[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.

[dfwgator]

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

[A_Former_Democrat]

It’s All In the Game, Sir Cliff

[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