BBC Headquarters Occupied

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by theblunttruth

 

It is clear that you have a personal agenda as you don't even read your own links. You also don't even care to understand the facts and history of the region. Hamas is not an outside occupying force. They never took and occupied that area, as they are from the area. I never stated that Hamas is without wrong. That does not change the fact that they are the legally elected representatives of Gaza and have a right to defend themselves and their land. It also does not change the fact that is was Israel who broke the ceasefire. Hamas agreed to stop launching rockets and they did. Israel agreed to open the borders and they did not. Israel violated the ceasefire on November 4 and it was not until then that Hamas chose to retaliate by renewing the rocket attacks. You seem to ignore the facts to suit your personal agenda.

The protesters who Peacefully occupied the BBC building without violence, made their statement and left without arrest a few hours later. This is quite different from the Israelis who continue to illegally build settlements in the occupied territories. Read your history. The settlements are illegal and the UN has repeatedly called for their removal. Israel has promised many times to remove them as they know that the settlements are illegal, yet they have broken their promises many times. Gaza is an Israeli established concentration camp. The people inside are virtual prisoners as Israel controls the borders and prevents the people inside from having any quality of life or freedom.

The issue being discussed in this topic, is the BBCs claim that airing a fund raising appeal would cause them to be impartial, which is absurd. What proves that the BBC position is in no way impartial, is the actions of their top man. His wife is a very vocal Zionist. He himself took a personal trip to Israel and met with their leaders. This demonstrates a severe conflict of interest and personal bias. It is one thing to have a journalist interview a leader, but it is another thing entirely to for the chief of a news organization to make a personal visit with a head of state. A clear indicator of where his interests lie and thus, a clear bias.

You can read about it here: BBC Bias in favor of Israel Begins at the Top

If you had bothered to read about the reasons for the Protests in the UK, you would learn that the issue is not about who is right, nor who is wrong in Gaza. The issue is humanitarian aid. If this was a Tsunami that caused the disaster, then the BBC would air the aid appeal. They aired aid campaigns for Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, and Darfur, all of which were humanitarian disasters from the result of military conflict. The have shown a clear Bias when they single out the people of Gaza and refuse to air a call for humanitarian aid. The children suffering there do not care about ideologies and politics. They simply need food, shelter, clean water, and medical care. The BBC has chosen to treat them as unworthy. That is Bias. No child is unworthy of care, and any respectable Public Service Channel must not be bias or it ruins their credibility as an impartial news source. It is not some fringe element, or "nutjobs" (your words), who are calling for the BBC to change their one sided stance. It is over 50 Members of Parliament, the Prime Minister, and thousands of people across the UK who are protesting the BBCs decision. It is main stream society who know that in a humanitarian crisis, politics and blame, do not belong.

[edit on 27/1/09 by Terapin]

[edit on 27/1/09 by Terapin]

How can you compare this humantarian effort with that of a Tsunami? This himanitarian crisis is born of political circumstances. A Tsunami is a natural disaster with no political affiliation or rammifications whatsoever.

What's more, how can protestors "peacefully break into the headquarters"?!?! If someone forced their way into your house regardless of the absence of violence, it would be construed as a criminal act.

I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, the BBC has not disregarded the realities of the humanitarian effort, in fact it has progressively and actively publicised it to the entire world. Chosing not to endorse an aid campaign is not an obligatory gesture. As i've said countless times, and conveniently overlooked by your Hamas-sympathising rhetoric, foreign aid has found its way into Hamas' hands subsequently perpetuating the conflict. That is blood on the BBC's hands should they endorse such projects.

Your grasp of contemporary middle-eastern affairs is shockingly selective and should be rendered nul and void in light of your shocking mis-sight on the realities that took place in order for Hamas to gain control of Gaza.

I suggest you re-visit your position on the entire Hamas-Israeli argument. You systematically encourage "peaceful protests" yet support extreme islamic groups that vehemently stamp on any form of free speech. Your hypocrisy is relentless...

