Protesters clash with police on march against austerity

[Picture: Huffington Post]

[Picture: Huffington Post]

Violence marred the Million Mask March in London – with the clashes apparently started by British police.

But you should not expect to see the spectacle reported on the news as the BBC and other right-wing media seem to have put their heads in the (proverbial) sand and, once again, failed to report anything that might indicate the British people are not happy with their government.

Thousands of people took to the streets, many wearing what is now seen as the symbol of protest against austerity cuts imposed by the rich – the Guy Fawkes mask made famous by the graphic novel ‘V for Vendetta’.

[Picture: Million Mask March London Facebook page]

[Picture: Million Mask March London Facebook page]

Comedian Russell Brand, who has called for non-violent revolution, was spotted at the London protest.

Inevitably, someone had to spoil it and it seems the police were the aggressors.

According to the Huffington Post, an eyewitness said: “They [the police] started shouting move back, move back, but we had nowhere to go. The police started pushing us, screaming ‘move back, move back’. There was a fire on the right hand side of the monument [the Victoria Memorial near Buckingham Palace] and people started throwing things.”

The HuffPost reported: “The event is part of a Million Mask March, with similar protests being held in cities around the world. A Facebook page promoting the protest called for Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Pirate Party, and Occupy to “defend humanity”.

“‘Remember who your enemies are: Billionaires who own banks and corporations who corrupt politicians who enslave the people in injustice,’ it read.”

If any Vox Political readers were at the march – or at any of the many others around the world – please tell us about it. Let us know what the mainstream news reporters aren’t telling us.

70 thoughts on “Protesters clash with police on march against austerity

  1. beetleypete

    I am struggling with someone like Russell Brand being the new darling of revolution and leftist politics, after being pictured here, as well as his Newsnight spouting, and guest editorships etc. It just doesn’t ring true to me, and if we are left with such an offensive person as the ‘new hero’, then I fear that we have reached rock bottom.
    Otherwise Mike, thanks for bringing this to our attention.
    Regards as always, Pete.

    1. Mike Sivier

      I don’t mind him at all. Perhaps circumstances throw up unlikely figures to voice the feelings of the masses. I saw Russell on Question Time, opposite Boris Johnson (which is where his involvement seems to have started), and he was terrific. He said what I – and I expect many other people – was thinking, and he listened to members of the audience and responded to their comments in a constructive way, which is far more than most QT panellists ever manage.
      Yes, he’s a controversial figure. I don’t approve of everything he does, but then I doubt many people would find all of my own personal attributes appealing.
      I’d like to know what his experience of the march was.

      1. Ulysses

        In the cold light of day, re listen to the Andrew Sachs tapes, and with a level head, tell me it wasnt a foolish prank between two people with an edgy sense of humour to start with, that went a little too far.

        The media made the matter far worse than it was actually intended

    2. Michael

      I wouldn’t consider someone a “hero” for being famous and taking part in action. Not spineless, sure, but a hero? No.

      Anyways, that is what makes us weak, Beetleypete. Having people who won’t say anything because they are worried they may “offend” has made us weak. We NEED people (and famous people get the word out more) who aren’t afraid to speak their minds to be a part of this.

    3. Alyson Dunlop

      Brand’s Huffington interview was possibly one of the best I’ve ever seen, and he baulks himself at the idea of being labelled a ‘hero’. He’s just saying what we’re all thinking. As you say, he knows he is in a position to be heard. Good on him!

    4. a nutt.

