WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Donald Trump and his Campaign Team famously developed the expression “Fake News” to comment on the left-liberal, blatant bias of the US mainstream media. 

In this country I think the mainstream media are at least as biased as the US media. 

For the last three years or more we have had wall to wall and utterly shameless and blatant Remainer bias from the BBC and all the other main broadcast channels on any topic relating to Brexit. 

Charles Moore on last week’s Question Time brilliantly exposed the BBC’s and Question Time’s bias against Leavers, whilst the BBC’s Fiona Bruce desperately tried to shut him up!

The mainstream media’s bias however goes much further than disproportionate coverage to include outright censorship of any story which goes against their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 

I think few stories illustrate this better than the coverage of our case. 

The English Democrats are bringing a High Court case using the Judicial Review procedure to sue Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Case No. CO/1322/2019).  We have a strong case that, according to law, the United Kingdom left the European Union on the 29^th March at the expiry of our two year notice period which was given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. 

This case is therefore the only realistic chance that we have of getting any real Brexit.  The media are falling over themselves to report displacement activity that cannot make any difference.  For example, as I write this, they are falling over themselves to report about Nigel Farage and his new Party.  The safe fact for the Remain supporting media is that however many MEPs Farage’s Party wins it cannot make any difference whatsoever to whether we are in or out of the EU or on what terms!  Misdirecting Leave support into that cul-de-sac is therefore useful for Remain.

I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success. 

This is of course also in stark contrast to the massive and persistent reporting of the much less important constitutional case brought by Gina Miller to require the Government to get an Act of Parliament to permit it to serve the Article 50 Notice.  That case, as I am sure anybody who listened to any of the “news” output of the mainstream media, received literally massive coverage because the Remainers in the media thought that it might derail Brexit.

By contrast our case which may actually get a Declaration that we are already Out of the European Union has only had the Mail On-line do two items about it, both of which were top trending political news stories on-line. 

I have been informed that those in charge of the Mail On-line were told by the Daily Mail’s new editor (who is a Remainer) that they were to let the story drop. 

The Express On-line also began to cover the story, but again I understand they were told to drop the story by their new owners from the Mirror Group. 

Apart from those two media outlets there has been, so far as I am aware, no other coverage at all. 

Given the significance of this case I think we can draw some important conclusions from this treatment. 

The first is that despite the claims of the mainstream media to report “News”, this claim is quite simply ‘fake news’.  The so-called “News” which they report is subordinate to their propaganda objective of furthering their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 

So, any of us that take our understanding of what is going on in the world from the mainstream media is therefore running a big risk that their awareness of news will be so tainted by this propaganda objective that their understanding may well be led into fundamental errors about what is going on. 

This of course has important implications for political policy and decision making because our politicians seem to take much of their agenda from what appears in the mainstream media.  No wonder they make such a mess of almost every decision that they are involved in!

Also no wonder so many people are misled into supporting displacement activity!

Another important point to consider is the effectiveness of social media.  Despite not receiving any proper coverage by the mainstream media, we have still been able raise over £80,000 toward the case.  That does enable us to carry on with the case with some confidence.  However against that we have to set what happened with the Gina Miller case where the fake news mainstream media furore led to the funding of a case which cost over £1.2 million!  Social Media therefore is helpful but does not fully compensate us for being completely cut out of the mainstream media reporting. 

Last but not least, it also does need to be noted that the Remainer cartel politicians like Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson have been campaigning for social media access to be cut-off for all those who oppose the current British Political Establishment cartel. 

Our window of potential opportunity on social media is therefore already being closed off, as the recent treatment of Tommy Robinson so vividly demonstrates!

This of course means that it is urgent to find ways to break through politically before the window of opportunity finally closes on us!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

Last Friday afternoon the story broke in the mainstream media that 20 more, as the BBC called them “Asians”, had been convicted of horrific offences of “child grooming” from the Huddersfield area. 

Most of the offences occurred during the period of Labour Government in the Labour controlled area of Kirklees.  These had been systematically covered up by Labour Councillors and MPs, social workers, police and all the usual suspects that we are all too familiar with from the Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester etc. “grooming gang” cases. 

Even now the BBC cannot bring themselves to admit that these men are of Pakistani heritage Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, or any other “Asians”. 

