Guilty till proved innocent.

In his analysis, 'Dark day for news reporting', BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman suggested that today's judgement is very significant.    And indeed it was.  But not in the way he is portraying.    

Basically the BBC has been found out.  And they don’t like it as their PR machine swings into full drive to shift the focus from their culpability.    Anyone who recalls the reporter who covered the early morning event will no doubt remember his seemingly gleeful, I’ve got you Cliff, you goodie goodie, tone as he announced what was happening.  It really was exhibiting broadcasting standards at the lowest of low, certainly not award winning material.     

Before the broadcast, didn't anyone ask the question, "if this is not true, what permanent damage will it leave on reputation of the person being investigated?".  If  no one did ask that question, then there really is something rotten, even wicked, at the heart of BBC editorial policy given the subject of the investigation and knowing that the person they were reporting on would be smeared for life.  

Or maybe they just didn't care.

What is worrying about Mr Coleman’s article is, he is assuming his view is the correct one.  He’s not giving a balanced opinion, not a tone one would expect of the BBC.   He is making a political statement that the judgement brings about dark days for the freedom of the press.  Many of us would think that it’s about time tittle tattle was taken off our news media feeds.  And that is exactly what this whole Sir Cliff episode ended up as.  A judge decided it was indeed tittle tattle not worthy of the intrusion and permanent damage it caused to his reputation.    It certainly wasn't in the national interest.

You know Mr Colemans argument is weak when he notes that the BBC points out that naming the suspects has sometimes resulted in additional complainants coming forward.  But that would happen once they are charged anyway.   

The courts decision came just before questions to the Prime Minister and featured in the session.  Never thought I would agree with Ms Anna Soubry!  

The Society of Editors said that the judgement "threatens the ability of the media as a whole to police the police".  Ian Murray, its executive director, said: "The ruling to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is a major step and one that has worrying consequences for press freedom and the public's right to know."   He said making it unlawful to name someone under investigation is "extreme".  And he is right.   

But the people to point the finger of blame at for getting us to this position are the ones who crossed the common-sense line.  The BBC.  Their behaviour has brought this down on the head of every respectable, responsible journalist.