Cliff Richard: BBC bosses 'should carry the can'

BBC News ^ | 7/18/2018 | BBC

[Nextrush]

Senior BBC managers have to "carry the can", Sir Cliff Richard has said, after winning his privacy case over the coverage of a police raid on his home.

A High Court judge said the BBC had infringed the singer's privacy rights in a "serious and sensationalist way".

Sir Cliff was not arrested or charged over the historical child sex claim and told ITV News: "If heads roll then maybe it's because it was deserved."

The BBC said its journalists acted in good faith and is considering an appeal.

The judge, Mr. Justice Mann, awarded Sir Cliff an initial &210,000.

He rejected the BBC's case that its reporting of South Yorkshire Police's raid of Sir Cliff's flat in Sunningdale, Berkshire in August 2014, which included footage filmed from a helicopter, was justified under rights of freedom of expression and of the press.

Speaking to ITV's Julie Etchingham, Sir Cliff, 77, said: "They (senior managers) have to carry the can.....

Describing the court's decision as an "enormous relief" and "incredibly emotional", Sir Cliff said his intention behind the bringing the case was not to curtail press freedom.

"I want a correction made to what happened to me and it was made, nobody said anything about freedom of speech, but I will fight to the death against the abuse of free speech, which the BBC did was an abuse. They took it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner."

He went on to call for people to have the right to anonymity until they are charged.....

Sir Cliff added "I'm sure I will recover" but said the case had "taken something away".

He described how he no longer goes "anywhere near children" and how, when having his photograph taken with fans, he stands "slightly away"......

[Nextrush]

This is my "feel good" story of the day in terms of the BBC losing from what I felt was a rush to judgement and a rush to smear Cliff Richard.

I think he, who has identity as a professing Christian in the UK, was targeted by the anti-Christian bias of the BBC quick to rush to judgement on the allegation he sexually abused someone.

Freedom of the press. I believe in the First Amendment USA but I know UK laws are different enabling Richard to win.

Of course we have the Tommy Robinson thing going on in the UK with his attempt to get out into the public eye the industrial strength child sex abuse going on in the Muslim subculture of the UK.

And Tommy goes to jail for that.

This story happened at the same court building where Tommy Robinson's court appeal was heard today.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

His fans were beside themselves when he announced he was Christian back in the day. Don’t flame, but I was iffy on him when I lived in the UK. He is BIG there.

[MUDDOG]

“Carry the can” = to accept blame or responsibility for something that one did not cause. (Merriam-Webster)

New one on me.

[Secret Agent Man]

We have libel, slander and defamation laws to handle it. Public figures have higher levels to prove than private citizens but everyone has them if someone unfairly smears them.

[Nextrush]

I like to watch his Christmas music videos when its that time of the year.

[wally_bert]

As much Brit TV as I’ve watched since the 80s, a new one on me.

[dfwgator]

Ahhh yes, the BBC which covered up Jimmy Savile for all those years.

[MUDDOG]

The Cambridge site says it’s “UK informal.”

So it’s not EastEnders slang anyway.

[wally_bert]

I’m more of The Sweeney or Sandbaggers dialects myself, depending on the moment.

[A_Former_Democrat]

It’s All In the Game, Sir Cliff

[cyclotic]

I was picking my kid up one day from a youth group thing. When I got there,they were reading trivia questions. As I walked into the room, the card being read said “this singer, unknown to most Americans has 21_number one hits in the UK”.

I said “oh, that’s Cliff richard” and immediately amazed the group

[Winniesboy]

One of the oddities about U.S./U.K. press freedom and freedom of speech comparisons is the marked difference between the de jure and the de facto. In theory the US has the stronger protection, but an anglophone Martian tourist who happened to browse a random selection of news coverage might be surprised to learn that was the case. Particularly when it comes to traditional daily newspapers (less so in new media), the British press has long been more outspoken, particularly when interrogating or reporting on government or other authority figures, than its American counterparts. To a British reader, there's a circumspection in American newspapers you don't find in the brash, in-your-face British tabloids.

Whether this is down to owner/sponsor/advertiser pressure, or some other cause, or a more subtle legacy of traditional good manners, I've no idea. Anyway, this Richard ruling establishes case law, unless appealed, which will inevitably curb to some extent the ad hominem exuberance of the tabloids.

[smalltownslick]

Mr. Justice Mann