Emails To BBC Journalist Lebo Diseko re ‘Stitch Up’ of Vaccine Campaigner Michael Chaves

Note: Youtube, in a blatant act of censorship, removed the full interview from my channel. I will try again but have linked to the video on Telegram below.

Below are my two emails to BBC ‘journalist’ (I refuse to use that title here without inverted commas) Lebo Diseko after her interview with Michael Chaves, the man who has become a high-profile campaigner in the fight for informed consent regarding the roll-out of Covid experimental ‘vaccinations’, especially those given to children.

Diseko’s questions were loaded from the start, emphasising the ‘fear and harassment’ angle so that we could see already how this would be edited. Mr Chaves, being a straightforward and honest man, addressed this issue without guile and was punished for it in the final edit (view here) which was brutally done to keep in only the few comments he made that suited the BBC’s agenda. Contrast with the full interview here: The mendacity on display here by our major national news broadcaster is disgraceful, but should be no surprise to anyone aware of its unedifying history of serving state power. (The link will take you to just one page of our BBC archive here at BSNews).

Ms Diseko did reply to me, which doesn’t always happen when you contact corporate ‘journalists’, but as you will see it was a standard brush-off to which I responded, including in my reply the Media Lens alert: ‘BBC = Bin and Bypass Complaints’, which explains why it’s futile to go through their complaints procedure.

From: Alison Banville 

Sent: Friday, 12 November 2021, 19:05:16 GMT

Subject: recent interview

Dear Ms Diseko

I hope you’re well? I’m Alison Banville, an independent journalist, and I’d just like to ask you about a recent interview you conducted with Michael Chaves outside a school where he and a small group had served liability papers on the headmaster regarding the vaccination roll-out at the school. 

I have watched your report on the BBC and I have also seen the full interview on Telegram, and I was struck by the fact that Mr Chaves’ explanations as to why he was there were omitted from your final report leaving only a couple of brief comments from him such as, ‘if it’s frightening, it’s frightening’, which resulted in a distortion of Mr Chaves’ position as made clear by him in the complete exchange during which he raised concerns about pupils not been given enough information on the risks of the vaccine – something required by law by the way – so that said pupils were not able to give informed consent. Indeed, this is also the opinion of many lawyers who have spoken out on the issue. 

I was wondering if you could give me an explanation as to why you and the BBC chose to cut out this vital part of your interview with Mr Chaves? It would seem the piece was heavily edited to present Mr Chaves as a figure of intimidation, his reasoned rationale being kept from your audience. This is quite clear from a video doing the rounds on the internet which compares the full and edited interviews. I have to say that a journalist myself I would not be happy if an interview subject of mine were misrepresented in this way. And yet I do know these practices are worryingly common within a mainstream media reliant on official sources.

But the first rule of journalism, in my opinion, is to challenge and test the official narrative, not unquestioningly echo and amplify it. If we do the latter, we then cease to be journalists and become simply corporate/state stenographers. 
It does your journalistic credentials no favours that you were involved in misrepresenting Mr Chaves, who was happy to speak to you and gave full and lucid answers to all your questions, all delivered in the same polite manner with which he always conducts himself, whether talking to journalists or headmasters. 

His fears regarding the vaccination of schoolchildren are well founded and rooted in sound science. As he reiterated to you, the government’s own scientific panel advised against the roll-out and was ignored. There can be no long-term safety data with the vaccine as it’s still in trials until 2023 as the manufacturers themselves admit. Add to this the fact that teenaged deaths have risen by 47% in the UK since the roll-out began and we have a situation of the utmost seriousness of which your viewers deserve to be aware. 

A deliberate covering-up of these facts and a blatant and transparent attempt to discredit those trying to give children and parents the full information on risks and benefits of the vaccine, as required by law, amounts to behaviour which could put children at serious risk of harm. And so I would ask you, are you happy to be a party to that?  
We know that distinguished scientists such as those members of Doctors For Covid Ethics, who are hundreds of doctors and scientists from over thirty countries, would support Mr Chaves’ assertions. You are free to contact any of them and they would be glad to talk to you, but we know you would not do that, nor would you last long in your job if you pushed for it. 

