Cliff Richard High Court Case

My guess is that TONY hall and Fran Unsworth already have a resignation statement 'swritten for when the case finally ends if the BBC lose ( which might be at a higher court considering the wider implications - through if the BBC would appeal even if legally they could reasonably win is another question).
It is actually suprsing the BBC just didnt settle because they would have got away with no resignations as the police have done so.
I am suprised the BBC havent but Dan Johnson on leave but he still appears to be working.
Also I suspect we will hear the BBC will sell the helicopter and they get criticized when their coverage is not as good as Sky news on a story as they didnt have a helicopter to use.

The BBC have no helicopter to sell, it's leased from Arena Aviation, so is Sky's, and both
live together in a hanger at Redhill Airfield.

They cancel the lease then

And it think it be appealed to a higher court - it seems too unclear for it to only be decided by the High Court - high court decisions rarely change the law while this case could.

Why?

Will be seen as a waste of money and a way of getting some positive coverage in the press along with the likely departures.

By who? (Outside of the usual groups who think everything the BBC does is a waste of money, and the Daily Mail)



How would "we can't offer any views from above of stories like flooding, fires or big events" be seen as a positive thing? (Again, excluding the parties above)

They don't own their own helicopter, and the vast vast majority of it's use is appreciated by their audience. At most I can see a tightening up of the sorts of stories it can be deployed to.

It be by those groups.

And since when has anyone listened to them?

This would impact on Sky as well though (posssibly ITN). For big events I thought the BBC and Sky often work together so that they can maintain a helicopter in the air by sharing the feed from one and switching to the other when the helicopter needs re-fuelling.