Cliff Richard High Court Case

Playing devil's advocate: preferring that guilty people go free than that innocent people are punished is a cornerstone of our justice system. If a person is guilty but cannot be proven to be so then they are innocent in the eyes of the law. Viewed through that lens, Cliff's comment isn't disgusting, it's just an accurate reflection of the system society chooses to live by.

But Steve's right: its a comment that's pretty irrelevant in the context of a case about media coverage.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-faces-2m-legal-bill-in-sir-cliff-richard-privacy-case-r3fqtwn89
£2million pound bill for the BBC. No further update on if an appeal will happen - next hearing where permission for any appeal has to be sought and compensation and legal costs decided I believe is on Thursday.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1021379894532628480
No public support for such an appeal based on it being from Sir Cliff's case whatsoever going by those figures.
Through I suspect the public were thinking of Sir Cliff and other famous figures when doing their answer- if it was say a suspected terrorist or child murderer I doubt they would such support for privacy during the trial and therefore would want a ruling stopping that information published overturned.

Don't confuse the two issues. I support the right to anonymity but I also fully expect the BBC to appeal as there are flaws in the findings and it is the judge interpreting the law in a way that previously hasn't been the case. However wrong the BBC may have been in societies eyes, legally their actions have precedent as not being unlawful.

That argument wont sway in the court of public opinion and the BBC knows that is a big risk to it's future.

Really though? Really?

Can we maybe just lock this thread?

A court case on editorial matters doesn't have much to do with presentation and branding (the point of TV forum) and it's quite clear that it's just one person's hatred of the BBC on display who thinks they know best.

I just want to say I’m fascinated by this. But as an American I find the idea of keeping the name of a suspect who has been arrested crazy. The only times the suspects name is withheld is if they’re a minor but the name may be release if they’re charged as an adult (generally if you are over 16 and it’s a felony). There have been times where the media arrives during a search of someone’s home but it never really affects the outcome. The only way the media would really affect a case is if they arrived ahead of the police before a search, tipped some one off, damaged evidence or published something that was sealed.

Cliff Richard was NOT arrested though.

His apartment was searched, and he attended a police interview voluntarily.

But was he a suspect or supposedly committed a crime? Surely if they searched his apartment they had probable cause. And plenty of people suspected do voluntary interviews.

To be fair, what does it have to do with TV presentation? It has strayed into the legalities of journalism.