It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BBC Headquarters Occupied

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
reply to post by twist dnb
This is dangerous. Israel is not the UK. Protest peacefully but taking over buildings is not on. This is maybe a sign of things to come.

It's dangerous for Israel if it catches on. There were similar demonstrations against apartheid South Africa and it worked.

The boycott of Israeli goods and corporations would useful to isolate that entity.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:43 PM
Looks like the BBC may back down . I am pleased they denied this Gaza appeal . Not only did it show up the bbc for what it is to many that were previously blind to their overt zionist propaganda , but in doing so , they have achieved far more public awareness for the existence of this appeal than it otherwise may have had .

BBC 'open to Gaza appeal rethink'

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has said it is open to reconsidering its earlier decision not to telecast a charity appeal for funds for Palestinians in Gaza.

The chief operating officer of the BBC, under fire for its refusal to air the appeal, said a reversal of the decision was possible if another request to air the appeal was made.

"We never say never and clearly, if the DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) came to us with another request when things have calmed down and we didn't have the same worries about the controversial nature of this, we would look at it again in that light," Caroline Thompson told Al Jazeera on Sunday.

The DEC is made up of charities including the British Red Cross and Oxfam and its request for telecasting an appeal for funds was turned down by the BBC.

In explaining its decision, the BBC said the telecast might compromise its impartiality.

In a blog post on the broadcaster's website, Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, wrote: "Gaza remains a major ongoing news story, in which humanitarian issues ... are both at the heart of the story and contentious.

"It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision."

Growing criticism

The BBC's refusal to broadcast the appeal has shocked and suprised many.

Steven James, an organiser for the UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians organisation, told Al Jazeera: "This is about helping women, children and civilians caught up in the situation, in a time when they really need aid.

"Quite frankly, we are astonished at the BBC."

Pressure on the BBC to air the appeal has mounted, with the broadcaster receiving more than 10,000 compliants via email.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has also waded into the row.

"My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal," Rowan Williams, the Anglican leader, said on Sunday.

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the second most senior Anglican clergyman, added that the row is not about impartiality, but

BBC Rethinks Gaza Appeal

I did not see the bbc so concerned over the issue of bias during the Russian/Georgian war . They were happy then to wade in fully on Georgia's side , as it turned out wrongly . Perhaps it is only anti Israel news that is their concern .

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:06 PM
since when is the UK a Democracy?

long Live the Queen!

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by Goradd

Since when has ANYWHERE been a democracy? Only to those who are easily fooled by the media and propagandist politicians. There hasn't been a democracy since Athens.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:17 PM
Now you can ask yourself why is the world run by politicians instead of the people. Sheep to the slaughter and the slaughter is ignorance. How easy is to to say power to the people by typing it on your keyboard. I swear the only way to get people to think is to hit them over the head.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by Founding

And that's exactly how a good citizen with good intentions becomes a politician!

Bravo Friend!

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
I have to say the action taken in Glasgow makes me proud to be British. Let's hope it's just the beginning.

When you look at direct actions and protest in this country, it's a sad state of affairs. People are targeted by the police and marked down as terrorists. There's an arms manufacturer in my town and they are the subject of regular peaceful protests, but the police tactics are often quite heavy-handed. Particularly troublesome protestors are prosecuted under terrorism laws, which is ludicrous.

As for them being anarchists... that's an absurd accusation but I have long wished that this country were more like France, where people are apt to protest at the drop of a hat.

It gets said on here a lot, but only because it's true - governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by rich23

Now I am in NO WAY a religious person, but Amen to that brother. I'm Canadian, and we are just so complacent, we hardly ever stand up to anything our government does, the most we do is write up and article int he paper.

Althought Ottawa is more prone to some from of protests, we're not as clever as to have a mass sit in and take over a building.

I applaud the British today for they're efforts in creating a government that is truly AFRAID of who it works for.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:30 PM
It's an excellent way to get a point across, and I hope that it remains instincts say it will. And I'm actually really proud that it started in Scotland. Scots generally have never been that shy about voicing their opinions and peaceful protest done correctly goes a long way. More power to them, and I hope it spreads.


posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:40 PM
This story has kind of confused me. I don't trust that many news broadcasters to tell the truth regarding certain matters. It was obvious throughout the Gaza conflict that a lot of broadcasters were being biased towards Israel. The same can be said about the Russia, Georgian conflict and also some facts about Iran.

