BBC attacked for paying burglar shot by Martin

The Times (London) ^ | March 04, 2005 | Adam Sherwin

[FreedomCalls]

CRITICISM was mounting on the BBC last night when it was revealed that a burglar was being paid £4,500 (US $8,660) for speaking on a television documentary about the fatal 1999 break-in at the farmhouse of Tony Martin.

Brendon Fearon, who has convictions for burglary and drug offences, was wounded by Mr Martin in the raid on Bleak House, in Norfolk. His accom- plice, Fred Barras, 16, was shot dead.

BBC One was attacked the day after the BBC was told to improve its public service performance in return for renewal of the licence fee. Its guidelines state that convicted criminals should not be paid unless they offer a “contribution of remarkable importance with a clear public interest that could not be obtained without payment”.

Friends of the farmer said that he had refused to take part in the programme after learning that the producers intended to engineer an on-camera confrontation with Mr Fearon.

Mr Martin was jailed for murdering the teenage intruder but his conviction was later reduced to one of manslaughter.

Mr Fearon was given £5,000 (US $9,625) to sue the 57-year-old farmer but backed down from taking legal action.

Malcolm Starr, a friend of Mr Martin, said that Channel 4 had pulled out of making a similar documentary because the farmer refused to participate.

He said: “Tony Martin refused any money or to meet his tormentor in a face-to face confrontation. It is utterly disgraceful that the BBC is handing over our hard-earned money to someone who has been in and out of prison his whole life.”

BBC Television said that it planned to go ahead with the documentary next month. A spokesman insisted that the Fearon interview met the strict criteria on payment to criminals. “It is extremely important that the public hears the fullest possible account of the event that led to the death of a 16-year-old boy and the imprisonment of Tony Martin,” he said.

“Mr Fearon is the only person, apart from Tony Martin, who is alive and a witness to what happened. There is public controversy about householders’ rights to protect their homes from intruders.” Mr Fearon’s contribution would ensure that the programme was balanced, the spokesman said.

The BBC has promised to inform viewers when any interviewee has been paid more than £10,000 (US $19,245) for a contribution. Although the sum is less, viewers will be told during the documentary that Mr Fearon had been paid.

Peter Horrocks, the BBC’s head of current affairs, promised last year that the corporation would withdraw from “chequebook journalism”. He said the BBC had made errors when offering large sums to celebrities such as George Best, who was paid £25,000 (US $48,112) to talk about his alcoholism.

Henry Bellingham, the Tory MP for North West Norfolk, described the BBC’s explanation as “the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard”.

He added: “It is grossly insensitive for an organisation that is meant to show complete balance.”

[FreedomCalls]

The victim was sent to prison and the criminal profits.

[Jeff Head]

There is public controversy about householders’ rights to protect their homes from intruders

If this is true...and it appears it is because this man was sent to jail for defending his property against intruders...then the Brits are more terribly screwed up in their social thinking than you can imagine.

Hey socialists. How about if someone invades your island nation? Should you wait until they destroy a city, while they are marching towards it, before you take action?

IMHO, if someone breaks into you house, you MUST consider them a deadly threat from the outset and react accordingly. Othwerweise, there is a good chance that you may loose much more than your belongings.

[Brian Allen]

<< The victim was sent to prison and the criminal profits. >>

In the Euro-peons' Neo-Soviet's squalidly socialistic offshore satellite state up is down and down is up and right is wrong and crazy is sane -- and some animals are more equal than others.

[Brian Allen]

#2 BUMP! #3 BUMP

[Brit_Guy]

"If this is true...and it appears it is because this man was sent to jail for defending his property against intruders...then the Brits are more terribly screwed up in their social thinking than you can imagine."

The Tony Martin case is an exception (though the way the media covered it did send the wrong message to would be burglars) - the law as it stands in point of fact:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4224473.stm

Martin wasn't so much jailed for defending his property as for the chasing down and finishing off of the 16 year old from close range aggravated by the fact the gun he had was unlicenced. He was tried and convicted by a jury of peers in a fair trial. The charge was reduced from Muder to Manslaughter on appeal. It's a sad case all round - but simplifying it to 'jailed for defending his property' misses out all the evidence the jury heard, and misses that there is nothing illegal in the UK about defending your property with reasonable force.

[Jeff Head]

Thanks, that's why I prefaced my remakes with if this is true. If he chased the kid down, away from his property, after his property and life were no longer in danger, and then killed him, then there is ample justification for his trial.

Thanks for the on-scene report and cutting through your own MSM smoke screen.

[Jim Verdolini]

"The Tony Martin case is an exception (though the way the media covered it did send the wrong message to would be burglars) - the law as it stands in point of fact:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4224473.stm

Martin wasn't so much jailed for defending his property as for the chasing down and finishing off of the 16 year old from close range aggravated by the fact the gun he had was unlicenced. He was tried and convicted by a jury of peers in a fair trial. The charge was reduced from Muder to Manslaughter on appeal. It's a sad case all round - but simplifying it to 'jailed for defending his property' misses out all the evidence the jury heard, and misses that there is nothing illegal in the UK about defending your property with reasonable force."