      Russell Brand WAS a prat, he did something wrong but he served his time honourably by sucking up to rich USA based corporate filmmakers and taking their money and the piss with some crap films and now he’s back, he’s grown up, spent a lot of time thinking, reading some weird books, looked around at the world and thought to himself “WTF” is going on here? Realised he has a voice and is starting to use it for good. I saw some toady guy saying he was playing “A level politics,” well at least he’s been out and done some physical research, at least he’s been unable to perhaps pay the rent for some days of his life, maybe he knows more about how to run a budget better than some guy who probably has his bed made for him every single day. I’d vote for him, then you just get in the right advisers. It’s not rocket science to run a different democracy, one time user codes like they use on mobile phone top ups linked to social security numbers as a quick suggestion, without really thinking about it…every street or hundred people get together decide what’s important, online or with tea and cakes, everyone pays for what they consume. Or bring your own. Job’s a gud ‘en…

    5. kenny clarke

      I think he’s a lovely guy who’s passionate for what he believes and isn’t afraid to say it and he echo’s a lot of peoples views whether you like him or not, and what are you doing to try to change Britain for the better?? just posting worthless comments by the look of it’

      1. Mike Sivier

        Keep it civilised, Kenny. You don’t know what Pete does for a living, or in his spare time when he’s not on here. There’s no need to get personal when you’re making a valid point.

      2. beetleypete

        Kenny, I may not be doing much except posting ‘worthless comments’ in your opinion. However, I am getting on a bit now, and there was a time when I did a lot. I was a Union steward for over 20 years, and in my younger days, a member of two political parties, and a political activist on the Left. I was at Grosvenor Square, protesting against the Vietnam War, when most of you were not even born, so please don’t presume what I am. If you would all sooner listen to a self-publicising millionaire comedian, then good luck to you. As he says, don’t vote, then you can have the Tories in power for the rest of your natural lives.
        By the way, I don’t think that your comment is worthless, as you are entitled to say what you want, on an open forum. So, best wishes to you.

    1. PendanticGeek

      The BBC has been “under estimating” attendance numbers for a while. I have seen a reporter giving numbers as a “couple of hundred people” with easily about 300-400 protesters in view behind him.

  2. David O Rourke

    Brilliant……..Brand you are a Legend People of the UK who went well done you Its been a long time coming this Typical police lol they are the real trouble makers We can all laugh when they lose jobs go (To say it politely F*** OFF government Ed miliband MAN THE F*** UP


    Some prat shoots fireworks at Buckingham Palace and people wonder why the police react aggressively and decide to kettle everyone? Dear me…
    What is it about that that does not compute?! Whatever the intent of the protesters that’s reason enough for police to declare a breach of the peace has occurred and act accordingly (they could probably go as far as saying it was attempted arson if they wanted and be well within their remit to hold every last person there until names had been taken). From what I saw on the livestream I’ve seen for more disproportionate responses to peaceful protest from the Met.

    1. Mike Sivier

      As far as I can tell, the incident outside Buckingham Palace took place after the main event, which indicates that it happened after the cops arrived and started throwing their weight around; people walked back and then let off the fireworks. It was one small group, separate from everyone else, and there’s no need to conflate the intent of these people with that of the other marchers.


        Watching the stream it was clear that the fireworks were let off from within the crowd at the Victoria monument whilst everything there was quite relaxed and the police in attendance didn’t have their helmets to hand but were just holding a loose line between the protest and the palace, and this was a few minutes before the riot goons turned up. Soon after they got there the police started to clear the area outside the palace, with their usual tact and diplomacy *ahem*… Anyway, as far as the police are concerned everyone there was part of the same protest so it’s kind of irrelevant to them who set the fireworks off or where they were. For all they knew there could have been several people ready to launch a salvo of rockets at the palace on a given signal. Whoever did set them off though, was clearly not being very clever because it gave the police the ideal excuse. Considering it was supposed to be a peaceful protest, any act that could be construed as non-peaceful (whatever the actual intent), such as setting off fireworks towards Buckingham Palace, is just idiotic.

      2. Mike Sivier

        I certainly agree with you on that.
        Whenever I hear reports of demos or protests in which something happens from within the crowd that give the police an excuse to wade in, or break it up, I think “agent provocateur”. Were people planted in this crowd to cause trouble or do something stupid to bring the event into disrepute?
        In this case, I don’t think so. It was probably just someone doing something silly, in ill-advised high spirits. One photo I’ve seen suggests the firework hadn’t been intended to head for the palace, but it could just be the way the shot came out.