Originally posted by Retseh
As predicted, the usual student rent-a-mob hippies were involved in the occupation:

Let's not forget that in Greece, France and other parts of the world.
These 'rent-a-mob hippies' could stop the country to a standstill.

Pretty powerful groups i'd say.

reply to post by theblunttruth


Again please do not misquote me and try to put words in my mouth. It makes you look foolish. I never stated, as you quoted, that the protesters "broke in." They entered the lobby, and briefly occupied the building. They left without violence. No one was arrested. The fact that they were not arrested indicates that there was no violence, no breaking and entering, and all they did was make a statement. They were not dropping illegal white phosphorus bombs and burning children alive.

You need to do further study on the subject. The history of the conflict has been well documented. You choose to ignore the fact that Israel broke the cease fire, not Hamas, yet you choose to blame Hamas for the massive bombing campaign by by Israel. No one forced the people of Gaza to democratically elect Hamas. Election watchers from around the globe participated and it was determined to be a clean election. Your arguments are poorly researched. If Israel had not broken the cease fire, none of this would have happened. Hamas, was abiding by the peace accord and was not launching any counter strike rockets, up until Israel violated the cease fire. That is a fact which is well documented. If Israel had left the occupied territories and had stopped building illegal settlements, as the UN continues to call for, none of this would have happened. Had Israel met it's promise of opening the borders, then the people of Gaza would not be living in a concentration camp. So, do some research, and then please address the continued failure Israel to abide by the UN calls to end the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, the Israeli violations of the Geneva conventions, and Israeli violations of international law. Don't misquote me again, as you have done twice all ready, and don't come back with poorly researched ideas. I am not some fool who has never studied the subject. Neither is the UN, Gordon Brown and the 112 members of Parliament who support the call for the BBC to change it's position.

Ok lets not make a comparison to a Tsunami. What then about Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, and Darfur? These were all military conflicts where the BBC broadcast aid appeal. These military conflicts were also very violent, had strong religious and ethnic overtones, and caused a great deal of suffering. Does that mean that in your thinking that the BBC has blood on their hands for broadcasting an aid appeal in those situations?? Please make it clear where you stand on that matter.

What you fail to grasp is that humanitarian aid has nothing to do with cause. It is simply about helping the suffering. No childs suffering is political.

If you had read my post you would see that I also stated that I agree that Hamas is not without wrongdoing. I never said they were saints. Neither do the 112 Members of Parliament and the Prime minister, who like me, support the protest against the bias stance of the BBC. Please explain, how does aiding the Red Cross put blood on the hands of the BBC? Seriously, Explain that. How does helping a child burn victim put blood on anyones hands?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Retseh
As predicted, the usual student rent-a-mob hippies were involved in the occupation:

Let's not forget that in Greece, France and other parts of the world.
These 'rent-a-mob hippies' could stop the country to a standstill.

Pretty powerful groups i'd say.

A handful of terrorists flying planes into buildings practically brought the US to its knees, a single "hippie" armed with a .32 caliber automatic sparked World War I.

You don't need many anti-establishment types to cause havoc.

But it doesn't make it something to admire, and it doesn't make it a desirable way to set policy.

The decision not to host this appeal is totally bogus. They did one for Darfur no problem. They didn't have any qualms about breaking their impartiality and taking a side in that situation.

Originally posted by Retseh
.......... it doesn't make it a desirable way to set policy.

Correct. Policy is made by the government, and that is why 112 Members of Parliament have stood up and spoken out against the actions of the BBC.

Originally posted by Terapin

Originally posted by Retseh
.......... it doesn't make it a desirable way to set policy.

Correct. Policy is made by the government, and that is why 112 Members of Parliament have stood up and spoken out against the actions of the BBC.

To which I would reply that I wouldn't want politicians deciding what I should see on TV.

