BBC colludes with police to trivialise crime against ordinary people
Just a man | 01.11.2010 15:52 | Analysis | Animal Liberation | Social Struggles
The Police trvialise and ignore crimes aginst ordinary people, whilst putting vast efforts into investigating more minor crimes against VIPs. The BBC, along with the rest of the media, seems to share the attitude of the police.
Below is the text of a complaint I made to the BBC on 27th October 2010. As yet, I have not received any reply.
complaint title: Failure to report bias by police & collusion with police
You have completely failed to report the fact that the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are refusing to enforce the law impartially, and instead are giving special favours to those who have money and political connections.
In your report "Huntingdon Life Sciences hate plot campaigners jailed" (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11599380) you reported that six SHAC activists were given sentences of up to six years.
In "Huntingdon Life Sciences supplier's life 'under siege'" (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11584029) you said that "The group's conviction is the result of a lengthy multi-million pound police investigation". I understand from other reports that six police forces co-operated in the investigation, which lasted many years.
You failed to report that the crimes that these SHAC activists were accused of were less serious than those perpetrated against many ordinary people up and down the country. For instance, the SHAC activists did not physically attack any of their victims. They simply showered them with abuse and threats, vandalised their property, and circulated false rumours that they were paedophiles.
An even worse example of this favouritism for the well connected, occurred when the Conservative Party Charirman, Baroness Warsi, was hit with an egg. The police arrested the culprit, charged him with causing intentional alarm and distress, and held him on remand until the case came up in court. The CPS prosecuted the case with vigour and secured a six week prison sentence.
You failed to report the contrast between the extraordinary efforts the police went to in these cases, and what happens when ordinary people are the victims. Even if there have been of years of abuse, threats, vandalism, and physical attacks, the police lie, insist that no crimes have been committed, and refuse to take any action. There are many documented cases where this has happened. The BBC itself has generally gone along with the claim that these are 'not crimes'. For instance, in a recent Newsnight program, when talking about a Bristol housing estate, Jermey Paxman drew a distinction between crime and "antisocial behaviour".
I myself have suffered years of abuse, having the windows of my house smashed, false and malicious rumours that I am a paedophile being deliberately concocted and circulated, plus physical attacks. The accusation that I am a paedophile is particularly alarming in my case because, as I explained to the police, I have a cousin who was left paralysed below the neck after a false rumour was circulated that he was homosexual, and he was attacked by a large gang. The police insisted that circulating false and malicious rumours like this is not a crime. This is of course a lie, but I don't have the resources to tackle the police on my own. The Police were initially evasive about the physical attacks, but when I politely asked three times in a period of two weeks, how their enquiry was progressing, I received and angry and abusive phone call from the local police sergeant saying that since I had no bones broken they were not going to do anything.
I got my MP to write a letter of complaint to the Chief Constable, but all I got was a 'go F*** Yourself' letter. My mental health then collapsed to the point where I was unable to pursue a formal complaint, not that I have any faith in the system anyway.
The BBC is paid for by the licence fees of ordinary people, but you are not serving the interests of ordinary people. You are parroting the lies told by politicians and the police, (that serious crimes committed against ordinary people are not crimes, but merely antisocial behaviour) and refusing to report the truth
PS In "Police 'need to reclaim streets', police chief warns" (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11394354) the BBC said:
"About 45% (3.5m) of police calls relate to anti-social behaviour, but the Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor said officers did not regard it as real crime and were slow to act."
complaint title: Failure to report bias by police & collusion with police
You have completely failed to report the fact that the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are refusing to enforce the law impartially, and instead are giving special favours to those who have money and political connections.
In your report "Huntingdon Life Sciences hate plot campaigners jailed" (
![](/img/extlink.gif)
In "Huntingdon Life Sciences supplier's life 'under siege'" (
![](/img/extlink.gif)
You failed to report that the crimes that these SHAC activists were accused of were less serious than those perpetrated against many ordinary people up and down the country. For instance, the SHAC activists did not physically attack any of their victims. They simply showered them with abuse and threats, vandalised their property, and circulated false rumours that they were paedophiles.
An even worse example of this favouritism for the well connected, occurred when the Conservative Party Charirman, Baroness Warsi, was hit with an egg. The police arrested the culprit, charged him with causing intentional alarm and distress, and held him on remand until the case came up in court. The CPS prosecuted the case with vigour and secured a six week prison sentence.