  4. Paul

    The beeb will probably not give this the coverage it deserves and will seek to sway the argument, no doubt. I’m sorry but Russell Brand I think is all out for the attention on this one.

    The writer of the article says that the BBC is right wing and I have heard this before elsewhere. I’m not sure they’re either right or left and I’ve heard also strong views that they’re a lefty organisation.

    They claim non-bias, however whatever their persuasion their idea of a serious broadcaster doesn’t cut the mustard for me. If I was to hold them accountable for anything it would be that they are guilty for not telling the whole truth whether it be right or left is irrelevant – by censoring the truth prevents change for the better. And that serves the establishment just fine.

    Keep us guessing and in the dark.

    1. Mike Sivier

      I’m the author of the article. The allegation that the BBC is right-wing, rather than leftie, is based on a study by Cardiff University that is authoritative. Claims by right-wingers that it is leftie are based on their imagination and intention to put fear into BBC bosses that they’ll lose the licence fee if they don’t kowtow to The Man.

      1. Paul

        Thank you for replying I was hoping you would! I’ll search online for the study. If I don’t have any joy I’ll come back for the link/title. I’m hoping they’re neither, but if it is the authoritative…

      2. Florence

        As one who worked for Auntie (as it was know back then) I can guarantee the organisation is inherently biased towards to right. This is because the management is stuffed full of the slightly dim, (quote Janet Street-Porter) “white, male, middle aged, middle class & mediocre” dregs from Public Schools who were too dim to even work in the City, or the Army (RTU being a case in point). They ARE the establishment – who knows how long, if ever, it will take to get real change,in the BBC, in the City, in the upper echelons of every walk of society. Personally, I am inclined to put my own energies into the fight against the “welfare reforms”, with a particularly sharp pointy attitude to the middle class who are pimping poverty from the top layers of OUR charities. (PS Great News from the Courts on ILF today!)

  5. Cariad

    Stop Russell Brand bashing at least he’s willing to stand up and be counted unlike these people who mouth off about him. He has clearly not forgotten his roots – he comes over as a genuine person who is eloquent and not afraid to say what he THINKS .

  6. Eleifend Veritas

    Didn’t seem at all that violent whilst i was there. The average anon age from those I talked to seems about 2 years (in terms of their being involved with a much lengthier bunch of folk i know). Was kinda disappointing at 7pm when I had to help a wheel chair bound chick cross the road. The cops for the most part did not at all seem violent. However, buses were heavily diverted by 8 pm, so i assume some kind of police presence must have been jamming up the side roads because the diversions were crazy

  7. Obi_Live

    I was one of the OccupyNewsNetwork livestreamers on that night and we attempted to cover the whole thing.
    All streams are available here From Westminster Bridge. and Trafalgar Sq. To Buckingham Palace and the Mall.
    The police did not have to be heavy handed at all.
    I heard at least one excuse of “just doing my job” and being polite whilst their colleagues shoved people with their heavy gloves.
    The police definitely came in dressed for a riot. When one does not appear, they like to bully people and attempt to goad them into violence.

    1. Jonathan Wilson

      One thing I thought was telling was the “trafalger square” live cam was anything but live… in fact it seemed to be on a repeat loop at one point, then obviously a different day once it started to get dark.

      The BBC’s total lack of coverage of a world wide event was also telling… well lack of coverage until something kicked off and they could run a story about trouble and scuffles… BBC bias by omission.


  9. martynjlewis

    Hi guys. Does anyone know of a ‘free’ news organisation? The reason I ask is, as stated in the article, the BBC didn’t utter a word about the protests and if it hadn’t been for this superb blog, I would never have known. As such, I am looking for a good news website (preferably with RSS feeds) where I can keep up to date with events knowing that it is the truth.

    1. Jonathan Wilson

      RT covered it, from its start in other countries (aus) and onwards with fairly frequent updates during the day(s… different time zones) watching the BBC would have left one not knowing anything about the world wide events, and nothing UK centric until some scuffles broke out as the police rushed in to start said troubles.