That being the danger of a state owned television company such as the BBC, it's all a little too Pravda for me, but the British have long since preferred their politics pink in the middle.

reply to post by Retseh


LOL the Brits love the government telling them what to do. Look at london. It is the most big brother of any city in the world with spy cameras everywhere watching that you are a good citizen.

Still, I don't see the harm in airing a very brief infomercial for an aid appeal, and how that could be considered Bias.

I think the MPs are right to speak up against a Public Service Channel (BBC) in this case. If it was an independent private channel, that would be a different story, as in the case with Sky.

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!

I have to agree. I would bet not one of these terrorist wanabees is an actual born citizen of Britain. I say round them up and ship them to Gaza if they want to join the rocket bragade.

reply to post by northof8


LOL, you cant be serious. The BBC received over 11,000 complaints. Thousands took to the streets in a number of cities in the UK. 112 Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister Gordon Brown came out against the BBC decision. The Arch-Bishop of York spoke against the BBC decision. And you think that it is only non citizens who are against the BBC?

Civilized individuals do not deny humanitarian aid simply because they have a political agenda. This is what the BBC is doing. This is why the BBC is wrong. This is why British citizens from all walks of life, all races, and all religious backgrounds, Yes even British Jews are protesting the BBCs wrong minded thinking. Humanitarian aid has noting to do with what caused the crisis, it is about relieving the suffering.

While I'm puzzled as to why they care so much about the situation, protests are good as long as they remain peaceful. Considering the many problems in their own country I'm surprised they use so much energy protesting this. I don't agree with the actions of Israel myself but I think people should be up in arms over the bank bailouts or a number of domestic issues rather then this or as well as this.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Jacob08]

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by Retseh

 

LOL the Brits love the government telling them what to do. Look at london. It is the most big brother of any city in the world with spy cameras everywhere watching that you are a good citizen.

Still, I don't see the harm in airing a very brief infomercial for an aid appeal, and how that could be considered Bias.

I think the MPs are right to speak up against a Public Service Channel (BBC) in this case. If it was an independent private channel, that would be a different story, as in the case with Sky.

You're neo-liberal perspectives would be funny if they weren't so dangerous and mis-guided...I feel obliged to counter your disturbing mocking of CCTV coverage in London..

Are the paranoid concerns of privacy invasion more important than that of the safety of the public?! Are you that self-indulged and self-absorbed that you believe your sacrosanct private life to be of interest to our security services?! We grant the authority to our elected officials to take the necessary measures to protect the public, for they are the ones best-placed to assess the threat. What's more, our democracy permits debate and government disclosure in order to safe-guard concerns.
The 21st century unfortunately presents dystopian challenges that require us to relinquish some idyllic-striven and insignificant comforts in order to preserve our way of life, it's ironic but abundantly necessary. Let's be frank though, if you have nothing to hide then you have no concern...

CCTV has been paramount in the prevention of and the prosection of countless crimes. no doubt saving lives and actually protecting the public. Should we give that all up because you feel paranoid that someone is watching you. let me be perfectly honest, no one gives a sh*t about you, what your doing as long as you are a law abiding citizen so get off your soap box and do something productive with your time..

Sorry to digress, but i was drawn into this tangant from the height of ridicule, back to topic....

Thankfully the BBC hasn't cowered to the pressure of people like you and that of a primeminister desperate for some public opinion points. So sound-off as much as you want but the BBC and Sky are sticking to their guns on this one. A toast to the prevailing of common sense and broadcasting integrity

I see no parallel with Darfur. Darfur is not a war. It's genocide.

Israel/Palestine is a 'war' - BBC broadcasting would be taking sides.

Well done the BBC. Stick to you principles.

reply to post by annefran


And Kosovo was not a war???
Perhaps you should look a but deeper into the history of BBC broadcasts for aid appeal. They have done so for a number of wars.

Darfur is a civil war not Genocide, as the two opposing sides are the same ethnicity.

a United Nations report states that the various tribes under attack (chiefly the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to have a distinct ethnicity from their attackers.