It seems to me that you have a choice regarding, not only whether you want to continue to collude in pushing a narrative that is, by its omission of vital information, resulting in possible harm to those children who might choose not to be vaccinated if only they possessed all the facts, but on whether you want to be a real journalist, or simply a paid lackey for your corporate/state masters? The BBC is state funded; its board is appointed by the government. In fact, the BBC’s deplorable track record of distorting news has been documented by Media Lens over the last two decades. A perusal of their BBC archives makes unedifying reading. 

I have made my choice which is why I am free to report information such as the number of adverse reactions and deaths on the Yellow Card reporting system – government figures by the way – which no mainstream media outlet has made available to the public. Believe me, Ms Diseko, no amount of money they pay you can possibly be enough to erase the harm being done from your conscience. I beg you to bring morality to bear in this question. The stakes could not be higher. 

Alison Banville 

On Monday, 15 November 2021, 10:30:07 GMT,

Lebo Diseko <> wrote:

Dear Ms Banville,

Thank you for your email dated November 12th 2021, the contents of which I have noted.

Should you wish to make a complaint, the BBC has a process set out in the link below:

Thank you,

Lebo Diseko

Alison Banville <Tue, 16 Nov at 14:13

To :Lebo Diseko

Dear Ms Diseko 

Thank you for acknowledging my email. I do appreciate that. 
Unfortunately, your deflection of serious and important criticism into the dead-end of the BBC complaints department was disappointing, yet not unexpected. Below is Media Lens addressing this routine response and why it betrays a deep contempt for the BBC’s audience. 
I do hope you will consider your position because employees of corporate news organisations who colluded in misleading the British people on the serious issue of coercion to take experimental medication  – and, specifically, those who propagandised in favour of the education staff and council officials coercing children – will be served with legal papers. The government knows liability orders have power, which is why they are so reliant on yourself and your colleagues to discredit people attempting to give children and parents the information required by law to reach the bar of informed consent: 


Robert Fisk wrote last week in the Independent of how an unnamed friend of his, “a Very Senior Correspondent of the BBC”, responded to a recent challenge. Fisk could no longer recall whether it “was about the BBC’s grovelling coverage of Israel or its refusal to show a film seeking help for wounded Palestinian children after the 2008-09 Gaza slaughter (on the grounds that this would damage the BBC’s ‘neutrality’)”. But the BBC correspondent was blandly dismissive:

“I recognise this is an issue.”

Fisk skilfully unpacked the meaning of this “very revealing” BBC reply:

“Of course, what he should have said was: I know this is a problem. But he couldn’t. Because BBC-speak doesn’t allow words like problems – because problems have to be solved. And the BBC doesn’t solve problems. Because they do not exist. There are only ‘issues’. And issues only have to be ‘recognised’. Thus what my friend really meant was: ‘I know exactly what you’re talking about but I haven’t the slightest intention of admitting it, so piss off.’” (Fisk, ‘Newspeak: why the BBC has an “issue” with problems’, The Independent, July 3, 2010; /fisk/robert-fisk-newspeak-why-the-bbc-has-an-issue-with-problems-2017279.html)

This has also been the experience of many of our readers who complain to BBC editors and journalists about endless examples of bias, distortion and omission in BBC news. All too often, Kafkaesque responses are generated by the clanking pistons, turbines and pumps of the BBC complaints machinery.

Here is a typical example, following a complaint about BBC coverage of the Israeli attack on the Gaza peace flotilla from one of our most careful and astute correspondents:

“Thank you for your e-mail.

“I understand that you believe the BBC in general is biased in it’s [sic] reporting on the Middle East situation towards the Israeli perspective.

“I can assure you that we are committed to covering events in the Middle East in a scrupulously impartial, fair, accurate, balanced, independent manner. The aim of our news reports is to provide the information across our programming in order to enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. We are satisfied that this has been the case in respect of our reporting of the Middle East, Nevertheless, I recognise you may continue to hold a different opinion about the BBC’s impartiality.

