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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
reply to post by StevenDye
 

Britain is not Israel, Britain is not Chechenya, Britain is not Darfur. These people are anarchists pure and simple!

So were the founding fathers of the US. What's your point? When protests and petitions have no effect but for the governments and those pulling the strings behind the scenes (bankers) to escalate repressive 'laws' and treat the citizens as inconsequential, what do you expect?




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I disagree with you, and agree with the bbc's decision to a certain extent.

If they show the add then they are defending Gaza. Put it differently, they show a bias agaisnt Isreal. Then it would appear that they are taking sides.

I am not saying that Isreal is right... Infact I am against it whoelhartedly. I have even taken part in a "peaceful" protest agsint the war.

But if the BBC decided to show an add which showed the minor damage that occured in the Isreal.... Then it would give the BBC an even worse appearance...

All they are doing is refraining for taking either side by not contributing to the farse.

I am totally on Gaza's side.. But I see where the BBC are coming from. And agree with them.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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.


'If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves'.

Winston Churchill



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
One Must keep in mind that the BBC is a Public Service Channel, funded by the people of the UK. Part of Public Service, is to improve the human condition.

The British Army treats prisoners of war for their injuries, not simply because of the regulations of the Geneva convention, but because it is the right thing to do. The cause of the need for medical attention is not the issue, the relief of human suffering is.

When the BBC claims that they are simply being impartial, they ignore a key fact. If a child is in need of medical attention, no matter the cause, choosing not to offer assistance because you have a particular issue with the situation, means that you are no longer impartial. It means that you have made a choice not to aid a child in need. Humanitarian aid knows no borders. Human suffering is universal and any call for aid is neutral.

As a civilized society, we do not leave war wounded suffering on the battle field, simply because they are not our countrymen. We treat all suffering individuals with a blind eye for cause, and with human compassion.

A BBC reporter initially asked, "How do you know the money you gift, is not going to buy weapons?" I ask you, when has the International Red Cross purchased and distributed arms? Asking whether donations will indeed go to the needy is absurd given that nature, and experienced professionalism of the organizations involved.

As a Public Service Channel, it is the Obligation of the BBC to follow humanitarian principles. Truth and Gentle Deeds. One is not at all impartial when you sit and watch a child die for the sake of appearances.

Shame on the BBC.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by twist dnb

BBC Headquarters Occupied


freeandindependent.wordpress.com

Up to 100 protesters have seazed the Glasgow BBC headquarters and are occupying it. The move follows yesterday's protest in London against the Blockade on Gaza. Thousands marched demanding the BBC air the Gaza Aid Appeal. The BBC refused.
(visit the link for the full news article)


I question what steps these people who took over the headquarters have actually done before taking that action. If they have not at least tried their known right to redress (which I am assuming because I don't live in the UK) then what they are doing is too extreme.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
If only the growing number of disgruntled Gazan's were afforded the luxury of being able to "peacefully" protest against Hamas without fear of being shot...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I am with the BBC on this one - I think it was the right choice.

I am also not convinced of the efficacy of the 'source' - given the lack of coverage (other than by the Socialist Worker Online), the really crappy spelling (seazed) rather than seized, and my friend being round the corner from the place.

I think this is being pushed heavily by the Socialist Workers' Party as a huge success, when it was really a pointless exercise in how to make zero impact whatsoever.

The following is lifted from the SWP website.

"An 150-strong occupation at BBC Scotland headquarters in Glasgow on Sunday finished after four hours.

The BBC agreed that a delegation can meet Ken McQuarrie, controller of the BBC Scotland, and Atholl Duncan, head of news for BBC Scotland, on Wednesday 28 January.

The protesters were happy that their action had increased the pressure on the BBC over its refusal to show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza

Tony Benn had phoned the occupation to offer his support, saying "The decision to occupy the BBC in Glasgow must be understood as a plea for the people of Gaza, who are suffering so much and who need our help to help get the money through"

The occupation had three main demands:

* That the BBC reverse its decision and show the DEC Appeal for Gaza.
* That the BBC director responsible for the decision not to air the appeal should be asked to resign.
* That the BBC show coverage of the outrage of the British people against the stopping of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Glasgow Stop the War Coalition is asking people who support humanitarian aid to Gaza to gather outside the BBC on Wednesday at 4.30pm."

