and what identifiable information they would be allowed to disclose even if they didn't name him appears to be needed as none of that is really tackled in the judgement.
It's worth pointing out that if the Police had named him in their statement, as they told the BBC they were expecting to do, the BBC would pretty much have been off the hook for this whole debacle.
Obviously there are always exceptions and limits but I'd have thought the BBC would be insured against such lawsuits so actually any potential financial loss is already paid for.