There doesn't seem to be any organisation interested in this issue at the moment. You'd think at least some of the small Trotskyist parties would say something.

..is not for our benefit. It is for the rich and the ruling class. The police are the enemy, they will never work for us!

Slogan! Slogan!

Party Line!

Predictable Statement!

The BBC is the state broadcaster of the UK.

Its job is to represent the commercial interests of government, corporations, business and industry.

Naturally it is going to enforce the authority of commercial enterprise by seeding its output with bias in favour of that enterprise. A big part of that is to produce editorial output which exaggerates the importance of commercial companies and corporations and to place this enterprise on a pedestal. The BBC is a state broadcaster disseminating propaganda like any other state broadcaster, but it is organised and arranged as though a private corporation, while at the same time being publicly funded.

Consequently, its corporate bias is naturally occurring and not overseen by a political executive.

What you are seeing in its editorial output, is simply a naturally occurring bias away from cogent serving of the people through the public interest, and toward serving of business and industry through the corporate interest. The BBC has no faith in the public, does not serve the public, has no inherent respect for the public and, ultimately, cannot represent the views of the public.

The BBC is structurally incapable of seeing an ordinary member of the public in the same way that it see's a large corporation.

If two completely equal people of the same sex, age, location, ethnicity, religion, politics, height, weight, attractiveness, education and marital status, with the same number of children, same family structure and all else being equal were to be murdered; but one were the head of a corporation and the other were unemployed, the BBC would expend inordinate amounts of time reporting the death of the corporate head and little if any time reporting the death of the jobless.

If BBC reporters were challenged about this they would, if honest, simply say that there was more public interest in the corporate head than the jobless. But they would not have the conscience, awareness or presence of mind to understand that to be a product of the BBC's naturally occurring bias, instead they would simply attribute this bias to the public and would claim that "that's the way things are!".

It is not "the way things are". It is the way things have been made to be!

The BBC can only ever be considered to be a mindless entity incapable of realising the remit that originates from it status as a publicly funded entity. It is too busy realising its responsibilities as a commercial business to properly enact or understand its key responsibilities under the charter that governs its existence.

Its ever so sad of course, not least of all for the back-room journalists who are training for a life in journalism and who need to be properly prepared to work in this modern environment, but is also the current reality we have to live with.

Fortunately the BBC, despite its size, power and influence, continues to rely for the bulk of its operations on public funding.

So we are in control.

It is important to publish articles like this drawing attention to its clear and obvious flaws, but it is even better to collate these flaws into data that can be analysed and presented alongside stories of real people that the BBC has under, or over-reported. It is always worth remembering that the BBC broadcasts in every area of the UK and supplements that reach with 24 hour rolling national news. Editorial time constraints or running order scheduling problems are an excuse the BBC can never use in its defence.

If you don't like the way the journalists write news a the BBC, why don't you at least apply for a job there if you think you can do better. Either that, or stop whining - just don't bore us to death.

My moment of madness by the tycoon who shot burglar alarm
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent
29 Mar 2011 London Evening Standard/




A multi-millionaire told of his "moment of irrationality" when he used a shotgun to silence a neighbours' burglar alarm next door to his £10 million St John's Wood home.

Peter Shalson, 54, said to be worth £175 million after selling his coathanger and packaging business, was speaking outside Southwark crown court where he was spared prison.

He said: "This is an incident I deeply regret and was the result of a single moment of irrationality. It happened during a period when I was under extreme business stress and pressure."

Shalson was furious that the alarm was ringing incessantly while his neighbours Norman and Cindy Dawood were away. He said his wife Polly was unwell and had been kept awake for hours in January last year.

He took a shotgun from his collection and fired two shots at the alarm box on the wall. He then forced his way inside through their French doors and smashed the device.

He sent his neighbours a text message stating: "All quiet now." When the damage was discovered he initially lied about using a shotgun but finally owned up. Shalson admitted having a shotgun with intent to commit criminal damage and damaging property. Judge John Price ruled that he did not deserve a prison sentence and ordered him to do 200 hours' community service and pay £520 in court costs.

The judge told him: "The unlawful use of a firearm in public and causing serious damage is a most serious offence. It was an attack on somebody's home and caused enormous distress."

But after hearing of Shalson's charity work, including his support for the London Academy, the judge added: "You are an exceptional man."

In 2003 Shalson spent £2 million hiring Sir Elton John to play at the reception of his £5 million wedding to third wife Polly. But Mark Haslam, defending, said he was no longer as wealthy as had been reported. A list of character witnesses for him included Lord Adonis, former Marks & Spencer boss Sir Stuart Rose, Harvey Goldsmith and Gerald Ronson.



Compare that case to this one presided over by the same judge.

Tube graffiti gang jailed for ‘epidemic’ of train vandalism
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent
12 Jul 2010.


A teenage gang has been locked up for vandalising dozens of Tube trains and stations with graffiti.

The teenagers daubed the tag “FTS” all over the trains and filmed themselves on their mobile phones. One of the gang brazenly declared online: “If I get two years I'll still paint.”

The youngest gang member was only 14 when took part in the vandalism between April 2008 and June last year. Now 16, he was sentenced alongside a 17-year-old who also cannot be named and four older youths at Southwark crown court.

Passing sentence Judge John Price said: “The damage was a very large scale. Whole Tube carriages were defaced. It is an epidemic. We see it all over London.

“It is distressing for people, it causes chaos, carriages have to be taken out of use at enormous cost and repainted.”

Earlier, prosecutor William McGivern said the gang's damage amounted to nearly £60,000 and disrupted commuter services across north-west London and the suburbs.

The gang was in contact by email, phone or text to discuss targets, security and meeting places.

They would then get to work armed with bolt cutters, spray cans, permanent marker pens, acid and paint.

Most of the gang were arrested in July last year after a long-running operation by British Transport Police.

Tim Harwood, 18, Richard Borgonon, 18, Jake Browne, 18, and Elistar Filaidi, 19, all of Pinner, admitted conspiracy to cause criminal damage and were sent to a young offender institute for nine months each.

The 17-year-old was given an eight-month detention and training order and the 16-year-old was ordered to undergo two years' supervision and comply with a three-month curfew.

Each defendant also received a three-year Asbo banning them from carrying graffiti-related items or from entering private railway property.

"If you don't like the way the journalists write news a the BBC, why don't you at least apply for a job there if you think you can do better. Either that, or stop whining - just don't bore us to death."

I'm sorry your bored with this subject, or my contribution to it!

I wouldn't dream of going to work at the BBC. If I had to get a job in the media, the BBC would be the last application I would make, and only after every other application had been rejected. That includes foreign media. If I were to go to work for it, my type of journalism would ensure my dismissal in short order. Of that I have no doubt.

My analysis is based on the BBC's status and underlying arrangement of its operations, not inherently a complaint about the work of individual journalists. Under a different environment, their output would be different, perhaps even more balanced and genuinely objective.

I don't really consider my analysis to be unfair or inherently partisan. Its based on a naturally occurring view held by a great many people inside and outside the UK that have been exposed to its bias and have been driven away from it due to that bias.

I don't really see how going to work for it could change that fact. Surely the BBC should be expected, as a publicly funded body, to conduct itself in a responsible manner. Its board of directors are paid handsomely by the taxpayer to ensure this. Complaining that the BBC's critics should go to the corporation in order to work their denies the persistent problems which already exist within the corporation!

From what I have seen of the BBC's output, and from what I have heard from those complaining about the bias of the corporation having been exposed to the effects of that bias, I think it perfectly reasonable to object.

The BBC is publicly funded, that makes the public judge, jury and executioner over its affairs.