BBC Sounds so much like a state run media..

londonTiger

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33482619

This reeks so much of propaganda you'd expect from disctatorships from the far east. The state media congratulating the state and it's apparatus on how it's so much more just than other countries.

Has the BBC forgotton that we have 2 senior MPs accused of serious pediaphallic sex crimes commited in the house of lords which are barred from prosecution for some unknown reason?

Well one has been named because he's too mentally ill to stand trial, but the other is presumably fit enough for trial but protected from prosecution and not named.

Nilrem

So it's state run propaganda for them to compare major differences between legal systems on fairly major case types?

The BBC has reported on those cases as much as possible, and it's hardly "barred from prosecution for unknown reasons" when one of them has had the reasons stated (as in your own post) because he's suffering from dementia - and that case is IIRC going to be dealt with by a court of facts or something (I can't remember the details), where the court is going to look into it but because the accused is presumably too far gone to offer any real defence it can't go to a normal trial.

The other case I haven't heard much about.

But at least we don't have a time limit in which you have to press charges in serious sex cases.

Given the U.S. and the U.K system have largely the same roots (and how many people get confused between what is normal in the U.S. legal system vs the U.K., largely thanks to Amercian TV drama's), it's surprising how vast some of the differences are.


*Things like Gavels, which are never used in UK courts, but people expect them so much they're usually used in UK courts in UK drama's now.

geerex

The BBC are so biased and left wing its incredible. Their workforce, by and large, are younger, more ethnic and more pro-eu than the country as a whole.
I'll always remember the news article they published on their website which basically said that the ethnic cleansing occurring in London is a good thing, says it all. They also tend to side with the Palestinians any time that there is a fracas in that region, its utterly blatant what they're trying to do.
Scum.

bod1467

geerex wrote: »

The BBC are so .. left wing ....... the ethnic cleansing occurring in London is a good thing

Aren't they mutually-exclusive statements? (Ethnic cleansing sounds more fascist - right wing - than left wing).

londonTiger

geerex wrote: »

The BBC are so biased and left wing its incredible. Their workforce, by and large, are younger, more ethnic and more pro-eu than the country as a whole.
I'll always remember the news article they published on their website which basically said that the ethnic cleansing occurring in London is a good thing, says it all. They also tend to side with the Palestinians any time that there is a fracas in that region, its utterly blatant what they're trying to do.
Scum.

Whenever I read or hear someone say that a centerist organisation like the BBC is biased I immediately think they are the ones who are actually very skewed to one side. Sure enough I'm ususally right, there is nothing biased about BBCs reporting of Palestine Israel conflict. Actually it could be argued that the BBC is complicit with Israel in that it does not report on the day to day hardships, sanction and economic extortion that Palestinians face.

Israel repeatedly bars UN observers and international press like the BBC from gaining access to parts of Israel that would make it appear in poor light to the international press but the BBC does not mention it.

What's more due to Israels sanction of the palestinian territories, the only access for international observers into Palestinian lands is through Israel and Israel flatly refuses access by international media to these places.

gaza is blockaded, West bank has checkpoints everywhere by occupied IDF and they refuse access to international media without a permit from Israel.

The BBC is firmly on the fence on this issue.

londonTiger

Nilrem wrote: »

So it's state run propaganda for them to compare major differences between legal systems on fairly major case types?

The BBC has reported on those cases as much as possible, and it's hardly "barred from prosecution for unknown reasons" when one of them has had the reasons stated (as in your own post) because he's suffering from dementia - and that case is IIRC going to be dealt with by a court of facts or something (I can't remember the details), where the court is going to look into it but because the accused is presumably too far gone to offer any real defence it can't go to a normal trial.

The other case I haven't heard much about.

But at least we don't have a time limit in which you have to press charges in serious sex cases.

Given the U.S. and the U.K system have largely the same roots (and how many people get confused between what is normal in the U.S. legal system vs the U.K., largely thanks to Amercian TV drama's), it's surprising how vast some of the differences are.


*Things like Gavels, which are never used in UK courts, but people expect them so much they're usually used in UK courts in UK drama's now.

Statute of limitations exist for a good reason, as time goes on people memories become less and less credible and it becomes much more costly to prosecute someone for a crime commited 30 years ago.

It's actually not a bad idea in principle, but when you have a heinous crime commited it does muddy things a bit.

In any case if the statute of limitations is unfair, it's universally unfair for everyone. I think there is something inherently even more unfair when the privileged classes get different treatment from prosecution than the rest of us. Sort of like a back room nod and wink deal.

Gingernutty

The article states the major differences in how the UK and the US CJS' deal with sex crimes.

The US doesn't have a uniform method of dealing with any cases as the different states have varying laws.

A suspect who commits a crime in one state and then skips over the state line to another has to be extradited as if in another country.

To point out the differences doesn't mean that the BBC is left wing.

A statute of limitations means that those who don't have the money or influence to pursue a case would eventually have to give up as there would be no point in carrying it on.

How is that right?

The fact that there is no statute of limitations here means that every case is open until solved. Surely that's fairer?

pendragon_arther

londonTiger wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33482619

This reeks so much of propaganda you'd expect from disctatorships from the far east. The state media congratulating the state and it's apparatus on how it's so much more just than other countries.

Has the BBC forgotton that we have 2 senior MPs accused of serious pediaphallic sex crimes commited in the house of lords which are barred from prosecution for some unknown reason?

Well one has been named because he's too mentally ill to stand trial, but the other is presumably fit enough for trial but protected from prosecution and not named.

Well, we all know the reason really although no one has the courage to openly discuss it. !!!!!phillia is still abundant in the higher echelons of society but is covered up in much the same way as it was with Cyril Smith and priests et al.

geerex

bod1467 wrote: »

Aren't they mutually-exclusive statements? (Ethnic cleansing sounds more fascist - right wing - than left wing).

No necessarily. Here's the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904

Make up your own mind, but an article where the author can almost be heard clapping in hands in glee about all of the white people disappearing from our capital is utterly offensive.

Like I said, the BBC represents immigrants and those who are invested in incompatible ideologies far more than they do the actual population of the UK.

bod1467

Ah! Reverse ethnic cleansing .... that makes sense now.

vuvuzela

geerex wrote: »

No necessarily. Here's the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904

Make up your own mind, but an article where the author can almost be heard clapping in hands in glee about all of the white people disappearing from our capital is utterly offensive.

Like I said, the BBC represents immigrants and those who are invested in incompatible ideologies far more than they do the actual population of the UK.

I've made up my mind, as you suggest, and to me it doesn't read like you say at all - it seems quite balanced. You simply sound like you've got an axe to grind with the BBC (or with all the immigrants you mention) and are deliberately looking to find fault with them. It's a bit odd.