suspending judgment – and the BBC

[Marmalade]

The nation seems very keen to jump to conclusions. Any word of support to those accused is viewed badly, while supporting accusations is seen as virtuous. Both of these seem morally wrong.

In the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, the police began investigating allegations of abuse against Cliff Richard — beginning with a spectacular raid, filmed for the TV news from a helicopter.

It is more than five years since the Crown Prosecution Service ruled out bringing any charges against Cliff Richard and more than three years since he won a landmark privacy action against the BBC, for filming the raid.

He now wants to add his support to an influential group including his long-time friend and DJ Paul Gambaccini, who have been similarly, falsely accused of sexual abuse or have suffered at the hands of the police.

It's good to suspend judgment, isn't it? Yet when the gossip goes on and on for a long time it becomes harder not to express an opinion.

What if Prince Andrew clears his name? He doesn't seem an altogether lovable fellow, but his accuser may also be quite loathsome: yet neither of these factors should decide innocence or guilt of the crime accused.

"Why has no one been made to pay for almost ruining my life?" asks Sir Cliff Richard.
Whether Andrew is guilty or innocent, his life looks pretty well ruined anyway.

External Link/Members Only

[King Nuts]

Good post, but I wouldn't say 'the nation' loves to jump to conclusions. I think the media does, and the BBC's treatment of Cliff Richard was utterly despicable. If there was any justice, which of course there isn't, the entire management of BBC News should've been fired.

It's all got a lot worse these days because in the absence of organised religion, sanctimony and piety (something that's more deep-rooted in people than I used to think) now takes the form of having yer jabs, wearing masks, doing what you're told, and pointing at anyone who doesn't comply, shouting 'she's a witch!'. In this febrile and fearful atmosphere, the media can get away with anything.

[Blackpool Rock]

Yes it is true that people appear to love a scandal and tend to automatically jump on the no smoke without fire bandwagon and reverse the rule of law so that it's guilty until proven innocent.
I guess it's nothing new and you only have to look back at times gone by when lynch mobs would string someone up on the false say so of someone else who could have themselves been the guilty party, often the victim was someone who was from "Out of town" etc

Rags like the Daily Fail have been selling papers based on scandal for centuries and it's worse now with all the glossy gossip magazines that the vacuous and uneducated seem to lap up with glee, then add in a largely unregulated social media and 

It is a problem when people assume someone accused is guilty and as you point out some of those wrongly accused of sex crimes in the wake of Savile have had their lives either ruined or changed permanently, after all how many people will still believe they did it but got away with it.

As for Randy Andy well if he'd been doing this 100 years ago then nobody would have batted an eye and it would have been buried / unpublished by the media even if rumoured in private circles.
Perhaps he's paying now for the abuses of former rich and famous people or perhaps everything was consensual / above board or at least he wasn't aware of any problems, let's face it there has always been a long queue of attractive girls wanting to shag him and all manner of rich and famous celebrity

[Blackpool Rock]

Good post, but I wouldn't say 'the nation' loves to jump to conclusions. I think the media does, and the BBC's treatment of Cliff Richard was utterly despicable. If there was any justice, which of course there isn't, the entire management of BBC News should've been fired.

It's all got a lot worse these days because in the absence of organised religion, sanctimony and piety (something that's more deep-rooted in people than I used to think) now takes the form of having yer jabs, wearing masks, doing what you're told, and pointing at anyone who doesn't comply, shouting 'she's a witch!'. In this febrile and fearful atmosphere, the media can get away with anything.

But isn't the irony that those self same people / groups have historically been the worst offenders, you know the sort who may the rules / law but then don't follow it as it only applies to poor people

[RedKettle]

loves to jump to conclusions.............the entire management of BBC News should've been fired.

 

[JontyR]

To be fair though, did the BBC pick up the opportunity to film when everyone else had turned it down?

They got a tip off and followed it through. I bet Sky or ITV or C4 would have done the same after all, they all gave a platform to Carl Beech. In this particular case I think the police have to take a lot of the flak for their failure to treat the action with the appropriate discretion. After all - if they had found evidence what chance a fair trial?

There were some significant poor judgement calls from the media and police leading to over zealous reporting and investigating around this time not least because they were trying to make up for previous bad judgment calls about not being anywhere near tenacious and active enough before.

[King Nuts]

I think we always have to bear in mind that nothing appears in the news media by accident. A news item or story is there because someone wants it there and has an interest in it being there. Reporters and journalists aren't prowling around looking for stories, poking into things and publishing news and stories that are in the public interest. They sit in warm offices and the PR industry comes to them.

As the old saying goes, real news is something that somebody doesn't want you to know. Everything else is just gossip.