BBC - OUT OF ORDER

[Jim Gibbinson]

Can we just remember that Fearon and Barras were INSIDE Tony Martin's house? They were inside illegally, having broken in.

 

Regarding payment to Fearon by the BBC. It is arguable that the BBC have broken their own rule here, the rule that states that payment should not be made to a convicted criminal other than in exceptional cases and where it is clearly in the public interest.

 

Does Fearon's payment qualify?

[poledark]

Dan, I always understood that Martin was convicted because he lay in wait on the stairs with a loaded shotgun.

 

So his actions were considered to have been premeditated.

 

Now put youself in the situation where you are fishing alone, but you know FROM PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE that you may well be set upon by 2 or more thugs/thieves.

 

 

So you keep something handy to protect yourself with...maybe something heavy ,,,certainly the weapon you choose will have to have sufficient merit to scare the robbers/thugs.

 

You are then attacked/accosted by the villians (2 or more) and in fear/rage you start to lash out...the bold robbers panic and run...you pursue them and "brain" one and only manage to break the leg/arm of the other.

Either way, you have saved yourself from being robbed/beaten up or both.

 

Simple 'ennit.......

 

By the way, I am "getting on a bit" and I am not a big guy so I can see myself in just such a situation as Martin was in.

 

 

In fact I was in a situation once at Keston lakes (back in the early 60's) when I was set upon by a group of drunken louts. I stupidly reacted and got a kicking for my trouble. The worst part of this affair was that I called for help and my mate (a BIG strong guy) came running and got his head split open for his trouble.

 

Den

[Jim Gibbinson]

Den (Poledark) is correct. By reason of my personal angling tastes I spend a lot of my fishing time by myself, in lonely, out-of-the-way places. In such circumstances I am aware of my vulnerability should I be so unfortunate as to be spotted by thugs. Indeed, last summer I had an experience that I think was a potentially dangerous situation when three very dodgy-looking characters kept me under observation while, in my assessment of the situation, they were waiting for a couple of dog-walkers to disappear from view. I packed up hurriedly and left. While I was packing up I kept a heavy bankstick to hand, just in case... It didn't come to that, thankfully, but what would have been the outcome if it had, I wonder?

[Dan]

I think we saying the same things but from diferrent perspectives. If I'd been broken into I'd make sure I took action to protect myself, in fact there is a baseball bat in my bedroom for such eventualities! (as well a game of softball!) the first thing I'd do is improve security, lighting and locks are cheap and you're a mug if you dont use them, maybe an alarm too, £100 buys a perfectly usable one. As far as I know Martin didn't do that, infact his window was so rotten that it made the escape of the burglars easy. I also understand the the court heard that he had deliberately prepared for the next break in and had his gun handy so he could shoot. Lets not forget that if he had a SG licence it requires the guns to be locked up.

So if I was broken into and I disturbed the burglars yes of course I'd defend myself and I'd defend to the hilt anyone who did the same. I'm just not sure that shooting someone in the back as they are trying to get out a rotten window is reasonable. I believe thats was the Court felt too.

As a general principle robbers steal possessions, they can be replaced, your dignity and pride will return but your health may not if you pick a fight with wrong person.

Incidentially what if Barras had a gun and fought back? doesnt bear thinking about really!

Dan

[Alan Stubbs]

Jim Gibbinson:

 

 

Regarding payment to Fearon by the BBC. It is arguable that the BBC have broken their own rule here, the rule that states that payment should not be made to a convicted criminal other than in exceptional cases and where it is clearly in the public interest.

 

Does Fearon's payment qualify?

Jim, I'd say it did....

Payment was a condition imposed by Fearon for his comments to be broadcast. The producer obviously felt that they were essential to the content of the programme.... and an understanding of the criminal mindset is certainly in the public interest, in as much as it may help educate the public into measures they can take to defend themselves. At £4500, I'd say that was definitely a social service fulfilling its public service broadcast mandate as well as its journalistic brief.

 

In the past, the BBC have refused to pay others involved in this sorry saga because they had already received payments (Martin included, so I understand) from various newspapers - The Mirror and mail included - so from both ends of the political spectrum, too. Fearon hadn't and it is 'legitimate' journalistic practice for him to have been paid for his comments - the precedent having already been set.

