A very *british explanation

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zonbie.

I wouldn't take it as gospel.
From http://www.lhcconcerns.com/ ..

In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would evaporate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer Published a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this document go here Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503052v1.pdf

If black holes could be formed by random high energy collisions of particles on a micro scale you would expect black holes to randomly, accidentally, be formed at any time during the life of a star. According to the maxwell-boltzmann distribution, in the core of a red giant, with a temp of 100,000,000K, a few protons per million would be moving at half the speed of light.

It might be the case that black holes don't really exist. That would solve the conundrum of how the big bang could ever have happened without forming an event horizon and collapsing back in on itself.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12089-do-black-holes-really-exist.html

It may remain slightly less dense than what is necessary to form an event horizon, by some quantum mechanical mechanism, but still cause enough gravitational redshift of outgoing light to render it almost undetectable.

That seems like a meaningless idea, negative mass? That is like negative distance as mass is a measure of something.