    2. Big Bill

      Well it will have been reported on RT the Russian TV channel and David Icke’s starting up a service called The People’s Voice which will be a web service I believe. Keep an eye on both for alternative and accurate news.

  10. Dave

    Is there any chance that those who fired of the fireworks were put amongst the peacefully protesting crowd by the authorities simply to cause trouble and give the police a reason to start kicking off in the way they always do? It happens all the time, you know that don’t you?

  11. Joe Smith

    In all of this debate, it must be remembered the Police will always act to prevent any attack however minor on the establishment. When the public is on the streets with an unknown objective or outcome the establishment becomes nervous and seeks to protect its self from the common hordes. If any other proof were needed the establishment must be feeling threatened and uncertain to react with such violence so quickly. One of these days eh?

  12. Joe Smith

    So, the news breaks, Portsmouth ship building closes, Govan in Scotland survives, the coalition sacrifices Portsmouth to buy Scottish votes by saving jobs in Scotland. It’s amazing just how this Government will prostitute itself to stay in power! These stinking lousy lying politicians make me want to puke. Immediately after puking I feel I should dust off my SLR and put a 7.62 between some eyes. Except I don’t have either!
    Let’s get rid of these lying corrupt spineless blood sucking B…..ds. Roll on the election I’d just love some of these ass licking SOBs to knock on my door for my vote. A kick in the goolies may be the answer they will understand.

    1. PendanticGeek

      The Tories want to lose Scotland from the union so that they can get an easier majority in England.

      1. Joe Smith

        You may well be right PedanticGeek, the Tory Fascists only have one seat in Scotland. God help us if the clowns are returned, their arrogance egotism will know no bounds. I’m moving to Scotland where you going? If I stayed in England I’d probably end a terrorist sniper/assassin, hate those smug well fed pink cheeked lying cheating scum

      2. Mike Sivier

        Now that IS an interesting comment. One of the aspects of the Scottish referendum that has given me concern is this oft-repeated allegation that Scotland offers HM Opposition too many Parliamentary seats to be lost, if it ever wants a chance to regain a majority, and now you’re saying that isn’t right?
        It could be huge.

      3. Derick Tulloch

        Yes Mike. That is so – Scottish votes don’t affect UK politics in any significant way. There just aren’t enough of us.

        Independence would adversely affect the place on the gravy train currently enjoyed by for individual Scottish Westminster MP’s and Lords. Poor babies. But that is another matter!

        My hope is that, in the event of a Yes vote and the withdrawal of Scotland from the Treaty of Union, we will be able to influence by example, where we cannot influence directly. The way we in the Yes campaign look to Scandinavia for an example. Being an Anglophile and of the ‘left’ I suppose I see so much more to England than UKIP and the Daily Hate. You guys will know of your suppressed radical history (and potential future) better than me. Blake and Shelley, not Tennyson and Kipling!

        The end of the UK state – because that is what we are talking about here – will potentially have a huge effect on England, because of her size. The whole ‘World Power’ dream – what Tom Nairn called Ukania in the Enchanted Glass will become that much harder to sustain. Personally I think that a good thing.

        I don’t know if Yes will win in 2014. I suspect not because the whole resources of the British State are ranged against a shoestring bottom up community based campaign. The BBC in particular is acting like a pure propaganda outlet. There are spies. There are sleepers and all the rest. There is the threat of Partition against Shetland where I’m from (without one scintilla of local support I might add). But we’re giving it our best shot, and will win in the end.

        Have a look at Wings, Bella Caledonia, The Common Weal project.

        Russel Brand: naive but his heart is in the right place

  13. Big Bill

    What got the Magna Carta signed, ended the Poll Tax and reduced the standard working day from dawn till dusk to eight hours? Violence. Peaceful protest? Meh… someone wake me up when it gets serious.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Why are people suddenly posting links with no explanation about what they are? I’m having to check everything to make sure it isn’t spam.

      Please – if you’re posting a link, tell us what it is!