 

I make the point again that if we follow the logic of some of the posters here, BBC cannot compete for stories covered by other media - ITV, CNN and SkyNews included, by paying people for their contribution. So much for a level playing field. Law prevents the BBC's funding from using the same means as commercial broadcasters and publishers, so the fact that they are not publicly funded is irrelevant. Sky and the published media in particular are publicly funded from 2 income streams... by it's subscribers and advertisers.

 

Personally, I would rather the BBC hadn't paid for this guy's contribution, but I defend their reasons for doing so.

[Gerbil0154]

I agree with Argyle. If more people were to vote with their wallets, ie stop buying trash newspapers who pay for stories, then maybe we would get the press that we say we want.

 

Unfortunately we get the press we deserve. As someone wiser than me once observed, nobody loses money by over-estimating public taste. If newspapers did not get a circulation jump every time they print something salacious or tittilating then they would not pay for such stories.

 

They do however get a circulation rise so the practice continues. However much we like to deny it, we get what we ultimately are willing to pay for.

[Colin Brett]

As Fearon is receiving this money I assume he will now get his social and dole money stopped.

I realise that sounds a bit petty but it is us who will be paying him twice otherwise.

And before anyone says, "how do you know he receives anything?" How do you know he doesn't?

Just check out his local post office on payday, I bet he's there collecting along with all the others of his type!

 

Colin

[Alan Stubbs]

Gerbil0154:

I agree with Argyle. If more people were to vote with their wallets, ie stop buying trash newspapers who pay for stories, then maybe we would get the press that we say we want.

 

Unfortunately we get the press we deserve. As someone wiser than me once observed, nobody loses money by over-estimating public taste. If newspapers did not get a circulation jump every time they print something salacious or tittilating then they would not pay for such stories.

 

They do however get a circulation rise so the practice continues. However much we like to deny it, we get what we ultimately are willing to pay for.

Nice sentiment - but why criticise just one body (as is the case in this thread) for doing what it's competition does? The BBC wasn't trying to claim the moral high ground, it was pursuing legitimate journalistic goals.

 

The Beeb ain't perfect by any means, but let them play on a level field.

[argyll]

So lets take a completely liberal view of high profile crime and give the criminal the right to reply. Who knows, in the future we might yet see Ian Huntley being paid by the Beeb to tell his story. Or how about Rosie West ? Thats where some of you are going with your views about 'level playing fields' The Lib Dems got themselves into a bit of a pickle by recently suggesting (since withdrawn) that their manifesto might include 'prisoners rights to vote' 'So tell me Ian, how do you feel about the death sentence being resurrected for child murderers...your chance to have a vote and influence the decision' Does that sound ludicrous ? of course it does. But a leading politican obviously didnt think so, until the rest of his Party pulled him back to Planet Earth.

I suspect Tony Martin having gritted his teeth and served his time, would just like the whole sorry saga to go away and allow him live out his life quietly and not get involved in any more speculation about the rights and wrongs of this case. If he did agree initially to be on this programme I've no doubt it would have been to counter any of Brendan Fearon's claims. Brendan Fearon however seems to attach more importance to his £4,500 fee and the BBC not content with having already two sides of the story (from a much publicised trial)appear to have tried (according to The Times)to engineer a confrontation between Martin and Fearon.

 

[ 07. March 2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Alan,

 

Your are quite correct in assuming I don't buy news papers,I would not waste my money on them, they all pay far to many people for far to much rubbish.

 

I gather my up todate information from the web and I am very selective about what I read. The story which this thread relates to has been done to death months ago and rightly or wrongly in my opinion I think the BBC must be desperate to drag up the issue again and using a thief for his side of events.

 

I personally did not agree with what happened; an overhead shot would have had the desired effect and then let the law deal with it.

 

There are after all lots of very good deterents for burgulars, PIR lighting, CCTV, I have a combination of both purchased and easily installed for under £150.

 

Had the gentleman concerned took this type of precaution there is a high probabilty that the scum concerned would not have tried to breakin. Even idiots like this do not want to be turned over for nothing.

 

If we allowed gun culture to get out of hand the murder rate would be much higher.

 

The other sad aspect of this crime is the fact that both of those concerned should have been locked up and the key thrown away years before this happened.