You failed to report the contrast between the extraordinary efforts the police went to in these cases, and what happens when ordinary people are the victims. Even if there have been of years of abuse, threats, vandalism, and physical attacks, the police lie, insist that no crimes have been committed, and refuse to take any action. There are many documented cases where this has happened. The BBC itself has generally gone along with the claim that these are 'not crimes'. For instance, in a recent Newsnight program, when talking about a Bristol housing estate, Jermey Paxman drew a distinction between crime and "antisocial behaviour".
I myself have suffered years of abuse, having the windows of my house smashed, false and malicious rumours that I am a paedophile being deliberately concocted and circulated, plus physical attacks. The accusation that I am a paedophile is particularly alarming in my case because, as I explained to the police, I have a cousin who was left paralysed below the neck after a false rumour was circulated that he was homosexual, and he was attacked by a large gang. The police insisted that circulating false and malicious rumours like this is not a crime. This is of course a lie, but I don't have the resources to tackle the police on my own. The Police were initially evasive about the physical attacks, but when I politely asked three times in a period of two weeks, how their enquiry was progressing, I received and angry and abusive phone call from the local police sergeant saying that since I had no bones broken they were not going to do anything.
I got my MP to write a letter of complaint to the Chief Constable, but all I got was a 'go F*** Yourself' letter. My mental health then collapsed to the point where I was unable to pursue a formal complaint, not that I have any faith in the system anyway.
The BBC is paid for by the licence fees of ordinary people, but you are not serving the interests of ordinary people. You are parroting the lies told by politicians and the police, (that serious crimes committed against ordinary people are not crimes, but merely antisocial behaviour) and refusing to report the truth
PS In "Police 'need to reclaim streets', police chief warns" (
![](/img/extlink.gif)
"About 45% (3.5m) of police calls relate to anti-social behaviour, but the Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor said officers did not regard it as real crime and were slow to act."
Just a man
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
I agree
01.11.2010 16:28
Stew
Broken and Buggered Cassandra.
01.11.2010 16:54
The BBC is a business that exists to parrot the views of government. It has no interest in its audience except to keep it pliable for acceptance of the current government view. As a state broadcaster it has a job and an agenda to fulfil at all times.
Part of that is allowing police forces to use its programming schedules to act as propaganda conduit in order to enforce the legitimacy of policing. As far as SHAC is concerned, the Government, the police, the CPS and the BBC work together to isolate and marginalise SHAC because it isn't profitable to support SHAC and the activists involved in SHAC are considered 'outside' of BBC, CPS, Police and Government control.
So they all work together to 'collectively' protect their business interests by 'collectively' enforcing a narrative of isolationism on any individual or group that is outside of this 'ring of self interest'.
Small wonder that the BBC is widely considered by the most talented and competent journalists to be something to be kept at arms length at all times.
There is a culture of rancid and obnoxious partisan self interest and control freakery existing at the BBC
emanating from highly dubious members of the senior editorial staff which generally renders its entire news output as fundamentally unreliable at all times.
You must, as decent activists, naturally consider the BBC as alien to your interests and hostile to your wider strategy.
The only way to deal with the BBC is to actively campaign against the organisations so-called independence and fraudulent and non-existant objectivity. Independence and objectivity are two concepts the average BBC employer are fundamentally incapable of understanding.
Rather than tell us about how unfair it is, tell us about how inaccurate it is. Build a map of its faults and tendency toward reporting from sources that are 'non-declared'. Above all, build a picture illustrating how few facts appear in its reporting. If it quotes a source without a name, highlight that source.
Above all, understand the similarity between political misfortune and immediately appearing news stories that apparently appear out of the blue.
90% of the time, the BBC are reading from a script. Even their reporters aren't aware of this so can be reliably wheeled out to defend the corporation whenever needed.
The BBC is a state sanctioned and funded broadcaster. Its agenda is the agenda supplied to it.
It is the west's TASS.
Nick Robinson.
To Just a man
01.11.2010 18:14
Your point about "anti social" behaviour is good too. The terminology is often used to describe things such as burning cars out for a laugh, attacking ambulances, putting dog shit through old people's letter boxes when the vulnerable are at the recieving end. Lesser and far less consequential acts when committed against the powerful are called "terrorism".
I hope that you make a formal complaint against the police who have refused to act, it wouldn't be so bad if they just got out of the way of people sticking up for themselves but "vigilantism" is oft punished severely. The police and the courts are not only not fit for purpose but they act politically to curb dissent. Sometimes they work in favour of the ordinary person but it is very hit and miss.
Lynn Sawyer
BBC exec&BarclayCEO@bilderberg2010,you cant trust national news,but BBC workers&
01.11.2010 21:40
Green syndicalist
Some further examples would help e.g. Reece Kent
02.11.2010 00:29
Onlyme
Another example
02.11.2010 18:28
David & Keith