  14. beetleypete

    OK, I give in! Looks like I stirred up a Russell Brand fan club hornets’ nest there!
    He doesn’t agree with voting, and urges people not to vote. Given the apathy, especially among young people, about voting, and the whole electoral process, is this to be admired? Well, not by me I’m afraid. Celebrities and ‘actors’ getting involved in politics is said to be a good thing, because they are high-profile, and have a ready made platform to the media. Has everyone forgotten Ronald Reagan that soon?
    You won’t change my thinking about Brand, but I concede defeat, at least in the forum of VP. What next, Jordan for PM?
    Putting on my metaphorical flak-jacket now…
    Regards to all, Pete.

  15. beastrabban

    The bullying of protesters by the police actually doesn’t surprise me. I heard from one of my aunts years ago about assaults by the police on the crowd at the Poll Tax demonstrations in the closing years of Maggie Thatcher’s long, ignominious reign. One of my cousins went to the demonstration in London with a group of friends. She apparently saw innocent protesters being attacked by the police. At one point the police grabbed her and tried to pull her out of the crowd, but her male friends managed to grab her and pull her back.

    As for the BBC’s bias, I’ve also heard allegations of left-wing bias. Terence Dicks, who was script editor for the classic Doctor Who series and himself wrote many scripts, discusses the Beeb’s political bias in the extras on the DVD of the Jon Pertwee serial, ‘The Silurians’. The creator of these monsters, Malcolm Hulke, had been a member of the Communist party and at one time lived and worked in East Germany. The serial was intended to be a metaphor for the Cold War, with the monsters themselves representing the Soviets. The humans and particularly UNIT are shown in the story making their own violent attacks on the Silurians and acting aggressively against a cultured, intelligent race, whom the Doctor manages to win over through negotiation. The story culminates in the Brigadier attempting to wipe the Silurians out completely by bombing the caverns in which they have hibernated since the end of the dinosaur era, waiting their chance to reclaim the world. The Doctor, as a man of peace, reacts with horror and disgust at this act of attempted genocide. The point of the story was that there was neither side had the moral high ground in the conflict, and this was true of the Cold War stand-off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Dicks said that he was afraid when the series was broadcast that they would receive letters complaining about left-wing bias. They never did.

    Dicks then goes on to express his opinion that the BBC is not a monolithic organisation so much as a collection of little fiefs. I think the implication there is that there may be a distinct political bias within these individual fiefs, but no overall political bias in the wider organisation.

    The radical, parapolitical magazine Lobster has printed several pieces on the Beeb’s political bias. They considered it was split politically on specific issues. On issues such as immigration and the EU, it was left-wing in so far as it supported these causes and was generally anti-racist. On purely economic issues, such as the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the welfare state, it was Right-wing, supporting privatisation and the curtailment of welfare benefits. The BBC also has form regarding the deliberate underestimation of the size of crowds during anti-government demonstrations.

    My guess is that the BBC’s general anti-racist stance probably comes not so much from the civil rights and anti-racism protests of the ’60s and ’80s, but from the BBC’s status as the state broadcaster during the British Empire. The BBC had a set of policies regarding what could be said or discussed on air. Comedy shows, for example, could not contain blasphemy, nor jokes about the monarchy, disability, ‘the colour question’ or ‘effeminacy in men’. There was similarly a list of 200 words that also could not be included in broadcast material. Some of these were just swear words, or slang or colloquial expressions that were somehow deemed too vulgar. They also included offensive racial epithets. The list stated that ‘gentlemen from China are Chinamen, not ‘Chinks’. My feeling that this policy was set up so that Britain presented a civilised, diplomatic face to the outside world. I also read somewhere that the BBC also edited out any material it considered racist out of the ‘Go-on Show’, when that was broadcast on the foreign and colonial service. The intention here clearly was not to upset the indigenous peoples in the colonies and so provoke unnecessary unrest. Although the restrictions against broadcasting material discussing and describing racism have been considerably liberalised, I think this policy and the mindset behind it has more or less continued at the Beeb, though informed somewhat by post-1960s racial egalitarianism.

