:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
CI
It’s television. You need pictures of some kind to tell the story on television. They weren’t going to get much in the way of pictures on the ground, but they could from air. Simples...
You have to ask yourself just what a helicopter flying over his home was meant to actually bring to the story? Was seeing police officers entering the property through the front gate simply not good enough for the BBC? It damned well should have been.
It’s television. You need pictures of some kind to tell the story on television. They weren’t going to get much in the way of pictures on the ground, but they could from air. Simples...
BL
I think you've expressed the situation very well. There are two issues here for me. Naming a well known 'personality' accused of a serious crime is perhaps permissible given that they do/have generally seek/sought publicity in their day to day lives. But using any form of invasive techniques along the lines you say is a complete 'no no' in my book.
If the BBC loses, it'll be the helicopter coverage that did it for them. There's absolutely no way anyone is going to convince me that if the police have received allegations of a crime carried out by a well known celebrity, and they choose to investigate those allegations, any media organisation doesn't have every right to report that news. But flying a helicopter outside that celebrity's window, while coppers are rummaging through his knicker drawer, is somewhat problematic.
I'm sure if the BBC loses, the Corporation will go into full meltdown mode, like they did with the Hutton Inquiry and the Savile affair. Heads will roll. Probably not the right heads, but heads will roll nonetheless.
I'm sure if the BBC loses, the Corporation will go into full meltdown mode, like they did with the Hutton Inquiry and the Savile affair. Heads will roll. Probably not the right heads, but heads will roll nonetheless.
I think you've expressed the situation very well. There are two issues here for me. Naming a well known 'personality' accused of a serious crime is perhaps permissible given that they do/have generally seek/sought publicity in their day to day lives. But using any form of invasive techniques along the lines you say is a complete 'no no' in my book.
BM
BM11
I am surprised the BBC didn't bother to settle - not even a massive compensation package would have got as much negative press for them than if they lose the case.
HC
Whoa there! Been reading the Daily Fail lately?
Simple question to Hatton Cross:
If you had a police raid on your home with live media of the event would you be happy?
You clearly aren't a reader of the Daily Mail if you think my last posting was based on that homophobic little England hate-rags editorial thinking about the BBC. The Daily Mail would not be calling for the BBC to win the case and be awarded costs.
But, since you asked the question.
If I wasn't famous. Probably not happy, but if I was fairly certain plod would find no incriminating evidence about my property, I'd put up with it.
If I was famous. It's part of the territory with being famous. The amount of times during Sir Cliff's carear he's needed the BBC to plug a single/album release, but he can't expect glowing and fawning coverage for everything he does.
I'm guessing Sky News are keeping quiet until after the verdict, but I'm fairly sure that if SYP tipped off Martin Brunt over this raid, Sky News would not have kept the Sky News Copter grounded at Redhill Aerodrome as Inspector Knacker rolled up to the electric gates of Sir Clifford's British mansion.
Whoa there! Been reading the Daily Fail lately?
Simple question to Hatton Cross:
If you had a police raid on your home with live media of the event would you be happy?
You clearly aren't a reader of the Daily Mail if you think my last posting was based on that homophobic little England hate-rags editorial thinking about the BBC. The Daily Mail would not be calling for the BBC to win the case and be awarded costs.
But, since you asked the question.
If I wasn't famous. Probably not happy, but if I was fairly certain plod would find no incriminating evidence about my property, I'd put up with it.
If I was famous. It's part of the territory with being famous. The amount of times during Sir Cliff's carear he's needed the BBC to plug a single/album release, but he can't expect glowing and fawning coverage for everything he does.
I'm guessing Sky News are keeping quiet until after the verdict, but I'm fairly sure that if SYP tipped off Martin Brunt over this raid, Sky News would not have kept the Sky News Copter grounded at Redhill Aerodrome as Inspector Knacker rolled up to the electric gates of Sir Clifford's British mansion.
BM
BM11
Sky co share the helicopter with the BBC apparently. Considering the BBC will probably be pressured into not using one again for any stories how will that affect Sky?
DO
You keep saying this like it's a fact. I don't see it happening even as a remote possibility. More restrictions on its deployment, higher level staff used to make the decision to use it, yes, but not allowed to use one at all for any story? Sorry, no chance.
Considering the BBC will probably be pressured into not using one again for any stories
You keep saying this like it's a fact. I don't see it happening even as a remote possibility. More restrictions on its deployment, higher level staff used to make the decision to use it, yes, but not allowed to use one at all for any story? Sorry, no chance.
BM
BM11
Why not- The Daily Mail and co will call for a total ban for cost reasons and the BBC management will decide to go along with it
MA
There are two choppers, one branded BBC News, the other branded Sky News. I don't know the exact picture sharing arrangements between the BBC, ITN, and Sky, but I don't think you'll ever see both choppers in the sky simultaneously covering the same event, (for safety, common sense, and economic reasons). However, one will sometimes relieve the other to go and refuel etc.
There are two choppers, one branded BBC News, the other branded Sky News. I don't know the exact picture sharing arrangements between the BBC, ITN, and Sky, but I don't think you'll ever see both choppers in the sky simultaneously covering the same event, (for safety, common sense, and economic reasons). However, one will sometimes relieve the other to go and refuel etc.
DO
Because unless you ban helicopter use across the BBC and it's suppliers, they will still appear on BBC News; there's numerous stories where the use of a helicopter is an extremely useful tool for news gathering and story telling - think the London riots being solely covered from the ground; their commercial rivals have access to helicopters; and the Daily Mail's demands of the BBC can be immediately discounted because they've proven themselves time and time again to not have a reasonable or pragmatic view of how the BBC is funded or managed.
Like I said, I can see them being restricted from certain usage, like this story, but there's no way they agree to a complete ban for stories like flooding, emergencies like Grenfeld or large sporting events.
Why not- The Daily Mail and co will call for a total ban for cost reasons and the BBC management will decide to go along with it
Because unless you ban helicopter use across the BBC and it's suppliers, they will still appear on BBC News; there's numerous stories where the use of a helicopter is an extremely useful tool for news gathering and story telling - think the London riots being solely covered from the ground; their commercial rivals have access to helicopters; and the Daily Mail's demands of the BBC can be immediately discounted because they've proven themselves time and time again to not have a reasonable or pragmatic view of how the BBC is funded or managed.
Like I said, I can see them being restricted from certain usage, like this story, but there's no way they agree to a complete ban for stories like flooding, emergencies like Grenfeld or large sporting events.
MA
You keep saying this like it's a fact. I don't see it happening even as a remote possibility. More restrictions on its deployment, higher level staff used to make the decision to use it, yes, but not allowed to use one at all for any story? Sorry, no chance.
There was more of a kerfuffle with the BBC helicopter over this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_bbc_news_helicopter
Considering the BBC will probably be pressured into not using one again for any stories
You keep saying this like it's a fact. I don't see it happening even as a remote possibility. More restrictions on its deployment, higher level staff used to make the decision to use it, yes, but not allowed to use one at all for any story? Sorry, no chance.
There was more of a kerfuffle with the BBC helicopter over this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_bbc_news_helicopter