More like another example of manipulative BBC-bashing.
He'd been kicked out of the BBC ages before. If a current BBC employee feels they're being harrassed by a non-BBC employee, isn't it the police's job to look into it rather than the BBC's? If you were getting hassled by someone outside your work, would you go to your boss and ask them to sort it out? This 'failure' of the BBC is a 'failure' that I think you'll find at every newspaper reporting this shite, along with every commercial company relishing each bit of anti-BBC propaganda that is pushed out.
Vine is not even formally a BBC employee. He's a freelance with certain current contracts, including one from Channel 5. Why isn't Channel 5 being attacked for not solving the problem? Why aren't the particular people who gave Belfield jobs, in spite of knowing his reputation, not being criticised (rather than, in some cases, actually, ludicrously, being held up as victims themselves?)? Why aren't Belfield's other employers, such as Capital Gold, who indulged him more than the BBC ever did, not being dragged into it? Belfield's attacks on Vine and others went far beyond BBC issues, and most were centred more on non-BBC and quite personal issues. Why is the BBC supposed to have had the right, as well as the duty, to take charge of any complaint? Why not YouTube, who actually broadcast many of his attacks and had the power to block him and remove all of his videos? Why not all the people, including some anti-BBC MPs, who actively defended Belfield as he continued his attacks?
Yet again, the agenda against the BBC, because it is driven by most who report on these matters, is being allowed to wildly distort serious issues, whilst being depicted, insultingly, as being presented 'out of concern for the victims'. It's pathetic, as are those who swallow this garbage without a moment's doubt or hesitation.