    1. Big Bill

      With regard to this “One of my cousins went to the demonstration in London with a group of friends. She apparently saw innocent protesters being attacked by the police. At one point the police grabbed her and tried to pull her out of the crowd, but her male friends managed to grab her and pull her back.” My father repeatedly warned me this kind of thing happened. ‘They just grab anybody’, he said. He was a policeman.

    2. Florence

      Going back to the 60’s there was not only violence against protesters, but the police was at that time heavily “influenced” by the far right, and would stand by & watch – for example ANC / anti South Africa demos pulped by bovver boys, skinheads etc. One ANC march of about 500 people (early days) I attended was cut in two, and diverted into different streets where they gave people a good kicking. Even a guy already in a whole leg plaster cast (he was black).

      The American Embassy protests – Viet Nam War – on many occasions there were shocking displays of police brutality, especially using horses, and group beatings of single protesters with wooden batons, leading to many head injuries.

      Blair Peach – say no more. RIP.

      Grunwick workers dispute, 1970’s London, pinned against a plate glass high-street window, forced out to a line 4 people deep, and the thin blue line parted to allow SPG thugs in to beat the crap out of us. Speciality was the baton between the legs for all women. Bricks were thrown, the perpetrators were found to be plain clothes police.

      People being dragged along by their hair through Dollis Hill, by police on galloping horses. Hands reaching out of police buses and just dragging anyone in reach on board for a good kicking,

      The Orgrave incident in the miners’ strike one among many – more shocking brutality entirely initiated by the police, charging on horses at men who had been directed onto a field and were sitting peacefully waiting for speeches.

      The “good old days” eh? Just a few of many reminiscences.

      Can I ask how the myth that the police were anything other than they are now, please show me some proof, because as a working class trade unionist, I was brought up to expect the worst.

      I accept that it may have come as a shock to many who were on the Poll Tax march, new to the democratic pursuit of anti-government demos, but they were quickly politicised after that. I just bide my time waiting for the first use of riot police in Jobcentres to kick off. I just don’t expect it to be featured on the BBC news. Or if they have to, then use the editing to show a different story to what actually happened (Orgrave being a classic).

      Plus ca change.

      1. beastrabban

        Interesting comment on police tactics, Big Bill, especially as you said your father was a policeman. Regarding police support for the extreme Right, Florence, there was an article in Lobster discussing the way the police were biased towards Moseley’s lot, the BUF, when they emerged from internment after the War and during the 1950s.

  16. beastrabban

    Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    In this article, Mike discusses recent clashes with the police during the ‘Million Mask’ March in London and the possibility that the police themselves may have been responsible for them with attacks on peaceful protesters. Sadly, this wouldn’t surprise me if it were true. One of my cousins and her friends went on the mass demonstrations against the Poll Tax in the final years of Maggie Thatcher’s rule. According to my aunt, she saw the police pulling protesters out of the crowd and beating them. She herself was grabbed by the police, but fortunately her male friends were able to pull her back before she could be separated from them and beaten.
    Mike’s article also discusses the way the BBC had not, at the time of posting, covered the protests although one of the commenters states that it has now. Mike cites research by Cardiff University to show that the Beeb has a general Right-wing bias. In the 1980s and 1990s, the media monitoring unit at Glasgow University similarly came to the conclusion that the BBC had a distinct Right-wing bias. The radical, parapolitical magazine, Lobster, has also published several pieces discussing the Beeb’s bias. They concluded that on issues such as racism, immigration and EU membership, the Beeb was generally left-wing. When it came to economic and welfare issues, they favoured privatisation, deregulation, cuts to public spending and the curtailment of welfare benefits. My guess is that this bias comes from the Beeb’s position as the state broadcaster. However oppositional individual broadcasters, producers and directors may be within the organisation, the organisation itself sees itself as a department of state and the official voice of the responsible governing class in politics and business. It therefore reflects the views of the political and commercial establishment, and so favours Right-wing economic policies as part of that perceived orthodoxy. This attitude also shapes the Beeb’s apparent anti-racism. Before the liberalising climate of the 1960s, there was a list of subjects and expressions that were forbidden by the BBC. Comedians could not, for example, include blasphemy, ridicule the monarchy, or make jokes about disability, race or ‘effeminacy in men’. Similarly, offensive racial epithets, such as ‘Chinks’ for Chinese people, could also not be used. My guess is that these restrictions were formulated as part of a general diplomatic policy towards the wider world. Britain was then a major imperial power, and I think the purpose of these restrictions was to foster good relations with the other nations around the world, and avoid provoking unnecessary hostility and unrest amongst the Empire’s subject peoples. I think the policy has more or less survived, despite considerable alterations. It has now been influenced by the radical, counter-cultural protests of the 1960s and ’80s, but really has its origins in the need for diplomatic language and attitudes in governing the Empire.