Not exactly riots breaking out in the UK...JUST A BUNCH OF SOCIALISTS THINKING THEY ARE MAKING AN IMPACT.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Hamas was democratically elected by the people. No one forced them to make that choice. Hamas grew strong because Gaza is a concentration camp created by Israel. Fighting for freedom and human rights is not terrorism. Burning children alive with white phosphorus is a war crime. Deliberately targeting over 30 UN areas in Gaza is reprehensible.

If Israel would end the illegal occupation, as has long been called for by the UN and nations around the globe, and allow human dignity for the People of Gaza and Palestine in general, none of this would have happened.

The issue in this topic however, is not the political problems in the mideast and who is to blame, the issue is humanitarian aid for civilians. It doesn't matter who shot the gun and why. What matters is that innocent women and children are without food, water, shelter, and medical care, and that many will die without aid. It is no different if it was caused by a Tsunami or earthquake. People are in desperate need of help. For the BBC to decide that in this particular situation, contrary to their past history, that they will not offer any assistance, is clearly bias. A suffering child doesn't care who helps, it only knows that it is in pain.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Hamas was democratically elected by the people. No one forced them to make that choice. Hamas grew strong because Gaza is a concentration camp created by Israel. Fighting for freedom and human rights is not terrorism. Burning children alive with white phosphorus is a war crime. Deliberately targeting over 30 UN areas in Gaza is reprehensible.

If Israel would end the illegal occupation, as has long been called for by the UN and nations around the globe, and allow human dignity for the People of Gaza and Palestine in general, none of this would have happened.

The issue in this topic however, is not the political problems in the mideast and who is to blame, the issue is humanitarian aid for civilians. It doesn't matter who shot the gun and why. What matters is that innocent women and children are without food, water, shelter, and medical care, and that many will die without aid. It is no different if it was caused by a Tsunami or earthquake. People are in desperate need of help. For the BBC to decide that in this particular situation, contrary to their past history, that they will not offer any assistance, is clearly bias. A suffering child doesn't care who helps, it only knows that it is in pain.


Hitler was also democratically elected, does that change the reality that he was a fascist pig? Israel vacated the Gaza strip years ago, where is the occupation of Gaza you speak of? It was HAMAS who occupied Gaza by force last year, selective memory if ever i've seen one. Perhaps Hamas should recognise the state of Israel and its right to exist (also called for by the UN and almost every other civilised country in the world) and then a negotiated settlement can be found with all parties. Empowering an establishment aligned to Israeli destruction in any form should be universally deplored and is quite frankly to the detriment of the Palestinian people.

furthermore....

The BBC HAS offered assistance, as a Broadcaster it has responsibly demonstrated the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Raising the profile of such has considerably assisted these aid agencies. I challenge you to tell me exactly where the BBC, as a broadcaster, is obliged to endorse agencies with politcal affiliations......???

[edit on 26-1-2009 by theblunttruth]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
scotland.indymedia.org...


link I found with pix. Line two



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


I did not say that Israel had occupied Gaza, Don't try to twist my words as it wont work. Please check your facts. I spoke about the illegal occupation of the, get this, they are actually called, "THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES." It is a no brainer. The UN has called for the end of the occupation, and Israel has promised to do so several times, yet they always break their word and continue to build illegal settlements there. Gaza is just one area and is not "The Occupied Territories." Gaza is indeed a concentration camp, aptly labeled such by Vatican Justice and Peace Minister, Cardinal Renato Martino.

Hamas did not start the conflict. They upheld the ceasefire until Israel broke it on November 4, and only then did they start launching rockets. You can verify this fact yourself as it was reported widely on news outlets around the globe. During the previous cease fire, Hamas agreed to stop the rockets, which they did, and Israel agreed to open the border, which they did not. People living in Gaza are forced into a concentration camp existence due to the actions of Israel, not Hamas.

Gaza is Palestinian territory, and Hamas is a political party freely elected by the people. Hamas did not occupy the area as you stated, that is just absurd.

Again, lets not derail the topic. The topic is the BBC refusal to understand the critical need for humanitarian aid. This is not a war issue, nor a who's fault is it issue. In the past the BBC had no problem with supporting humanitarian aid during a war crisis. Kosovo, the former Yougoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur. In all of these war related humanitarian disasters, the BBC had no problem broadcasting an appeal for aid. Suddenly they claim impartiality issues. The public is not so stupid as to misunderstand the need for humanitarian aid as a anything other than that. There is no valid issue of impartiality when it comes to the death of children.

