# Pointless payments.



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

The BBC (public purse) is to pay Sir Cliff £850k who really hardly needs the cash.
The BBC (public purse) is to pay the police (public purse) £350k in legal fees. 
Why...

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Fines for being naughty Ray. Should we let them do as they please? 

Perhaps we should fine the news editors and the police officer who decided to tip the BBC off. I'd be up for a bit of personal responsibility in public office but it'll only ever happen in very exceptional cases otherwise pollys might be next and that'd never do.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

But when the public purse is paying the public purse, whats the point? Only the lawyers win.

Ray.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

Unfortunately none of it can take away the last 2 plus years of worry he has endured.
I have just listened to a few interviews he's had, he will never be able to erase these terrible memories from his mind.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It does hurt the organisations a bit Ray, it comes out of their budgets. The problem is that shortage of funds is passed on down the line so that public suffer in the end instead of the gits who cocked up. That is a pity. In the case of the BBC the fault very probably lies with their legal department unless the editors didn't consult them. I'd like to know about that.

For The Police it was intended to start a fishing exercise. They've ruined enough lives with that tactic and I think it needs to be stopped. Even if it does result in fewer complaints. Too many innocent people have been ruined by the speculation caused by naming them before charges are brought. In the case of Cliff the raid itself was so disproportionately huge that no additional publicity was needed. The story would have been all over the internet in a couple of days. The number and type of officers used in these raids should be proportionate. I can't be doing with Gloria Hunniford but what she said about it on Radio 4 was well thought out. I'm sure there'll be coverage of it on the net. It's worth a read.

Up your estimate a bit. The BBC have been refused the right to appeal. Quite rightly in my opinion: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yes Alan. Someone needs to be held accountable and be reprimanded but you know as well as I that in the end the person or persons responsible will be paid off and retire early. More pointless.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Doubt it's even serious enough for retirements on full pension Ray. A slight career stall maybe.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

raynipper said:


> The BBC (public purse) is to pay Sir Cliff £850k who really hardly needs the cash.
> The BBC (public purse) is to pay the police (public purse) £350k in legal fees.
> Why...
> 
> Ray.


Even though publicly fund they are still accountable, the courts found them guilty therefore they have to pay up as they've decided not to appeal. Whilst it doesn't fix the error they made, it certainly should help focus future decisions.

Cliff has already said he doesn't need the cash and that charities will get it, good on him I say and shame on the BBC, just a pity they weren't more proactive when Saville was working for them.

Terry


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

raynipper said:


> But when the public purse is paying the public purse, whats the point? Only the lawyers win.
> 
> Ray.


The UK public may win because it calls into question what the BBC is doing with the Licence Fee revenue. The BBC have to answer questions and the answers may impact on the future funding model. The behaviour of the police and BBC was disgusting in this case and I am sure the licence fee payers do not want their money spent on helicopters and devious practices.


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

£800 000 fine / 20 000 000 licence payers = 4p :nerd:

SORRY but that isn't going to get me writing to my MP (stamp = 50p) :smile2:

Gordon

I know email is free but if I cost my time at £6ph (below minimum wage) then 4p buys me approx 25 seconds. :wink2::wink2:
That deprives me of time spent on MHF! 000


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

rayc said:


> The UK public may win because it calls into question what the BBC is doing with the Licence Fee revenue. The BBC have to answer questions and the answers may impact on the future funding model. The behaviour of the police and BBC was disgusting in this case and I am sure the licence fee payers do not want their money spent on helicopters and devious practices.


The BBC has it's own biased agenda on many things even though it's supposed to be impartial. Look at it's Brexit coverage.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/804495/bbc-bias-independent-report-brexit-eu-referendum

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

raynipper said:


> The BBC has it's own biased agenda on many things even though it's supposed to be impartial. Look at it's Brexit coverage.
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/804495/bbc-bias-independent-report-brexit-eu-referendum
> 
> Ray.


Would it surprise you to know that News-Watch, which that rag describes as independent, is a single issue organisation set up by brexiters expressly to criticise the BBC?

You might as well say "Independent Expert Jacob Grease Frog says Brexit is a Good Thing".

That article is the worst kind of propaganda, worthy of Little Joey Goebbles.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

And “Project Fear” wasn’t biased propaganda that was paid for by taxpayers???

Oh come on Erneboy, there’s a whole (VERY lengthy) thread devoted to Brexit, so there is no need to “infect” this thread with it. 

Andy


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Truth hurts they say.

Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> And "Project Fear" wasn't biased propaganda that was paid for by taxpayers???
> 
> Oh come on Erneboy, there's a whole (VERY lengthy) thread devoted to Brexit, so there is no need to "infect" this thread with it.
> 
> Andy


I didn't make it a brexit thread. Ray did. I answered.

Wouldn't have commented at all except that it was important to point out who News-Watch are and what their purpose is. News-Watch is a tool of brexiters so it's hard not to mention brexit. In any event this is about perceived bias at the BBC and my point was wholly relevant to that.

If you want to blame someone I suggest you write to the editor of the express and ask him on what basis they described that organisation as independent when it's demonstrably anything but. If you have doubts read their reports and find out which organisation they relate to.

In addition I'd point out that remainers say that the BBC is biased in favour of brexit. It's a recurring theme in remain media yet the Express didn't mention that because it would have shown that the BBC is getting it from both sides which makes it look rather as though they might not be biased either way or that individual programmes, editors and presenters attitudes vary and they bring their personal slant to the coverage.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yes, it was me. But this thread needed a shove as it was nearly dead.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It was a fair point Ray. I wasn't objecting, just letting Ploddy know it wasn't down to me.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Obviously hadn't gathered all the evidence before charging, tut tut. :-D

Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I'd avoided making that point Terry. You are naughty.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

As I recall there have instances were famous celebs have been accused of certain crimes then when found innocent have sued but years later accused of similar crimes and been found guilty.
I am only saying this as I still think there is something not quite right about the whole Cliff Richard thing.


----------



## HermanHymer (Dec 5, 2008)

Even to me, as a teenager at the time, he always came across as too squeaky clean to be true. But then maybe he was. In the absence of facts, who is anybody to judge? Or is every man of that era suspect because of the 'norms of the time'? (Or by progressive, logical deduction, including some of you on here... perhaps?) Just talking theoretically!!!


My philosophy has always been, if you don't like the smell in the kitchen... DEPART forthwith. It happened to me once as a 15-year-old. No harm done as I did just that. I blame women, not for men's behaviour, but for not managing their own. They too need to make the right choices. Don't cry rape if you're in a man's hotel bedroom 'at 2am'. Parents need to educate their girls to protect and respect themselves, and to understand a man's and a teenage boy's psyche and drives.


----------