It is just neighbors killing neighbors. That is not Genocide. It is far more about religion and fighting over land that has been severely environmentally degraded. Over population and drought created friction between tribes.

The report to the UN Human Rights Council said the situation in Darfur is "characterized by gross and systematic violations of human rights and grave breaches of international law"

That is the same thing that is happening in Israel. Violation of international law by Israel, and human rights violations. BUT, anyone who understands aid appeals for a humanitarian crisis, also understands that it is not about placing blame, it is simply about relief for the suffering.

[edit on 28/1/09 by Terapin]

Originally posted by theblunttruth
CCTV has been paramount in the prevention of and the prosection of countless crimes. no doubt saving lives and actually protecting the public.

Well, I guess you went off on a rant when I make one little comment about Big Brother watching you. I have no delusions that anyone cares to watch my insignificant life, but your comment on how CCTV is saving the world is way off the mark. The facts are that it is proven to be pretty much useless in crime prevention.

Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.

Even the Home Office has admitted that the impact on crime has been statistically insignificant. The only place it seems to be helping thus far, is in car parks, where car theft has gone down. The cameras on the street have not reduced violent crime.

A report by the National Association for the Criminal Rehabilitation of Offenders (NACRO) said cameras had little effect on crimes against the person, including assault...... the effectiveness of CCTV is often overstated."

I guess you don't care about factual evidence, and simply feel good in front of a camera. I guess you also don't care about people who are suffering, simply because of your political ideas. It doesn't matter to me whether the child suffering from horrible burns is Israeli, Palestinian, or British. A child suffering needs help no matter who they are or what the cause. The BBC has broadcast aid appeals in a number of war related humanitarian crisis. There is no valid reason why they can not do so again.

Originally posted by Terapin

Originally posted by theblunttruth
CCTV has been paramount in the prevention of and the prosection of countless crimes. no doubt saving lives and actually protecting the public.

Well, I guess you went off on a rant when I make one little comment about Big Brother watching you. I have no delusions that anyone cares to watch my insignificant life, but your comment on how CCTV is saving the world is way off the mark. The facts are that it is proven to be pretty much useless in crime prevention.

Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.

Even the Home Office has admitted that the impact on crime has been statistically insignificant. The only place it seems to be helping thus far, is in car parks, where car theft has gone down. The cameras on the street have not reduced violent crime.

A report by the National Association for the Criminal Rehabilitation of Offenders (NACRO) said cameras had little effect on crimes against the person, including assault...... the effectiveness of CCTV is often overstated."

I guess you don't care about factual evidence, and simply feel good in front of a camera. I guess you also don't care about people who are suffering, simply because of your political ideas. It doesn't matter to me whether the child suffering from horrible burns is Israeli, Palestinian, or British. A child suffering needs help no matter who they are or what the cause. The BBC has broadcast aid appeals in a number of war related humanitarian crisis. There is no valid reason why they can not do so again.

Well, let's speak hypothetically, should a co-ordinated terrorist attack take place on the streets of London comparable to the recent henious crimes in Mumbai, are you seriously questioning the profound impact CCTV would have in tackling such an iccident?

Furthermore, the Indian governments ongoing enquiry into the incident has highlighted as "imperative" the need for such comprehensive CCTV infrastructure...

I don't want to get too caught up in this peripheral debate as it not only interupts the flow of debate but further detracts from the detail(s)..

Lets face it the furore that has subsequently ensued from the BBC's actions has infact helped publicise the incident further than any endorsement would have. Please do not question my alleigance to combating child poverty and/or humanitarian causes. I need not to justify my efforts and contributions, but if it makes you more comfortable accusing me of distinguishing between poverty/aid in Gaza and that elsewhere in the world, then fine, guilty as charged..

