BBC - OUT OF ORDER

[RUDD]

I have just heard the BBC have paid the burglar that Tony Martin did not shoot (Brendan something) gb4500.00 for his side of the story.

 

I wonder if the beeb are going to show the documentary before or after crimewatch????????

 

Just goes to show crime pays.

[Peter M]

Just for the record Rudd he did get shot by Tony Martin but was only injured. While I agree paying money to a convicted burglar seems odious there was no other way, as he would not have given an interview for free. This issue is in the public interest and the BBC has a responsibility to present a balanced programme that examines all sides of the argument so had to balance the programme with an interview with this criminal. I think that the BBC are being criticised unfairly in this matter.

[RUDD]

Why interview the scum at all.

Whats he got to say?.

What argument?

If you catch someone doing your house the chances are that they will turn violent.

I belive if you do catch a burgler in your own home you should have every right to defend yourself and your property, even if it does mean letting off a couple of shells at them.

THEY ARE WILLINGLY COMMITING A NASTY CRIME AND DESERVE EVERYTHING THEY GET. THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN YOUR HOUSE STEALING YOUR HARD EARNED POSSESSIONS JUST BECAUSE THEY CANT BE ****ED TO DO A HARD DAYS GRAFT.

[bryan]

Totally agree Rudd, I wouldnt hesitate to dish it out if i found someone trying to turn my place over,

 

BBC have got it wrong, we are the fee payers, so why do they think we want to hear from an ungrateful toerag!!! :mad:

[Alan Stubbs]

bryan:

Totally agree Rudd, I wouldnt hesitate to dish it out if i found someone trying to turn my place over,

 

BBC have got it wrong, we are the fee payers, so why do they think we want to hear from an ungrateful toerag!!!   :mad:  

I'd have thought the guy would have jumped at the chance to prove that he isn't as described in this thread. Taking the money rather substantiates people's opinions.

 

Having said that, Peter Martin is quite right in his point about the BBC having a duty to present balanced views. You seem to overlook the nummber of 'paid-for' pieces in your daily paper - which you also pay for..... and I'm certain the publishers usually pay a lot more than £4500 for the dubious privilege of reading someone's self justification. Arguably, the BBC have fulfilled their mandate quite cheaply.

 

In the interests of a balanced viewpoint - Peter are you related to Tony martin!

[Severn Wolf]

Shame he didn`t just blow his head clean off and be done with it.

[terryk]

The BBC never fail to amaze me with what they decide to do with licence payers (our!) money. If they want to justify paying a criminal to appear on a program by saying it needs a balanced view, then why make it in the first place! I wonder how the BBC would fare if they had to become a commercial channel, and relied on fees for adverts. I tend not to watch too much TV these days, as there really isn't that many quality programs on. I prefer to record programs, mainly non-BBC ones, and then watch them at my convenience. Saves having to sit through adverts (another pet hate), as I can fast-forward through them.

[corydoras]

Severn Wolf:

Shame he didn`t just blow his head clean off and be done with it.

If he had he would still be doing time.

[jim doyle]

From what I gather the guy was running away when he was shot, if we are unhappy with them paying him dont watch the programme, poor ratings tend to discouragetv types.

[argyll]

Brendan Fearon was and still is, an habitual criminal. At the time of the shooting, his record ran to 33 offences and since the shooting he's added to the total. If he were forced to describe his main occupation it would be 'drug dealer' He sued Tony Martin for 'loss of earnings' but since he had not done a day's honest work in his life and his earnings came from drug related crime, you can understand why I'm angry to find that £50,000 of my public money was spent allowing him to pursue his claim. The justice system gone mad again. He only dropped the claim when Tony Martin threatened to sue him for damages. His own father disowned him after the incident. The father of the kid that died, was so distraught (according to him at his trial that is)that he took part in an attempted £400,000 armed robbery shortly after the Tony Martin case. Nice family. At the tender age of 16 years his late son had 29 previous offences on the record. Running away he may have been, but still had time to tuck a stereo under his arm.

I'm not happy that the BBC should pay this scumbag a red cent of my licence fee for 'his side of the story' when we already know his side of the story. He's an habitual, thieving, drug dealing, low life who has an appalling criminal record. What else is he going to say on the BBC ? 'I was misunderstood' 'the police had it in for me' 'my father beat me' (not hard enough it would seem) 'it wasnt quite like that' (on 33 different occasions presumably) This man belongs behind bars, not making a sum of money equal to what it would take someone on minimum wage, about 6 months to earn. Don't forget that this is the same BBC who, in spite of fishing being the UK's most popular participation sport, seem to have decided that such a nasty cruel practise will not grace your TV screen. Seems drug dealing is far more acceptable than fishing.

 

[ 04. March 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]