Take for instance, the the British broadcasters still state that Iran threatened to wipe Israel of the Map and that Russia were to blame for the Georgian conflict. Anyway, I always thought BBC were different in that respect. I didn't think they were perfect, but I did believe they were much better than the rest.

I didn't think they were a tool for the Zionists and the other people trying to spread fear. There is one thing I've kept seeing just lately, and it's made me wonder. I constantly keep seeing the BBC presenters(Female ones) wearing these really extravagant necklaces in the shape of a star. I got the impression that it was some kind of statement.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

How about if they were all walking slowly and silently and carrying flowers and candles instead of slogans, or holding their arms outstretched?

If the Israelis opened fire on that kind of crowd, or brought any kind of violence upon it, the people of the world would not stand idly by.

No doubt a few more soldiers would also end up joining their friends in the conscientious occupied territories objector camp.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by RogerT

Either way, any form of protest of what has been going on is good. I am not saying it takes such a drastic measure in order to put your point accross, but a drastic NON violent measure like they have undertaken will reach more people about they're issue then the BBC broadcasting they're demand anyway.

I'm sorry i thought you were referring to a more recent post.

In that aspect of it, as i said, they would "find" some sort of excuse, there would be ONE person in that crowd that would "alledgedly" be violent and would give troops the green light to massacre them all.

I wish there was some way they could do that and have a message of piece come accross, but unfortunetly the powers that be do not want that to happen.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by tothetenthpower]

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

Protest peacefully so long as it works. But if you do so for too long, people stop taking an interest...then it has to go up a level unfortunately. So long as nobody gets hurt, I am all for it... once somebody is hurt by these protestors..tehy lose my support.

I absolutely agree!
If we don't obey the gov, they try to force us to, if necessairy by use of some type of (usualy unhurtful) force.

Why not vise versa??

The gov actualy should serve the will of the people (democracy, dammit!), not vise versa!


[edit on 25-1-2009 by kid_of_3NKi]

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
Stuff like this gives me hope for my country, reminds me that not everyone's just content to accept whatever the media, or government say. Also, it ended without arrest according to the link, so, that's even better. IMO, as soon as violence starts then the protestors lose all the moral highground, and give the police or government a reason to demonize them.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by DarkPassenger]

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:55 PM
20,000 protest in France, 95% Muslims.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:01 PM
I have to bring it to the attention of everyone who has posted in this thread, that those who occupied the building were Scottish. It happened in the Glasgow BBC office.

We Scots dont suffer fools gladly and have always been ready and able to let the PTB know in full if they try anything against the will of the people.

This would never have happened in London because the English who live there, like their American cousins are just happy to be watching the TV.
Those that protested in London did so to make their wishes known.

Those who occupied in Glasgow, did so, to remind the government and BBC that they work for us and we can just stop paying their licence fee if they dont do what they are told.

All UK residents have the power to ruin the BBC because it is us that pay a yearly licence fee to fund them. Just dont pay...easy? yea?


[edit on 25-1-2009 by captiva]

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:07 PM
While on the one hand a good shake-up is a good thing, time and time again these shake-ups have only resulted in further enforcement powers being passed over the people.

Remember the time we had the Miner's Strike (1984-1985) over the mass pit closures, as disruptive and violent as it was, nothing good came from this action. The media as a whole played its part and portrayed these miners as the 'bad guys'.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:47 PM
To the Scots folk - you have every right to be proud of what's happened, although I think slamming the people who protested in London is a bit mean-spirited.

I was in the US when the invasion of Iraq took place, and I have to say that although it didn't work as intended, the protests just before the invasion made me similarly proud. There's a bedrock of decency that our media has not corrupted. I wish I could say the same of the US.

Don't get me wrong - there were protests there, too. I heard from a friend who lives there that in New York, the streets were full, but this was NOT apparent from the media coverage.

I think I worked out that somewhere close to 5% of the UK population were involved in protests that day. That's a good percentage, and something to be proud of.

