BBC Headquarters Occupied

reply to post by theblunttruth


CCTV can be helpful after the event, but have thus far been proven ineffective in Prevention. That is what the Home Office report agrees on. CCTV does not make you safer. Thus far in London, it has only helped in 3% of the crimes committed, after the fact. That is a statistical fact. They have not been shown to reduce violent crimes. They did nothing to stop terrorism in Mumbai. Terrorists don't care about cameras as they are nuts who hope to die as a martyr. A camera wont change that.

You can call me names all you wish, which is the hallmark of the ignorant, but it does not change the fact that mainstream society is against the BBC decision. I say mainstream because the protesters range from teachers, laborers, lawyers, Arch-bishops, Members of Parliament, shopkeepers, lorry drivers, pensioners, journalists, to the bloke in the corner pub.

Only racist individuals would choose not to help a suffering child simply because of WHO they are.

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Lol, CCTV can provide invaluable information to security services tackling a hostage event or terrorist acivity.

So why are there so few CCTV pictures of those allegedly responsible for the 7th July 2005 bombings?

Could it have something to do with the fact that the CCTV on the bus that was bombed had been down ever since someone - NOT the regular contractor - turned up to fix it?

Denying it does nothing but render you a fool for all to see.

Not everyone thinks Terapin's the fool. Perhaps some civility wouldn't go amiss. Also, I'd like to ask you to stop quoting replies in full. It wastes space and makes the thread unnecessarily long and difficult to navigate.

Hypotheticals are not a science but a prudency that inevitably effect every single thing you do.

I can't make any sense of this sentence.

You incoherent whack talk and Islamic militant-sympathising don't wash with me sunshine,

If you can point to any sentence in any of Terapin's posts as being incoherent, go ahead. So far, I've not seen any. You, on the other hand, in this post alone have been incoherent, rude, and ill-informed.

so consume and preserve ignorance for as long as it suits your agenda, the BBC ain't listening

It seems that you're the one prepared to preserve ignorance, as despite having been confronted with evidence that shows CCTV to be pretty ineffectual and certainly hugely cost-ineffective, you've stuck to your guns without either facing up to the evidence presented or posting refutatory evidence of your own.

Love the crack about the agenda, too. Whose agenda is Terapin furthering? He's just being humane. Humane people don't like to see suffering, that's all.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by rich23]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by rich23]

reply to post by rich23


Thanks for your input Rich, if you actually took the time to disect the content of my posts and were capable of deciphering the apparent complexity of the above disputed sentence then maybe you could actually lend some credence to your input on this thread. I shall not be losing sleep over your endorsement of Terapins posts. I however shall sleep well knowing that the BBC has steadfastly stood by its decision and that the powers there are likely to endorse mine.

Terapin, your admission that CCTV can help after an event further underlines my point as succesful prosecution ultimately alludes to deterant and future prevention.

Keep it up chaps

[edit on 28-1-2009 by theblunttruth]

reply to post by Terapin


In this instance, I agree it's not a big deal, just an informercial.

But you have to remember that British politicians have never been afraid of muzzling the press, do you remember when they banned TV and radio stations from broadcasting statements made by IRA/Sinn Fein.

You had that hilarious situation where the TV stations hired Irish actors to dub over the voice of the original to comply with the law.

That's one of the many reasons we enforce the first amendment free speech rights here in the US - it stops governments pulling that kind of crap on "we, the people".

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN"s nuclear watchdog and Nobel peace prize winner noted for his scepticism over western claims that Saddam Hussein was attempting to develop nuclear weapons has added his weight to the protest.

The head of the UN"s nuclear watchdog has cancelled planned interviews with the BBC in protest at the corporation's decision not to air an emergency appeal for Gaza on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee. In a statement to the Guardian, Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel peace prize winner, unleashed a stinging denunciation of the BBC, deepening the damage already caused by the controversy. The statement, from his office at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the BBC decision not to air the aid appeal for victims of the conflict "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people, irrespective of who is right or wrong".

UN nuclear chief boycotts BBC over Gaza appeal The Guardian, 28/01/09

Also, in Wales, 26 members of Labour, the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats and the Counsel General for Wales, Carwyn Jones AM are calling on the corporation to change its decision.

