Court order stops BBC riots film

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by james walsh on July 16, 2012 at 22:39

Watch our film about the Tottenham riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8worlFZh8&feature=player_embe...

Let us know what you think.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on July 17, 2012 at 10:30

Obviously the characters found the Guardian/LSE/BBC actors too damn wimpish. I'd object too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on July 17, 2012 at 20:49

Thanks James, feel a little embarrassed because the film has been online a while....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on July 17, 2012 at 11:54

Hardly any of this was made up.

__________________

KIRSTY: "Now the breaking story about the BBC pulling the programme on the riots. We have a panel of informed commentators. We did ask for a judge to take part but none was available. Let's start with 'All Voices' a highly respected website with the mission: Reaching millions and making millions."

ALL VOICES: "Reliable sources tell us that the BBC has pulled a film about the experiences of rioters during last summer's disturbances just hours before it was due to be broadcast after a ruling from a judge. The same story in the exact same words has appeared on 22,534 websites. Also in the Hornsey Handout a local freesheet"

KIRSTY: "So you’re pretty confident it may be accurate?"

ALL VOICES: "Yup. Pretty confident. It may be."

KIRSTY: "And what are you hearing over at Liquid Newsroom?"

LIQUID: "Thanks Kirsty,  we’re also picking up the same vibe. Our sources confirm this seems to have a judicial background."

KIRSTY: "Your twitterfeed, DD1958, has a slightly different take."

DD1958 "Thts rght Krsty, we r askng jst how far ths Gvt are prpred 2 go 2 kp us from knwing the trth? Ths news spks vlumes. Or would if we hd mre thn 140 chrctrs."

KIRSTY: “Qanjin of Smashing News website: I gather you’re headlining the story?"

QANJIN: “We’re with DD on this one, Kirsty. We see you and other BBC lackeys as grovelling and snivelling as you obey the whim and caprice of your Tory overlords.”

KIRSTY: "That's a telling point, Qanjin. Newsflash, I believe you have a helicopter over Whitehall and a camera crew in Downing Street. Was there any comment from the Prime Minister?"

NEWSFLASH: "Unfortunately, there was a big metal gate with two armed coppers. They said Dave and Sam were watching 'Blackout'. The army shot down our helicopter."

KIRSTY: "I want to bring in MLeiser on Tweetmeme. What’s your view?"

MLEISER: "Going forward, we'll have more on this, I expect, Kirsty."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on July 18, 2012 at 5:50

Even more worrying.
"For legal reasons, the Guardian cannot name the judge who made the ruling, the court in which he is sitting or the case he is presiding over".
http://www.defendtherighttoprotest.org/bbc-lawyers-consider-formal-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on July 18, 2012 at 10:19

The original news item is - I think word for word - in the Guardian here.

Defend the Right to Protest website has quoted it - adding a paragraph with their own take. Which was the point I was trying to make (with a touch of humour) about many of the comments I came across when I did a search. (I made up the bit about Sam and Dave and the helicopter.)

In thousands of cases judges have to balance the right of the public to know, against other rights. Including for example, that of a defendant not to have their case prejudiced; or perhaps of a witness.

I am not speculating about the possible facts in this case. But simply pointing out that we don't yet know the facts. The Guardian reports that the BBC is preparing an appeal against the judge's ruling "which may be lodged" today. So hopefully we will shortly find out more.

• ▶ Reply