After the murder of the internationalist Labour MP, Jo Cox, by the deeply disturbed Thomas Mair (actually more as a product of the failure of “Care in the Community” than of political extremism), the English Democrats decided we would stand in the ensuing by-election.   

The Constituency was of course exactly in the area affected by this case.  The local media, the local BBC and all the local politicians were in the know about what had been going on for many years in Kirklees.  Nevertheless claimed that it was disgusting of anyone to stand in that Constituency against Labour!

So, as soon as we announced that we were going to stand, that Establishment bastion of Remain, the Electoral Commission, decided to remove without any consultation or prior notice, our registered “Description” “England worth fighting for!”  This was said to be offensive!   

What is truly offensive is the way that the Establishment had closed ranks to try to pretend that nothing untoward was going on in Kirklees and their claims that our standing was damaging “social cohesion” between the “local communities”. 

The media, particularly in the shape of Channel 4, tried to do a hatchet job on us.  They not only secretly filmed at our conference to try to get people to say things that they could use against us. Also they tried to create a situation where there would be a fight by getting a probably drunken Labour Councillor to attack our campaign stalls. 

I had taken, as it turned out, the very sensible precaution of making sure that our stalls were in the square just outside the Batley police station, so the whole thing was witnessed by the police.  They, very reluctantly, had to get involved to prevent the Labour Councillor from doing any more criminal damage.  Needless to say that they didn’t actually prosecute her, despite the fact that several of our people gave witness statements which, if the boot had been on the other foot, would certainly have led to prosecutions! 

Channel 4 were looking rather depressed at the failure of their wheeze, but they nevertheless showed their hatchet job which was broadcast just before the by-election. They broadcast a clip with the Councillor saying that we shouldn’t be standing but didn’t mention, of course, her appalling conduct!

Whilst this was all truly offensive, nothing compares with the betrayal of vulnerable white English girls and their families by Labour, by police and by local officials, by the media and by the British Political Establishment generally.   

That is something which should live in infamy for generations to come and which should motivate anyone who cares for England and the English people to campaign all the harder to at least remove all the guilty from any positions of authority or influence!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

 

There are two parts to this story.

 

First the Labour candidate in the biggest election this year has an address which does not exist as his home address in his nomination papers. This means that if he is elected then that result is voidable as having a false address in his nomination forms is the offence of "Corrupt Practice". We have reported this to the Police who have confirmed that "South Yorkshire Police is investigati(ng) an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections"

 

Second we have here a classic “Electoral Fraud” story of the type that BBC Sheffield so eagerly ran when it was alleged that Paul Nuttall of UKIP had committed a nearly identical election fraud as is alleged in this case.  That was in the Stoke By-election, so it is not even directly related to either Sheffield or South Yorkshire! Now however the local BBC are trying to protect a Labour MP from adverse publicity which might, as Labour put it in Mr Nuttall’s case, “call into question" Mr Jarvis “fitness for office”!

 

There is no credible basis for The BBC's excuse of saying that giving this story the proper level of publicity would put Mr Jarvis under risk of attack, especially as it is his failure to give his home address which is the basis for him being investigated by South Yorkshire police!  So how would anyone know his address?

 

Here is a link to the Statement of Persons nominated where you can see Dan Jarvis' false address >>> https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated.pdf

 

There is no Marsham Road in London.

So this is what the charge-sheet against Dan Jarvis MP and/or his agent Paul Nicholson might look like:-

 

CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981

Details of Offence on or before 6^th April 2018 at the offices of Sheffield City Council in the County of South Yorkshire used an instrument, namely a local government election nomination form relating to Dan Jarvis which was and which they knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing the Returning Officer, Dr Dave Smith, to accept it as genuine and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or another person’s prejudice.

(Upon conviction an indictment of this offence which is called the "Misuse of a Statutory Instrument”, the person convicted may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.)

CONTRARY TO SECTION 65A(1)(A) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983

On or before 6^th April 2018 in the offices of Sheffield City Council in South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis or his Election Agent caused or permitted to be included in a document, namely a local government election nomination form relating to a candidate stated to be Dan Jarvis which was delivered or otherwise furnished to Dr Dave Smith the returning officer for use in connection with the Sheffield City Regional election in South Yorkshire to be held on 3^rd May 2018 a statement of the home address of the said candidate, which you knew to be false.

