The Guardian reports that the BBC was forced to cancel tonight's film on last summer's riots following a court ruling. More on this here.
The film was part of a season of programmes leading up to the first anniversary of the riots.
Tags (All lower case. Use " " for multiple word tags):
Watch our film about the Tottenham riots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek8worlFZh8&feature=player_embe...
Let us know what you think.
Obviously the characters found the Guardian/LSE/BBC actors too damn wimpish. I'd object too.
Thanks James, feel a little embarrassed because the film has been online a while....
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."
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.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh