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
BM
BM11
PM actually had a Sun journalist disappointed about the BBC not appealing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