(This offence is labelled a “Corrupt Practice” and the successful election of a candidate found guilty (whether personally or by his agent) of a “Corrupt Practice” is void and anyone found personally guilty of a Corrupt Practice is prohibited from holding any elected office for a period of five years.)

 

So you can see that the probable minimum outcome of the investigation of this case would be that Dan Jarvis’ election would be declared void. He may also be disqualified from office for five years.  It is therefore absurd that the BBC is refusing to report a police investigation which will probably result in this election result being declared void.

 

The general location of what is probably Mr Jarvis’s real address can quite easily be found on the Barnsley Council’s website where the location of his home address is given on the published Notice of Persons Nominated for Election as the MP for Barnsley Central here >>> https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5855/statement-of-persons-nominated-barnsley-central.pdf.

 

I have therefore specifically warned BBC Sheffield that unless the BBC does its job and properly reports this issue then I shall be complaining to OFCOM over clear breaches of the “Ofcom Broadcasting Code”, Sections are 5, 6 and 7.  They have not done so and so I shall be complaining.

 

In Section 5 in breach as follows:-

 

Section Five:
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and
section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy 
and presented with due impartiality.
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are
complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself
means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate
to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an
equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every
facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may
vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the
likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content
and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm
and Offence of the Code, is important.
Due impartiality and due accuracy in news 
5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.
5.2
Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected
on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections
should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately
signaled to viewers).” 

The BBC are failing to report views and failing to act with due impartiality and are ignoring the requirement to report with due accuracy and are excluding the reporting of news because of their biased views and opinions

 

“5.5
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters
relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person
providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or
over a series of programmes taken as a whole. 
Meaning of “series of programmes taken as a whole”: 
This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing
with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like
audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a
drama and a debate about the drama) or a ‘cluster’ or ‘season’ of programmes on the
same subject.”

 

This is a matter of political controversy and so their duty of due impartiality applies.

 

“5.7
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with
due weight over appropriate timeframes.”

 

They are failing to present relevant views and facts at all.

“5.8
Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question
the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.”

They are not declaring their personal interests as Labour supporters and not allowing adequate representation of alternative viewpoints.

 

“5.12
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and
major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of
significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be
misrepresented.”

They were no doubt asked by Labour or by their candidate not to report this story and by agreeing not to do so they are complicit in giving undue prominence to their views and opinions.

 

Section 6 the BBC appear to be in wholesale breach of.  Not only in this matter but also in failing to give equal treatment to the candidates in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election and significantly the direct failure of their reports to comply with Section 6.10, which requires that:-

 

“Any constituency or electoral area report or discussion after the close of

nominations must include a list of all candidates standing, giving first names,

surnames and the name of the party they represent or, if they are standing

independently, the fact that they are an independent candidate. This must

be conveyed in sound and/or vision. Where a constituency report on a radio

service is repeated on several occasions in the same day, the full list need

only be broadcast on one occasion. If, in subsequent repeats on that day, the

constituency report does not give the full list of candidates, the audience should

be directed to an appropriate website or other information source listing all

candidates and giving the information set out above.”

 

Look North’s BBC’s Evening News item from 6.30 -7.00 p.m. earlier last week carried a report by Look North’s News Political Editor, Mr James Vincent on the powers of the role of the new South Yorkshire Mayor.  This was in the proposed Mayoral office and he commented "nice view but no powers"!

 

There was then a discussion in the BBC studio amongst Look North’s in-house staff  commentators, Ms Amy Garcia and Mr Harry Gration, who were complaining about the cost of the election address booklet and of the election generally.

 

This was the second or third occasion that Look North has referred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral elections in which they only referred viewers, who wanted more information, to the official election website but did not spell out at all the names or the parties of the candidates in the election.

(The link to the code is here >>>  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf

 

The correspondence on this matter which sets out both issues is below, in chronological order:-

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: robintilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate 

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate

In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  

It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London - clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!

Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-

Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.   April 2017 (updated December 2017.