“Please be assured that I’ve registered your obvious strong feelings about our coverage on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

“Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views with us.” (Email from BBC complaints, July 3, 2010)

This is entirely standard and is the BBC’s idea of a serious reply to a serious complaint. Tellingly, such responses do not include the text of the original email, making it difficult for members of the public to check how well, if at all, their complaint has been addressed. Typically, these identikit responses contain unsupported, bold assertions affirming that “scrupulously impartial” BBC news reports “show the reality of a situation” with “all viewpoints” being heard. No evidence is offered – the BBC knows best! But as the complainant asked when he wrote back:

“What criteria do you use to decide that you have been able ‘to show the reality of a situation and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard’ when you judge yourselves in your own cause?” (Keith Crosby, email to the BBC, July 3, 2010)

As far as we know, the BBC has not responded to this question. Perhaps because it is incapable of doing so.

Helen’s Chocka Diary

Readers may also be aware that the BBC uses a cumbersome web form for complaints which does not allow a copy of the submitted text to be sent to the person making the submission. And, shamefully, there is not even a direct email address for members of the public to use. As one of our readers observes in a complaint to the BBC:

“Surely the BBC can manage to formulate a system that quotes the original complaint when issuing a response, and records when the complaint was sent in so the recipient can tell how long it took to respond?” (Keith Granger, email to the BBC, June 30, 2010)

In 2006, BBC news editor Helen Boaden described how she deflects public criticism sent to her by email. Francis Elliott explained in the Independent:

“Don’t bother emailing complaints to BBC head of news Helen Boaden. She was at the launch evening for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford last Monday night. Discussion turned to protest groups and lobbying outfits which email their views to senior editors. Boaden’s response: ‘Oh, I just changed my email address.’ So much for the Beeb being accountable.” (Elliott, ‘Media Diary – Helen the hidden’, The Independent, November 26, 2006;

In January 2010, we invited Boaden to participate in an interview about BBC News to be made publicly available via our website at We proposed sending a few brief questions via email. “Would you be willing to participate?”, we asked her. We received a response from Boaden’s assistant asking:

“Could you give me an idea of the sort of questions you are thinking of and when you might want to do it?”

We replied saying that the questions would deal largely with BBC news reporting from the Middle East and Afghanistan; for example, coverage of the death toll in Iraq. We then sent a number of questions (archived in our forum here). A few days later, the assistant wrote again:

“I’ve now had a chance to talk to Helen and I don’t think this is going to be one we can help with. Helen doesn’t do interviews that often – mostly because her diary is always chocka.” (Email, January 11, 2010)

A simultaneous approach made to Sir Michael Lyons, chair of the BBC Trust, which supposedly ensures that the BBC acts in the public interest, was again answered by his personal assistant:

“Having given your request careful consideration, Sir Michael has decided to decline your offer. The Trust’s on-going work programme includes a number of strands focussing on BBC news output, and as Sir Michael has previously said, there will be an opportunity for you to contribute to this in the future should you wish. Additionally, given the fact that some of this work is already on-going, he does not feel it would be appropriate to engage in any correspondence at this time which would cut across or be seen to pre-judge the outcome of this work. I am sorry to disappoint you.” (January 13, 2010)

Lyons had previously declined to debate with us after he had been sent a copy of our latest book, ‘Newspeak’, and asked for his response to our arguments about BBC News. He told us:

“I do not think that I can fruitfully enter into a dialogue about my reactions [to the book]” (Media Lens media alert, ‘The Silence of the BBC 100’, December 4, 2009)

In the absence of overwhelming grassroots pressure, the public will continue to be disappointed by BBC news performance, and will continue to be fobbed off by robotic insults to the intelligence of people who care enough to complain.


The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Mark Thompson, BBC director-general

Helen Boaden, head of BBC news

Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust
Email: Complaints homepage,

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.