BBC R4 broadcasts Friday evening programme of Any Questions - Saturday it is repeated, followed by Any Answers - a phone-in
In London organized groups of racist murderers were beating up and even killing young black men hijacked into vans.
The murderers wore police uniforms - and even though witnesses identified the vehicles used, all Metropolitan officers refused to testify against the criminal policemen.
Many young black males were killed - some even in police stations. This was not widely known because mainstream British media refused to feature these news items.
A reference to police brutality occurred on Any Questions (c. 1990).
This author (me) has mediumly extensive knowledge of real lfe and I happened to be first (on the Any Answers phone-in) saying "police are only young males in uniform and are inclined to be brutally and indeed murderously racist if not closely supervised".
The presenter, one Jonathan Dimbleby, seemed in favour of the police beating-up anyone and everyone - except BBC presenters and their friends;
claiming that "with violent crime ever increasing the police are entitled to use violence!"
I rebutted Dimbleby's attempted whitewash of official thuggery and murder, and then gave Dimbleby some of the the real facts about `fear of violence' - see below.
CAUSES OF MIS-PLACED FEAR OF VIOLENCE
1. The individual is bound to perceive a `worsening' trend no matter what the real situation is. This arises naturally from increasing sensitivity (fear) as the body ages
People feel more fragile and pessimistic as they sense the aging process in themselves
- - -
2. Diarists from Greeks & Pharaohs complained - "youth is ever more disrespectful and violence is increasing."
If true, today a walk would be messy, w/ tortured & crucified bodies underfoot
- - -
3. Long-term decrease of violence causes increased social sensitivity to violence
[ below & kidsafer ]
Fifty years ago daily street bloodshed wasn't reported; today's isolated incident makes headlines
[ UK `crime' news ]
[ NZ `crime' news 2008 ]
- - -
4. Government, media, police gain (profit) from public fears of violence
So Gov't, media & police almost always exaggerate `reported' violence
[except their own]
[ biglie ]
- - -
5. UK parish records show 17th Century murder was up to 200 times more common than today
"The History of Myddle" by Richard Gough c1700 Editor - David Hey, 1981
Penguin Books, ISBN 0 14 00.5841 9
[TEXT VERSION] [GOOGLE VERSION]
- - -
6. Insurance stats show that - Deaths from non-Gov't violence falling steadily for generations
Check the only objective registers of violence: body counts
Male / Female Death Rates - since 1841
(from `National Statistics')
(which reveals previously hidden women / children disappearance or murders)
- - -
7. Most common victim (teen/twenties male) most likely suffers gov't violence from police / bouncers / warders / bailiffs
Check objective figures and ask a young black male in London
QUOTE- "There have been 1,350 people - black and white - who have died in police cells or prison since 1990." "During April '98 to April '99 we are told that 65 people have died in police custody"
- - -
8. If male - more likely assaulted or killed by police/security than other category of person (except spouse)
If female - same odds for sexual assault - then murder
Seema1#PCW's & polrape & new update
- - -
9. The `prisoner's dilemma'
proves altruism is major survival trait within / between species
Darwin initially failed to realize:- in a social species the friendly and co-operative individual evolves successfully, the un-social - greedy and and ruthless - seem successful as individuals but eventually go extinct after some generations
- - -
10. Illustration:- you regularly visit two cities; one peaceful and dull, the other a "Wild West" town, with dead bodies on the sidewalk.
If you're in a brawl, where would it make headlines?
As we become a more peaceful society we develop more sensitivity to violence.
That sensitivity completely skews our views of past and present conditions.
- - - - - - - -
1) Ruthlessness and violence become rarer in population: so ruthless / violent types are going extinct.
Therefore - long term - ruthlessness and violence aren't survival attributes.
2) Contemporary `perceptions' of violence will always oppose long-term reality.
N.b. - These facts, and the statistical evidence behind them, seem to bear out the theory of evolutionary improvement of Alfred Russel Wallace
Dimbleby quickly asked "Do you have any qualifications to speak on these matters ?"
[At the time this was a common `English media' put-down; mediamen would then pretend that the general British public was totally ignorant of factual matters - like the media themselves]
Maybe over-modestly replied that I was an ordinary member of the public and was quickly faded-out by Dimbleby.
However Dimbleby's pomposity was pricked when he found that subsequent callers agreed with me, beginning with the next - a dignified, well-educated gentleman from the Indian civil service who had only recently come to England.
He too was disturbed by the overtly racist and violent behaviour of London policemen - and so were subsequent callers.
We can be sure that this incident stuck in Dimbleby's craw - for, some years later:-
was surprised to hear two BBC Radio 4 "Analysis" programmes called "The Violence File"- trotting out most of my conclusions as if they had been solely discovered by BBC researchers or by the producer / editor Susan Davies (or by collusion with Dimbleby perhaps? Wonder if he was paid for it?).
There was no acknowledgement given to me. In a letter replying to my protest, the BBC denied plagiarism, or indeed any connection between Dimbleby and the "Violence File" series concocted by Davies (maybe with the help / instigation of Dimbleby? Was he paid by the BBC for that plagiarism?).
The program was not repeated - probably because it revealed too much about corrupt police, pervert magistrates & judges, and lying politicos' propaganda use of fear of violence.
The BBC and mainstream media (MSM) have mostly resumed their `increasing violence' hype which, as you can now see, is a lie.
But, unlike most media hacks, BBC reporters and commentators cannot claim ignorance as their excuse for lying.
They were told the truth - first by me, then via plagiarists (Dimbleby/Davies) and a radio broadcast - two decades ago (c. early '90s).
More recently - the BBC now denies any knowledge of those two "Analysis" broadcasts. As if they never happened.
That is strange, in view of their previous letter. It looks like plagiarism, then panic - then cover-up.