We all know the media can be a good or a bad thing; and sometimes very good indeed, whilst sometimes very bad indeed. But since the advent of social media, where we can all scream our grouses and yell our prejudices loudly, relentlessly and with the amplified lunacy of the brain dead, the era of the Boring Bigots has come into its own. And what has been exposed is the far older and more entrenched system of protecting criminals.

If it hadn’t have been for the new media of smart phones, the killer of George Floyd would have gotten away with it. As, surely, hundreds of bent cops do get away with it every day, across the world. Without video footage exposing that knee on that neck, it would all have been brushed under the carpet. And the system is designed to enable that.

Originally put in place for exactly the opposite reason, to root out and discipline crooks, it has become a way to shield them, protect them. Literally, to let them get away with murder.

I’ve been embroiled for years now, trying to bring possible criminal police officers to justice. You would think top cops would want to do that, wouldn’t you? You’d think an organisation like the Independent Office for Police Conduct would want that, wouldn’t you? You’d think Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries and Chief Constables would all agree, totally, wouldn’t you? But no; they have different goals and targets (stay in power; get promotion). So sometimes, blatantly, without thinking they protect, shield, cover up criminal behaviour.

And so the Lady Lavinia Nourses follow the Lord Bramalls without pause. And the William Murdocks die, just as George Floyd died. A much loved and respected Danes Hill School headmaster kills himself. Whether innocent or guilty, killed by misconduct by police and media. Nobody deserves that.

And nobody does a single thing about it.

Oh yes, lip service is paid. Sir Richard Henriques condemns The Metropolitan Police in a ground breaking review and everyone is shocked and what happens? Nothing.

Then Home Secretary Theresa May tried to correct this by enabling elected Police and Crime Commissioners to stop Chief Constables defending the indefensible and supporting criminals. We have yet to see whether this will work; my past experience has been that PCCs are even more prepared to ignore crimes committed by officers, if they can gain steps up the slippery ladder of public service.

In my 2018 case Judge HHJ Taylor shockingly described the police Operation Ravine as “a debacle”. She condemned Surrey police not only for failure to disclose vital evidence but for deliberately “misleading the Court” - a polite way of saying Lying Under Oath to a Judge. And of mounting the prosecution in order to repair damage done to the force in earlier years.

But it was worse than that. The failed Operation Ravine caused the death of three men - one falsely accused of being a VICTIM of sex abuse.

Now I have no way of knowing for sure whether crimes were committed by police officers - I have neither police training nor access to evidence - but certainly there must be a proper, independent investigation.

All three men told me “Surrey Police are killing me”. And then they died.

So Surrey Police ordered an independent inquiry by Operation Hydrant, which was only able to examine about 5% of the case but still made 28 serious recommendations, based on errors in that 5% investigated. The other 95% - about individual officers - was meant to be examined by the Professional Standards Department (joke name) of Surrey Police. Even they found numerous breaches but I quickly noticed these were all minor matters, dealt with in trivial ways. They brushed fresh evidence into earlier complaints under the carpet as being “vexatious and repetitious” - code words for ignoring dangerous proof of police guilt.

So I complained to the IOPC - which upheld my complaint, that PSD had not examined it properly, but decided that the media shame, brought about by the negative coverage and publicity, and attendance at a brief “management course”, had been punishment enough. Poor diddums. That’ll do then.”You should not murder people”. “OK, I won’t do it again”.

The IOPC made it clear that they - like me - had no police training or access to evidence and thus could not in any way examine the specific points of complaint. They could - and would - only decide whether the PSD’s investigation had been properly conducted. They decided it had not. They upheld my complaint.

You would think that this would make the Chief Constable of Surrey want a thorough, total, independent examination into the case, not only into the incompetence of the PSD but into whether serving officers were guilty of misconduct, gross misconduct or even crimes. Wouldn’t you?

You’d think the Home Secretary would insist on this too, wouldn’t you?

And the Crown Prosecution Service. If they care about the crimes of incompetent or corrupt cops, surely? If they only care about promotion, keeping their jobs, sweeping under carpets, NO.

I think there is a very good chance that some Surrey Police officers deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice and that some may also be guilty of manslaughter, perjury, forgery or even murder. Not a knee on the neck, but killing people. With stress. With media publicity. With “assisted” complainants called “victims” though, often, false accusers.

By not investigating this possibility I think several public office holders are guilty of misconduct in public office; a very serious crime (maximum prison sentence - life). They have abused the trust of the public. And they must be exposed. By prosecutions, if necessary.

But it’s not just corrupt top police, judicial, civil service bosses. Worst of all, for me, are corrupt media bosses.

Editors, producers, radio and TV staff; all working with an agenda. Only the Mail has dared probe into police corruption and I fear their motive is simply that it is a great story. Not because it’s true, and they want justice, but because they will get praise for exposing this deep flaw in society.

Once upon a time, The Guardian could be depended upon as fighting for the voiceless, determined to get the truth with, if needed, the bright sharp sword of honesty. But they now have an agenda - essentially the feminist one. MeToo. BlackLivesMatter. Liberal Slogans. Any populist cause promoted. If the opposite is equally true, it is ignored. Yes; genuine abuse must be stopped. Rapists must be found. Domestic abuse must be curtailed. Racism and sexism must be prevented. But how about the other, equally lethal, crimes? Is society incapable of seeing both sides?

The BBC? Forget it. Martin Bashir and Lord Hall Hall are typical of today’s BBC. Reach? Fine, if it’s a Labour cause. The Telegraph? Fine, if it’s a Tory one. Social media can help - I started my website KingOfHits.com - in the mid 1990s and found it a great way of reaching about 10,000 a day, correcting media mistakes and spreading the word, but most these days flee to Twitter, Instagram, FaceBook, You Tube and the rest. And, frighteningly, the louder bigots and morons seem to dominate social media just as they dominate traditional media.

Simplistic rools OK? Time to do something about it. Surely? Please.