The relevant part of the Guidance states:-

“Home address form 1.12

The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you

live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.

1.13

Your home address:

• must be completed in full

• must not contain abbreviations

• must be your current home address

• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)

1.14

Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”

 

76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>> https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/ .  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>>  http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html .  

Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  

The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 

So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!

In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 

The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  “I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 

This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”

David continued:-  “Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  

The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”

 

David Allen

St Edmunds House

Anchorage Lane

Doncaster

South Yorkshire  

DN5 8DT  

Tel: 01302 781347

Mobile: 07450 098964 

Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com

 

 

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats,

Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP

Tel: 01277 896000

Mobile : 07778 553395

Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/

Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8^th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5^th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
To: robintilbrook < robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 4:56 pm
Subject: FW: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 

Hi Robin,

 

I can’t find the mayoral booklet for election addresses, I’m not sure it’s been made public yet. Do you have a copy?

Can you scan a page and send it me?

Thanks,

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

 

 

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 

Liz

 

Enclosed is a picture of Jarvis’ entry in the booklet. I’ve also included a picture of the statement of nominations which has incorrect and incomplete London address too. If you need a better picture please let me know.

 

Regards 

 

David Allen 

 

 

 

From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 18:54
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Fwd: Your Email 13/4/18

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: STEPHEN LEACH < Stephen.Leach@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Subject: Your Email 13/4/18
To: davidsallen64@gmail.com < davidsallen64@gmail.com>

 

Good afternoon

 

I can confirm that South Yorkshire Police is investigation an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections.

 

Regards

 

DI Steve Leach

SYP Cyber Crime

Stephen.leach@southyorkshire.pnn.police.uk

 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: James Vincent <james.vincent@bbc.co.uk>; Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Tim Smith-Leeds <tim.smith@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: Your Email 13/4/18 

 

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 

Hi David,

 

We’ve decided we won’t be running the story. This is due to the safety risk posed to Dan Jarvis and his family.

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

Hi Liz

 

Thanks for your message.

 

I am sorry to say I am not surprised. I suspect the real reason is more likely the political risk to what appears to be a BBC preferred candidate.

 

I fail to see how reporting him being investigated for electoral fraud constitutes a compromise to his or his family’s safety, bearing in mind his allegedly bogus London address is a matter of public record.

 

Each of the other candidates have had their home addresses published and perhaps myself and my family the most likely to be safety compromised amongst them.

 

Actions like this do nothing to dispel the growing belief that the BBC is ‘The Guardian’ on air and has abandoned any pretence of balance, particularly since BREXIT.

 

I am sorry you have been given the dirty job of being the messenger when it was you who dared to pick up the story in the first place.

 

This complaint is in no way directed at you personally.

 

Regards 

 

From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2018 15:51
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Dan Jarvis

 

Liz,

 

Further to your statement regarding the alleged compromise of the Jarvis family safety.If you would be so kind would you tell me , who told you this and the reasons they gave?

 

Regards

 

 

------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 16:16
Subject: RE: Dan Jarvis
To: David Allen < davidsallen64@gmail.com> 

 

David,

 

I’m not prepared to go into the details, but we have looked into this extensively and come to the conclusion that there would be a genuine and increased risk to Dan Jarvis and possibly his family if we were to broadcast anything that might lead to his address being discovered.  I’m sure you are aware that these are difficult times in terms of the security of elected MPs, and especially so for someone like Mr Jarvis who is so publicly associated with our armed forces.   Please be reassured that this decision was taken after discussion with the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield and after a great deal of thought.

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

 

 

----Original Message-----
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Dan Jarvis 

Liz,

 

Thank you for you reply.

 

Please can you identify, by name and position, the members of the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield responsible for making this decision.

 

Regards

 

David Allen

 

 

 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 09:27, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 

David,

 

The managing editor is Katrina Bunker, the Assistant Editor is Mike Woodcock.

 

But if you’d like to make a complaint you can do so here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

 

Liz

 

Liz Roberts

POLITICAL REPORTER

BBC SHEFFIELD

Mob: 07711 348956

 

I await your response to this complaint.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely

 

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats,

Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP

Tel: 01277 896000

Mobile : 07778 553395

Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8^th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5^th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.