#BBC #CoveringUP or #Reporting? Responses to the @VicDerbyshire program #WhistleblowerKids

The judgement and the interview are clearly supposed to pave the way for the children to be given to the father… See http://mckenzie-friends.co.uk/2015/01/02/why-ian-josephs-advises-mothers-not-to-report-the-crimes-of-abusive-fathers-you-lose-your-children/

In the Best Interest of the 'Whistleblower Kids'?

15 04 21 BBCBelinda McKenzie and I got this letter with a long list of bullet points from Eleanor Plowden, the Senior Planning Producer of the Victoria Derbyshire programme that interviewed RD, the father. My responses are the indented bullet points.

“We anticipate the following points, which arise from the judgement, will  be made in our programme and would like to ask you for your response:

Custody Battle? No: Residence Order!

  • You and your former partner have been involved in a long-running dispute over custody of your children.
    • No, the issues were domestic violence rather than custody, as Ella had a Residence Order in place and two Non-Molestation Orders. Our Application for a Non-Molestation Order was ignored by both Judge Mayer and Judge Pauffley.
  • You and Mr Christie have not participated by being present in the court – your absence was deliberate.

View original post 2,325 more words

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter of positivity.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to #BBC #CoveringUP or #Reporting? Responses to the @VicDerbyshire program #WhistleblowerKids

  1. There are none so blind as those who will not see; nor deaf as those who will not hear but we must continue to speak for those who cannot be seen or heard.

  2. Tim Veater says:

    The Derbyshire interview was transparently an unethical attempt to present a one-sided and thereby an inaccurate account. !t was designed to exculpate a principal suspect of alleged criminal activity and generate sympathy for him, by devoting a large proportion of the ‘trailer’ to what appears to be feigned distress and tears and other techniques such as sympathetic questioning and active editing to presumably remove incriminating elements and heighten emotional impact. Although in practice I like to think it probably back-fired and people weren’t taken in by it, the sample of e-mails read out the end that were uniformly in support of ‘the man’. Was this a true reflection of how the programme was received or just another example of manipulation and bias?
    Of course the BBC has got, as was pointed out in the letter of complaint quite a track record of failure to report both inside and outside the organisation, circumstances of child abuse over a long period. Some have argued this could only happen if the management actively facilitated the abuse by its employees and those contracted to it, on and off its premises. However the issue of manipulation goes much wider and deeper over a much longer period. If in the matter of child abuse, and what is now known, it became evident that the BBC was still actively engaged in misrepresentation and cover-up of serious crimes, it would have profound and lasting damage to its reputation. BBC you are on NOTICE. You can no longer claim ignorance of the issue or of the facts of this particular case. As TRUST is claimed to central to your management and mission, shouldn’t someone be taking this issue seriously? The way it is handled will have far-reaching consequences.
    For a good review of examples that cast doubt on the BBC’s impartiality and honesty in relation to some of the most important issues of our day and particulary the events of 9/11 see here:https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/bbc-censors-bbc
    From, http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036 this excerpt will suffice:
    “The BBC is a long standing bastion of truth, honesty, and integrity of British society. Unlike other mainstream corporate media networks, the BBC is funded by the British public through the TV licensing fees, and is accountable to the British public through its unique Royal Charter, which requires it to be impartial and accurate in its reporting. If it does happen to make an accidental error in its reporting, then it is required to publicly correct that error. As such, it is seen by the public as a much loved and trusted part of British society, so much so that the public have given it the nickname of ‘Auntie’.”
    “How can it be then, that on the vital issue of the on-going global war on terror, and the event that sparked this war, namely 9/11, the BBC is guilty beyond question of deliberately and actively supporting the cover up of irrefutable evidence which would help bring the true perpetrators of 9/11 to justice and most likely bring an immediate end to the global war on terror as we know it.”
    “So overwhelming is the evidence against the BBC on this issue that it has recently been challenged in a British court of law. It lost, and yet the vast majority of the public would have absolutely no idea about this. It has also been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly all around the world that if the BBC would simply show the public the damning evidence that it is deliberately withholding, the vast majority of the public would instantly understand and believe that they have been lied to about 9/11 on a truly grand scale and that what really happened on that day is in fact very different to what we have been told, as the judge in the courtroom in Sussex, South-East England, quickly realised when he saw this evidence in February 2013.”
    Sadly, the BBC has ceased to be a credible journalistic investigative organisation. The Derbyshire interview is proof of that. I for one can no longer watch the news on the BBC without questioning its voracity and purpose and I am sure I cannot be alone in that regard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s