"We note the BBC's role in the past in screening appeals for humanitarian aid in other crises such as in Darfur and the Congo. "Charities responding to crises rely heavily on television airtime to boost their appeals, and the BBC's snub to the Disasters Emergency Committee considerably lessens the impact of their appeal for medical assistance."

AMs' plea about BBC Gaza appeal BBC News, 28/01/09

Originally posted by theblunttruth

Terapin, your admission that CCTV can help after an event further underlines my point as succesful prosecution ultimately alludes to deterant and future prevention

If you believe that catching one terrorist through the use of a CCTV image will prevent another terrorist from acting, you are sadly mistaken. It doesn't even prevent petty crime on the streets of London as their own police force admits. Millions of pounds in CCTV equipment and images were only successful in only 3% of prosecutions, and no resulting reduction in violent crime on the streets. That is what the report by the police stated, and which the Home Office admitted. CCTV has been proven not to be a deterrent on violent crime in London.

Terrorists don't care about cameras when they undertake a suicide mission. Some may even revel in it as it adds to their notoriety. Witness the attacker in Mumbai who smiled at the cameras. All CCTV cameras do is offer a false sense of security. Once the bombs go off, you can watch them on the nice expensive CCTV images, but it doesn't stop it from happening.

For the record I do not support terrorism in any form whether it is Hamas or Israel. Political solutions are far better. If Israel would abide by the UN partition plan, I suspect that Hamas would lose all relevance and quickly find itself out of power.

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Thanks for your input Rich, if you actually took the time to disect the content of my posts

I went line by line, as I'm doing now. Didn't you notice?

and were capable of deciphering the apparent complexity of the above disputed sentence

If you want to communicate something, it's your responsibility to do so clearly. I notice that rather than rephrasing what appears to be a nonsensical sentence, you've resorted to insults and obfuscation. It's neither big nor clever. The sentence is not "apparently complex", it's apparently nonsensical. It's up to you to clarify it, although I doubt you can. I suspect you're hoist by your own dubious rhetoric.

I however shall sleep well knowing that the BBC has steadfastly stood by its decision and that the powers there are likely to endorse mine.

Spoken like a true Right-Wing Authoritarian. It doesn't actually help your position, you're just aligning yourself with "the powers there" and feeling smug about it. Which is fine, as long as you understand it's not an argument, just an admission that you're feeling smug.

Update: 170 MPs criticise Gaza appeal ban BBC News, 29/01/09

More than 170 MPs have now put their names to parliamentary motions criticising the BBC and Sky for not broadcasting a charity's Gaza appeal.

Meanwhile the UN launches $613m appeal for Gaza BBC News, 29/01/09

UN Secretary-General Mr Ban visited Gaza after the ceasefires; he said help was urgently needed and he had been deeply moved by what he saw.

This online report includes an embedded extract from the UN appeal, tacit acknowledgement that the BBC can no longer uphold their indefensible stance.

Update 30/01/09: BBC halts inquiry into Gaza charity decision after legal challenge, Times.

They're now forced from scrutinizing the 22,000 complaints to preparing a legal defence.

How ironic that while pretending to protect a reputation for impartiality they exposed their real bias so plainly.

The Trust has been forced to halt its deliberations after being served with a 23-page letter by Hickman & Rose, a North London firm of solicitors, that threatens to take the corporation to judicial review if the BBC does not screen the DEC appeal.

The legal letter, sent on behalf of two residents of Gaza and one British citizen, is understood to allege that the BBC’s decision was “irrational or unlawful”, is “offensive to public feeling” and breaches Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, regarding freedom of expression.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by EvilAxis]

According to the most recent edition of Private Eye, BBC Director-General Mark Thompson was reported in The Guardian as consulting the BBC's charity appeals advisory committee before banning the Gaza appeal.

However, according to the Eye, this report was news to members of the committee, who received no emails about the Gaza appeal before Thompson banned it.

One of the members of the committee has resigned in protest at Thompsons decision. In his resignation letter he notes that the committee "had no involvement" in the process.

So...

Thompson failed to consult the relevant committee and
The Guardian misreported matters in his favour.

Very poor.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by rich23]