I also remember hearing on Any Answers a really wonderful telephone call to the presenter (might have been Dimbleby, can't recall). This was at the time that the guy from Liverpool who was working in Baghdad was kidnapped. Apparently, "allied" forces had showered Baghdad with leaflets asking for help locating him.

The caller made no bones about saying that this was ridiculous. "Do you not think the people of Baghdad have enough trouble of their own, enough family members either killed or detained of their own? It's insulting!"

The fact that someone a) had enough perspective to think like that, b) called in to say it and c) actually got on the air did make me very pleased for the state of my country, even if it had been dragged into an illegal and unnecessary war by a swivel-eyed hypocrite.

About the BBC: yes, of course it's a government mouthpiece. The point about the way it reacted in this matter compared to its treatment of the prodcers of the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross debacle was very well made.

That said, compared to US media it's generally much better, particularly when it comes to coverage of Israel. During the Iraq invasion, CNN had a banner across the bottom of the screen for all its Iraq coverage: "America Strikes Back". Strikes Back? And that was CNN, the mildest of the US news networks.

At the time, I was working on a cruise ship with the home port of Galveston, Texas. Every week, passengers would write in the complaints book, "Can we not have Communist News Network? We want "Fair and Balanced" Fox News!" I also remember trying to politely point out to a passenger that US citizens weren't getting an accurate picture through their media, and she responded with this bizarre talking-head rant about "the yellow press" undermining America. This was an intriguing re-interpretation of a phrase originally coined to represent newspapers that printed lies to get the US into a war - the sinking of the Maine, that kind of thing. Clearly right-wing talking heads had turned the term on its head and my interlocutor knew no better.

Funny when you know more about US history than a lot of Americans.

ANYWAY... about the BBC. Let's not forget that this is the organisation that went all supine about the Dr. David Kelly affair. I was sharply reminded of the drip-drip-drip effect of good propaganda by that: when Kelly was murdered, I was in the UK, and thought, "suicide? Nah..." but then the BBC kept repeating the phrase, "the suicide of Dr. David Kelly" over and over again and I actually nodded off.

A few months later I went back to the US to find that the media there were saying, "the alleged suicide of Dr. David Kelly". That woke me up again.

Other lies the BBC has told include the gag about "Saddam Hussain kicked out the weapons inspectors" in the run up to the invasion. No, he didn't. The weapons inspectors left for two reasons. First, they were compromised by CIA people in their ranks: and second, the US said they were going to step up its bombing campaign and they should leave for their own safety. But the lie, intended to bolster the absurd idea that Iraq had WMDs, was universally repeated, even in the Grauniad. An unsettling and properly Orwellian experience.

Equally well I remember Trevor McDonald's fruity tones announcing that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that could be unleashed against our forces in Cyprus in less than 45 minutes..."

But the low point of the UK media as a whole is the dispiriting coverage of 9/11 and the utter lack of any proper investigation into that. Let alone any proper investigation of the July 7 bombings. Good grief, we have to go to the internet to see properly investigative programmes posted by people like Muad'dib.

I remember a superb Panorama special on the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination. An extensive list of the suspicious deaths of witnesses, full coverage of the failings of the Warren Commission... no real answers but plenty of pertinent questions.

We'd never get that standard of journalism these days.

And as another poster has already mentioned, the coverage of Orgreave was shameful: they edited the police baton-charging a peaceful protest and played footage of the miners reacting violently to make it look as if the miners started it. Disgusting.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by rich23]

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:13 PM
Why are people so unable to see the truth of this matter? We can all agree that the death and carnage in Gaza is terrible, however the BBC was trying to be fair and accurate by not promoting one side of the argument. They were trying to stay neutral and objective.

I see no problem with what the BBC decided to do. They decided to be fair and not show favour to either side. Good on them and shame on these idiotic protesters.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Again, they're point was not to show how bad Israel had treated Gaza, it was an AD CAMPAIGN FOR INTERNATIONAL AID for the victims of the shellings and bombings that killed 1300 people. THat isn't showing one single side of ANY argument, other than: "These People Are HURT And need AID".

That would not be shown as showing ONE side of anything. And if they really wanted to be objective about it, they could run an add following it for aid with all 13 Israelis who were killed.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in