  17. Carl Green

    Violence marred the Million Mask March ?

    Errr there were 11 arrests – 2 for criminal damage and the others for breach of the peace – meanwhile the 14 arrests made at Lewes Firework festival for violent disorder go unmentioned.

    Pushing and shoving by Police did get a reaction but not enough to be called violence.

    1. Alan

      Never will we ever here how, in most of these events, the police shoved and provoked incidents, as though the police were white as white can be, even bludging newspaper sellers, and cripples to death. It takes years for the truth of what the police are actually up to, and then nothing gets done. Remember also Hillsborough, fans were made to blame, police innocent, police, whilst writing up false reports, putting in claims for stress of having to deal with the aftemath, that they had created. And chief police offers caught lying and deceiving

  18. Alan

    The media, as usual, seeking to keep government happy. The police can shove and provoke people, and this goes unnotice. I saw my fare share of provocation by the police in the miner strikes, and how corrupt media put a spin on things. And what is more sheep believe every words coming out of the media.

  19. Ben

    I was there last night and had a picture with Russel Brand. He had his mask on most of the night apart from briefly at the beginning so he was just a protester just like everyone else sharing the same views. He is not a hero, only as much as everyone else that was their making a stand. It has been reported on RT news but nothing on the BBC news. I saw a 300 word report on line from the BBC and it mentioned how several hundred protesters attended certainly not the 10,000 I saw. Camerons country, Camerons rules, no press!

  20. Joe Smith

    I’ve watched the BBC news for most of my life, over the course of the last decade or so I’ve noticed the beeb become much less objective and much more government sympathetic, this is a worry, additionally I’ve noticed news presenters become very much more much fashionable and a lot less factual. By the same token I’ve noticed MPs becoming a lot more defensive and or vague ( lying) trying to stick resolutely to the particular message they want to have heard. Frequently, the message these morons spout is so ludicrous as to be almost funny. The highly paid Beebers almost always back off. Why is this? Is it the potential loss of a highly paid soft job, or do they really believe they are so far removed and above the masses it doesn’t matter and they don’t give a f..k.
    I believe now the beeb is so far removed from us ( who pay the f……g licence) that it’s now virtually a Government mouthpiece.

    The beeb is now virtually unaccountable to us the licence payer, we have little or no say how our money is spent, that’s how we see people like Forsyth and Wogan earning vast sums for perhaps 80/100 hours per year of work. This has to be a bigger piss take than IDS earning a salary.

    Answer, set up a public committee to monitor news, fees, salaries, expenses and refuse anything that seems poor value. Ensure that ALL news is reported equably and given equal air time, and get rid of the hangers on such as street porter Wogan ( retired anyway) Forsyth ( can’t remember his lines and unfunny jokes) they’ve had their day and the money time to be forgotten.

  21. Thomas

    Protests nowadays are only mentioned if they get violent. 50,000 to 100,000 could peacefully demonstrate and it would not be mentioned-unless 50 people kicked off when it would be reported as rioting. Of course, part of it is because riots are much more newsworthy and interesting.

  22. Step

    I live in Australia at the moment and there’s been no reports on this here at all. This web page is the first I even heard there was a problem. Wow, just goes to show how little the media tell us about what actually going on.

Comments are closed.