You fail to not the key phrase in your link. The "NEW" policy was not the policy under which Mr. Martin was prosecuted.

martin had been robbed many times with the local police doing absolutely nothing. he simply defended his home when robbed by two career criminals. For more on the issue try these links:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_34/ai_93090050

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1333242004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6662217/#041207

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/07/do0702.xml

I coud go on as the list of recent stories about the debasement of English freedom is very long indeed.

[crazycat]

Well said, brit-Guy is spouting the party line/

The Tony Martin case was allways about scaring the public into never lifting a finger, as that was the State's via the Police's job.

The establishment went apeshit, when he shot that POS, every sane person cheered.

[Cicero]

As I understand it, Martin was robbed numerous times and threatened. These kids would think little of killing their victim if they were crossed. It's a very dangerous thing to confront two teenage thugs who have repeatedly preyed on you in a lonely farmhouse and then let them go. There's a very high chance they would come back and kill you.

Sure, the jury found Martin guilty. But I think they were badly informed by the prosecution and the judge and failed to consider that the police had done NOTHING to protect Martin from these thugs.

[WoofDog123]

This IS true, and it was a big story a few years ago. Do a search on Tony Martin and you will find the details. Britain is enacting 1984 like a five-year plan. Ignorance is strength, Slavery is Freedom, War is peace. Up is down, also.

[Shisan]

Why is it "a sad case all around"? What is sad about it? A travesty I could buy, but not "sad". Your nuanced statement of the facts in which the distance at which the man was shot seems to be of prime importance distracts from
the overall picture in which Mr. Martin had been victimized many times and was able to defend himself finally. Perhaps the Secretary of the Home Office could remain calm cool and collected under such circumstances but few other humans could.

[Jeff Head]

Well, apparently it is true the man was arrested and jailed and that he did defend his property.

But according to Brit_guy, after defending his property, he chased the kid down away from his property, after he and his property were no longer in danger, and finsihed him off. If that is true, then he should have gone to trial.

The charge was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and that is what he is now incarcerated for.

Don't get me wrong...if the kid was shooting at the man, are hurling molitov cocktails at his place from off his property, then he had every right to continue using deadly force...but if the kid had already been scared away and was running off, well away from the property, killing him was certainly not the answer at that point IMHO.

[martin gibson]

Hey, socialists...

uh, "Hey, neo-Stalinists..."

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

"Martin wasn't so much jailed for defending his property as for the chasing down and finishing off of the 16 year old from close range aggravated by the fact the gun he had was unlicenced. He was tried and convicted by a jury of peers in a fair trial. The charge was reduced from Muder to Manslaughter on appeal. It's a sad case all round - but simplifying it to 'jailed for defending his property' misses out all the evidence the jury heard, and misses that there is nothing illegal in the UK about defending your property with reasonable force."

If a couple of thugs try to break into my house, I will assume when they run it is to get more thugs and weapons to kill me and mine.
I will chase them down and finish it.

[Jeff Head]

While I understand the sentiment, particularly in the heat of the moment...even in my native Texas, I do not believe you could do so and escape prosecution.

Once it was established that your life and property were no longer in immediate danger...ie. they were off your property and had their southbound backsides pointed to you...then killing them will become a crime unless you can prove the point you made about getting more help to come back with dangerous intent...even then, until they came back, I believe you would have a tough fight.

Just load up and be waiting for them. Double ought buck with a pump or a semi-automatic.

[WoofDog123]

All good points. On the upside-down side, the surviving criminal was given the go-ahead to sue tony martin, and apparently almost did.

[Shisan]

Good point....and the BBC PAID him with PUBLIC funds. Try as hard as he may, Brit Guy will have a tougher time in the future proving that Britons are not becoming slaves.

[Brit_Guy]

"You fail to not the key phrase in your link. The "NEW" policy was not the policy under which Mr. Martin was prosecuted."

Yawn. You fail to spot the point that this is not policy. It is just a guide to the existing law making amends for the confusion that the Martin case caused (due to poor reporting). The law hasn't changed since Martin was prosecuted. He was prosecuted under the law. The same law we have now we had then. The law which allows you to defend your property, but not for you to chase after them and finish burglars off.

Maybe in some version of Sharia Law that is allowed, but in the common law of England it aint.

[FreedomCalls]

On the upside-down side, the surviving criminal was given the go-ahead to sue tony martin, and apparently almost did.

And given over $9000 of taxpayer money with which to do it.

[Eagles6]

"Martin wasn't so much jailed for defending his property as for the chasing down and finishing off of the 16 year old from close range".

Where is this reported? I have never seen this description of events in any of the articles that I have read concerning the case and I have followed it for years. Please provide a link, if this is the case.