Cliff Richard in court

[Dominic]

He awarded Sir Cliff £210,000 damages for the “general effect” on his life and said he is entitled to recover further sums for the financial impact on the star, which will be decided at a later date.

That could be quite substantial. It's just a shame the money will come from the public and not the pockets of the people responsible, but I'm glad Sir Cliff won. The BBC were completely in the wrong and those responsible should have been hung out to dry years ago.

[Firefly]

I too am glad that he won. I would like to think that Cliff would donate his award to charity, after all he doesn't need it, and it would be a very generous act.

Jackie

[TLR]

Yes, that way he truly could take the higher morale ground. i have a feeling he might just do that, but perhaps privately.
He has dealt with this whole dreadful episode with immense dignity. As he has behaved throughout his entire life in the public eye.
And no, I was never a fan of his music!!!!

[Kili01]

It’s not that Sir Cliff needs the money. He will probably give any financial gains to charity.
What he wants to do is to clear his name of the terrible slur and grief that this false accusation has caused him and dented his career.
What I hope is that the BBC news dept management and the directors of the BBC learn a valuable lesson and as a result this type of apalling reporting never happens again.
A sincere apollogy from the BBC to the singer is also required if they haven’t already done so.

Dee

[Chaddy]

I too am glad that he won. I would like to think that Cliff would donate his award to charity, after all he doesn't need it, and it would be a very generous act.

Jackie

That sounds fine firefly,but lets not forget the huge amount it will have cost him in lawyers fees

[TLR]

It’s not that Sir Cliff needs the money. He will probably give any financial gains to charity.
What he wants to do is to clear his name of the terrible slur and grief that this false accusation has caused him and dented his career.
What I hope is that the BBC news dept management and the directors of the BBC learn a valuable lesson and as a result this type of apalling reporting never happens again.
A sincere apollogy from the BBC to the singer is also required if they haven’t already done so.

Dee

I think, even more importantly it is time that the law is changed to ensure that publicity hungry policemen are made to adhere to a wider and more rigorously enforced interpretation of sub judice law.

[Kili01]

Yes, indeed, particularly the senior police officers in charge who must have authorised this style of reporting to take place.

Dee

[Mark]

It has cost him 3 million pounds in legal fees, so he will not gain from this.

The BBC presumably have spent a similar amount in licence payers money, and they intend to launch an appeal, they are an absolute disgrace.

[Mark]

PS, he looks great for his 77 years, though this case has been an immense drain on the poor chap.

[ApusApus]

Watched the report tonight on the news & listened with alarm at the BBC's apparent reasoning for an appeal! They seem to think that the Press should be able to decide whether a person is named or not …………………………… whether that person is innocent or not or has even been charged seems to be irrelevant!


Shane

[ApusApus]

PS, he looks great for his 77 years, though this case has been an immense drain on the poor chap.

That's an understatement, his world has probably been turned upside down!


Shane

[Mark]

Watched the report tonight on the news & listened with alarm at the BBC's apparent reasoning for an appeal! They seem to think that the Press should be able to decide whether a person is named or not …………………………… whether that person is innocent or not or has even been charged seems to be irrelevant!


Shane

Also heard this report and was aghast, they want to be judge jury and firing squad.

[Kili01]

Perhaps the BBC need to rethink who should be in charge of their important news dept. Certainly not someone who was complicit in this case. Someone responsible who understands and abides within the law.

They can’t make or decide which laws to obey and which to flout.

Dee

[Chaddy]

If this had happened in the private sector where the actions of senior people had cost the company so much money and bad publicity what do you think would have happened to them.
Was it Margaret Thatcher who said "you don't need much training to spend someone else,s money"

[Firefly]

I should have thought that he would have been awarded his court fees too, maybe I'm wrong.

[Jimgward]

It's time the UK properly regarded the "innocent until guilty" status - the number of people named as suspects and named when taken for trial, to then be found not guilty many months or even years later - yet the accusers are never named - sometimes when lying.....

[Firefly]

As I see it, if found innocent of accusations, then yes the accuser/s should be named.

[Jimgward]

I agree, however I also understand, where for example, a rape allegation is made, that we don't want to deter rape victims of coming forward - as it is vital all victims feel free to report abuse,,,,,

[tonee]

So what happens to the toerag who made the false claim against him and caused all this?Frightening really when anybody can claim something like this from years ago,your totally innocent but it ruins your life.

[Firefly]

My point Jim is that in the case of the accused being found innocent, and that a rape allegation has been made for malicious/financial purposes, the accuser should be exposed for what they are.

Jackie