If it was a Tusnami there would be no issue for the BBC, but for some reason, because the destruction was caused by Israel, the BBC wont air the appeal. THAT is Bias, clear and simple. Tsunami=yes, Israeli agression=no. One cant simply state War Damage=No, as the BBC has had no problems with the need for humanitarian aid in previous conflicts. Only when it comes to Israeli agression does the BBC suddenly change their spots. That is the very definition of Bias, and the denial of impartiality.

As for the obligations of the BBC.. the BBC is a Public Service Channel It is Not a private organization, but a public one, founded with the principle of serving the interest of the UK public, which pays for it's existence through a licensing fee(tax). Just as the BBC can not make up the truth, it can not deny the truth. That is why over 50 MP's, The Arch Bishop of York, The Prime Minister Gordon Brown, The National Union of Journalists, and leaders around the globe have asked the BBC to rethink it's faulty position. There can be no hesitation when it comes to the needs of the suffering, regardless of the cause.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
why is it when a muslim country needs aid they get the begging bowls out in a Christian one?.. why don't they go to Dubai and ask them for money ..im sure they could gave them lorry loads of money and not miss it... do you really think the money raised would be given to the people or to hamas to fund more rocket attacks?...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
reply to post by StevenDye
 

Britain is not Israel, Britain is not Chechenya, Britain is not Darfur. These people are anarchists pure and simple!


Anarchists my @rse...it is time for revolution. As another poster said, it's about time the governments realised they are the children of the citizens. The Government is there to serve the people NOT the other way about.

In case you didn't realise, the BBC is funded by the people through TV Licensing - WE pay for it. There was a "scandal" prior to christmas regarding Johnathon Ross and Russell Brand. While it was distasteful, the BBC heads deemed it prudent to show the clip on air after protest from the parties involved.

The BBC is for EVERYONE in the UK, and while I don't like all their programs, they should cater for EVERYONE and I believe they should be airing the Gaza Aid program but obviously this is being blocked by "someone". It is basically political!

Does anyone remember the BBC reporting the collapse of the twin towers 30 mins prior to the actual fall.....? then suddenly cutting off air during this report? Open yer eyes man........



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
A few dozen college hippies who skip class for a couple of days does not a revolution make.

Gaza is just the current cause celebre, famine in Africa is just so passe these days, and they freed Nelson Mandela, so what's a self-respecting hippie going to do? Why, he's going to protest about Gaza of course, because "it's cool".

If only the British would shoot a few of them, you might have a REAL revolution on your hands.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by fatdad
 


Muslims did not ask for the BBC to help. The People of the UK and elsewhere around the globe decided to take action.

In addition, The Red Cross does not arm Hamas nor any other group. Aid given will be from major relief agencies and it will not go towards more violence. Check your facts and leave the bigotry outside.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


A few dozen hippies? Hmm. lets see. Thousands took to the streets of London alone. The BBC received over 11,000 complaints, at their main office. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the ArchBishop of York, the National Union of Journalists, more than 50 members of Parliament, the list goes on.

Yeah, that's just a few dozen hippies.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


Another guy who demonises action takers as "hippies" lol don't make me laugh. These 100 people might just be the start of a movement. It would've been 101 (no dalmation jokes) if i'd known about it...the media outlet should be used for unbiased reporting and if not then action should be taken! But the Government and Media dont listen to the people....People are too far up their own @rses or too scared to stand up and be part of the solution. This may seem insignificant to you but to me I think it's a step in the right direction. If it happened stateside would be be help as terrorists? Will that perhaps happen here in the UK? It happened in Scotland and we take no crap...People up here are more aware than anyone what the hell is happening...hence the movement for the break up of the Union. We dont want to be tarred with the same brush as England.


Grow some balls and speak up for whats right



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by twist dnb
 



My TV license fee pays the rent on all BBC buildings.

I'm just about to pack my backs and move into one right now!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 



here here terapin...its about time there was organised protests. Ok the media will portray the people as trouble-makers after strategically planting their own trouble makers with government help....peaceful protest has been banned in the uk outside government buildings!?!? LOL how ridiculous is that? U gotta laugh




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join