:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
BM
BM11
And that is what could ultimately lead to
resignations
when all appeals are finished - not the verdict per see but
the enormous legal costs it brings
. And because if the appeal is unsuccessful the press won’t exactly be pleased at the BBC for leading to this situation and the usual suspects will will want the BBC to suffer.
Cliff deserved his legal fees paying, but.....
Let's just remember in considering the £850,000 that the BBC has agreed to pay Cliff, never mind the other costs, that it amounts to the entire yearly TV licence paid by 5,648 households. That is a decent sized town's worth.
Nobody can carry on in their job when having shown such a devastating lack of judgement which has then meant squandering such a huge amount of public money so pointlessly.
It shouldn't be a question of if there are resignations, but when.
And the BBC know that - but they hoping their win their appeal and then they don't have to pay it.
I can only see it ending with Tony Hall going as well.
BL
Perhaps the BBC has legal indemnity insurance in place to pay things like this? I don't know.
RK
I would imagine they would as most major corporations have it.
Perhaps the BBC has legal indemnity insurance in place to pay things like this? I don't know.
I would imagine they would as most major corporations have it.
BM
BM11
Just wondering.
If the Law remains changed would that affect affect investigations and documentary as well - because if they were allegations of Criminal activity wouldn't that be unfair? even if the police only investigate after the documentary.
If the Law remains changed would that affect affect investigations and documentary as well - because if they were allegations of Criminal activity wouldn't that be unfair? even if the police only investigate after the documentary.
FB
No. Broadcasters (in the UK at least) must be impartial, and give both sides of any argument. They must also give a right of reply to any accusations - if the accusers refuse that's up to them (I'm thinking of dodgy businesses on consumer programmes).
Furthermore any responsible broadcaster would get items accusing persons or companies checked with a lawyer before transmission. You simply can't make an accusation and move on to another story. The exception might be if individuals are dead as you can't be libelled - but members of any 'estate' or possible trustees might expect a right of reply.
Newspapers may take a different view / risk depending on sales versus legal costs but you would still expect a right of reply or quote from persons in the article.
Furthermore any responsible broadcaster would get items accusing persons or companies checked with a lawyer before transmission. You simply can't make an accusation and move on to another story. The exception might be if individuals are dead as you can't be libelled - but members of any 'estate' or possible trustees might expect a right of reply.
Newspapers may take a different view / risk depending on sales versus legal costs but you would still expect a right of reply or quote from persons in the article.
BM
BM11
BBC not appealing due to cost issues according to a tweet from a respected barrister.
https://twitter.com/CrimeLineLaw/status/1026001327682453504
https://twitter.com/CrimeLineLaw/status/1026001327682453504
BM
BM11
Getting fact and opinion mixed up there. You really should get that broken record fixed.
It seems like he is reporting a certified piece of information he has heard not his analysis.
Last edited by BM11 on 6 August 2018 6:23pm
BM
BM11
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/04/bbc-will-not-appeal-cliff-richard-privacy-ruling-fear-public/
As I have said the BBC was always going to have to consider the public reaction and cost of an appeal and it does seem that has been one of the deciding factors.
As I have said the BBC was always going to have to consider the public reaction and cost of an appeal and it does seem that has been one of the deciding factors.
FB
No that was a speculative report.
The BBC sought leave to appeal against the High Court ruling but the application was rejected by the court - it has nothing to do with cost.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/04/bbc-will-not-appeal-cliff-richard-privacy-ruling-fear-public/
As I have said the BBC was always going to have to consider the public reaction and cost of an appeal and it does seem that has been one of the deciding factors.
As I have said the BBC was always going to have to consider the public reaction and cost of an appeal and it does seem that has been one of the deciding factors.
No that was a speculative report.
The BBC sought leave to appeal against the High Court ruling but the application was rejected by the court - it has nothing to do with cost.
BM
BM11
BBC to announce by the end of the day if they will seek leave of the court of appeal to appeal. The rumors are that they will not.