It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
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.



Panorama is still a brilliant series which really does ruffle feathers even now. I love that show, along with Horizon.




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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".


I disagree, it could be seen as a slight towards the Israeli operation and so the BBC would be seen to take sides. As a small point i should say i have no favoritism to either side.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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.


A silly statement as it wouldn't have the same impact. The destruction in Palestine would have a great impact on some people and turn their minds against Israel. This could be seen as propaganda favouring one side.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
the BBC are part of the mouthpiece of the illuminati, though this is not strictly the best way to damage them. It is certainly as start.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
But why should it not, if great destruction is what happened, should that not be what is protrayed in the Media? Downplaying the obvious makes them seen already as if they're on the Israeli side.

And furthermore why would the BBC even care if the pundits accused them of siding with Palestinians on the issue of international AID. Because this is what the broadcast is about. HELPING people.

I must have been mis-informed, i was under the impression that we like to help people regardless of religious or political ideology in a time of great crisis and distress.

That could right there have been the answer for the BBC TO the pundits that would cry foul over that.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The BBC have called for aid in cases of obvious genocide. Take a look at the African appeals, Comic Relief after all is majorly centered on Africa along with other countries. They are not wanting to favour a side in the recent conflict because it simply isn't clear who is at fault. By that i mean who started it, we can all argue over that point but in truth i myself have no idea who started that conflict as i have read so many conflicting reports.

If this had been a simple act of aggression without provocation then i am sure the BBC would have happily aired the AD. Let's remember that the protesters tend to have one sided, biased opinions on this conflict.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


But when it comes to such death and such destruction, does it really matter whose to blame. Even if Hamas started that conflict, do the civilians deserve to suffer without help for they're transgressions?

I think not, the BCC should happilly air anything AID related when it comes to helping people who live in war torn country, regardless of politicall affiliation, and whose wrong or right.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Then they should air AID to China as many people are suffering there. They don't do this though, they report on the damage and corruption quite often but never seem to appeal for aid.

Understand that if the BBC did air this ad, as the major TV channel and being a publicly funded one they would come under fire from Israel lovers and end up in the exact same situation they are in now. It's very much damned if they do and damned if they don't.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Yes, our argument could very well go on forever, as we are both right. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I just wish they'd take the moral highground and just air the thing and tell the pundits to go lick themselves for not supporting international Aid to people who are in desperate need of it.

I still think the protesters are doing what should be done, whether or not in regards to the BBC, it's the symbolism of the act that I applaud and respect.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Update:


Free & Independent has spoken with protester Keith Boyd. The occupation has ended peacefully without arrest. Mr Boyd noted Al Jazeera were there to report the story.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


freeandindependent.wordpress.com...

No mention of this on google news yet, searching for "glasgow +bbc".



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I respect someone when they stand up for their beliefs but i don't respect people who see this situation as black and white because it isn't. There is a large stripe of grey in this situation and the BBC is bang in the middle of it.

What i can applaud is they have so far stuck by their decision under such pressure from other media agencies and even government ministers.

They had a choice, stay neutral or appear to side the the Palestinians. I think they made the correct choice in the current climate with so many ambiguities still circling.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I see it like this.
The BBC is publicly funded. That means if you own a tv in the UK, you have to pay for a liscence. The fee of which is used to fund the BBC.

In my opinion. The BBC represents the voice of the people. "Its their company"
And its not doing the job it should be. Its not doing what its told. Its just like if you owned a company and an employee just wasn't doing his job. You would fire him.
Thats what the people are saying "Your Fired". And guess what? They have that right.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
For a deeper understanding of the BBC's stance, go to this short expose:-

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
That's the real way to "be the media"!

Good job, folks, but bring the fight even further... UK is like a diamond that will fall apart once it is cracked.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
UNBELIEVABLE! BBC'S Senior NE Director is married into the Rothschilds... very enlightening. Well done Nineteen.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


They shouldn't have the choice. We the public pay for them... if we didn't the BBC would not be there. We pay for them, and so they should be showing what we want them to show.

If we want them to show these appeals they should be showing these appeals.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   


A silly statement as it wouldn't have the same impact. The destruction in Palestine would have a great impact on some people and turn their minds against Israel. This could be seen as propaganda favouring one side.


That is my stance then, next time I hear about the supposed holocaust . I won't hear of it , as it shows bias against Germany and may turn my mind against them . It would just be a cheap propaganda ruse to put Germany in a bad light .



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
why isnt this being reported on the bbc site?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


But when it comes to such death and such destruction, does it really matter whose to blame. Even if Hamas started that conflict, do the civilians deserve to suffer without help for they're transgressions?

I think not, the BCC should happilly air anything AID related when it comes to helping people who live in war torn country, regardless of politicall affiliation, and whose wrong or right.


Where i agree with the principle, the reality is a little murkier. At what point does a BBC endorsement actually aid to perpetuate human suffering though?! The reason i ask this is that it has been proven beyond any doubt that an alarming amount of past aid has fallen into the hands of Hamas, ultimately aiding in the armament of the group and propping up its establishment and rocket attacks into Israel. Such realities could be construed as bias. The BBCs priority, first and foremost is to provide unbiased reporting (which it has done quite remarkbly). Aid, whilst necessary is not the responsibilty of the broadcaster. It has brought light to the need of an humanitarian effort and that should rightly suffice.

Top job BBC!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


Not that I've checked... but would you decide to put it on your own website that the country currently was against your choices.

That people have raided your buildings, that politicians are speaking out against you, that your own stars are saying how disgusted they are, on camera..?

BBC knows people are against them, and many at the BBC are probably against the choice to not air the appeals too, so they hardly want to advertise it all.

And to theblunttruth...the company in question was on TV today, they said they use the money and supply the aid. The money isn't simply dumped in Gaza, the aid workers are there, as an examplke he said how one aid worker in Gaza was shot in the streets the other day whilst holding his baby.

These people are there, and they are giving it out, not Hamas.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by StevenDye]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by twist dnb


This is possibly the first sign of civil unrest in the UK. Recently we have seen civil unrest across Europe. Protests in Iceland over the Central Bank has lead to a new election, the finance minister having already resigned. The prime-minister was attacked but not hurt.

The question is, will the current actions undertaken by the Stop the War Coalition spill over into the other smoldering pots in Britain's economic recession?

freeandindependent.wordpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I don't think this is any real indication of trouble in the UK.

We have protests here all the time. Every day of the week there's another protest in London somewhere. We're not like America, we are still allowed to march on the capital without the fear of tear gas and batons.

This is just a group of people being passionate about something they believe in, and using peaceful means to get their message across.

Well done to them.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join