We can speak hypothetically all day. I simply pointed out that your claim, that CCTV has been a wonderful boon, is false. All the Cameras in Mumbai did not prevent anything. Terrorism does not care about cameras. Hypothetically, a terror attack in London could include an EMT device which would not only invalidate any CCTV use, but would also wreck havock on the Financial system by destroying computer data. Hypotheticals can lead in any direction you wish depending on how you play the game. Facts state that CCTV has been useless to date in preventing crime, which is what they were installed for in the first place.

As least you agree that you are guilty of Bias against the victims in Gaza. The BBC is too chicken sh*t to admit it, and offers the illogical excuse of trying to claim they are impartial. Impartial people would not care WHO or WHY, they would simply offer to aid the suffering. That is what civilized people do. That is why mainstream society in the UK is protesting the BBCs position.

Originally posted by Terapin
We can speak hypothetically all day. I simply pointed out that your claim, that CCTV has been a wonderful boon, is false. All the Cameras in Mumbai did not prevent anything. Terrorism does not care about cameras. Hypothetically, a terror attack in London could include an EMT device which would not only invalidate any CCTV use, but would also wreck havock on the Financial system by destroying computer data. Hypotheticals can lead in any direction you wish depending on how you play the game. Facts state that CCTV has been useless to date in preventing crime, which is what they were installed for in the first place.

As least you agree that you are guilty of Bias against the victims in Gaza. The BBC is too chicken sh*t to admit it, and offers the illogical excuse of trying to claim they are impartial. Impartial people would not care WHO or WHY, they would simply offer to aid the suffering. That is what civilized people do. That is why mainstream society in the UK is protesting the BBCs position.

Lol, CCTV can provide invaluable information to security services tackling a hostage event or terrorist acivity. Denying it does nothing but render you a fool for all to see. Hypotheticals are not a science but a prudency that inevitably effect every single thing you do.

You incoherent whack talk and Islamic militant-sympathising don't wash with me sunshine, so consume and preserve ignorance for as long as it suits your agenda, the BBC ain't listening

Terapin, I'm really enjoying your posts on this thread. If I were a mod, I'd be handing out applause. I've starred some of them instead. But...

Originally posted by Terapin
LOL the Brits love the government telling them what to do. Look at london. It is the most big brother of any city in the world with spy cameras everywhere watching that you are a good citizen.

I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here. I'm sure you're sensible enough to recognise that the proliferation of CCTV does not necessarily mean that "the Brits love the government telling them what to do."

We whine about it just like anyone else.

Unbalanced Beeb

The British Broadcasting Corporation's decision to refuse an advertisement by UK charities appealing for emergency aid for Gaza, while ostensibly debatable, is simply wrong. It does the BBC little credit.

Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, says to carry the advert from the Disasters Emergency Committee would compromise the impartiality of the corporation and that, furthermore, it has to look at the practicality of any aid getting through to its intended recipients.

Unless the BBC and its directors are operating a sideline in logistics and crisis resolution, the second argument is a fig leaf. While the BBC has mushroomed into a formidable bureaucracy, we should still probably defer to reputable charities such as the Red Cross, Save the Children and Oxfam for judgment on whether aid can get through.

The real argument concerns impartiality: Mr Thompson's contention is that running the appeal could expose the BBC to charges it is taking a stance in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

This just doesn't wash. The overwhelmingly critical response from the public - even though the BBC has been followed by Sky News - shows this is questionable. Ordinary people, informed not least by the BBC's own coverage of the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of Gazans, can distinguish for themselves the difference between acute humanitarian need and propaganda - on behalf of either side. For a man who is, ultimately, a public servant financed by a public levy to suggest otherwise is patronising.

The BBC should instead re-examine its oversensitivity to allegations of bias. Such allegations come with the territory for anyone who attempts detailed reporting and reasoned, contextual analysis of the Middle East. The BBC at times gives the impression it has lost its collective nerve in covering this region.

An independent panel on BBC coverage of the conflict, published in 2006 reported shortcomings that objectively favoured Israel: more coverage of Israeli fatalities; more Israeli spokesmen; and, above all, "the failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation".

Financial Times