War Without End

Caspian · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:09 pm Post subject:

Saw on the news today that B52s from Fairford will be bombing those Iraquis in their trenches who are putting up such a spirited and brave resistance with their Kalashnikofs and mortars against this huge invading war machine. They can't dislodge them man to man so bring in the B52s.
Imagine what those bombs will do to those sons of mothers and brothers of sisters and fathers of children defending their land. All coming from sleepy Gloucestershire.

Anglo Thug · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:05 pm Post subject:

ktholcombe · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:25 pm Post subject:

Hi AT,

Yes we really are at Gate 10, quite alot of people sometimes. I assume Mr. Blunkett thinks he is very clever by not actually overseeing the eviction of the camp but authorising every order imaginable to the police in attempt to intimidate or starve us out of the area without actually having the bad publicity an eviction would bring to the powers that be.

In the last couple of weeks various 21 day orders have been authorised by the Home Office giving police power to close the roads around the protest site even to pedestrians........hence water etc. has been closely rationed.

The media have been shoved over the other side of the base to Gate 13 where we can't see them and they can't see the protesters.

Notices have been given by the base stating intent to use lethal force on protesters if neccessary.

We have up to a thousand police looking after us from Essex to Scotland and many forces inbetween.

Police are starting to remand people more and more frequently and charging and conditionally bailing people for the most ludicrous of reasons......a guy was arrested and conditionally bailed the other day for planting flower seeds near the fence.....this was categorised as criminal damage...this also means that the media won't report on the case as they cry about not wanting to be seen prejudicing the cases.

They have played this game for long enough now.......I think it is time to up the ante. I will do all I can to keep the protest supported and in existence at Gate10 but as of this weekend I will be setting up another site which hopefully will be much more visible in a fairly short time.

The media currently has the excuse that the police won't allow them any access to the protesters ( dunno what their excuse can be for not giving the enormous ammount of anti-war action around the country any coverage though - or could the below article have any bearing?), so I guess it is time to take the protest somewhere a little less hidden.

Kt.

Dissent under pressure on the BBC

By David Miller

--------------------------------------------

From: Richard Sambrook-Private
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:30 PM
To: News Editorial-Board-Editors Cc: Stephen Whittle-and-Chris; Mark Damazer; Mark Byford & PA
Subject: Phone ins and polls

Can I share a growing concern.

Listening to phone-ins and emails it seems to me we are attracting some of the more extreme anti-war views. There is no question there is a majority public view which is against unilateral US action. However those motivated to call in or email are, to my ear, frequently from the more extreme end. (The "lets have regime change in washington london and Israel" variety). We may sometimes unwittingly be nobbled by anti war campaigners (I heard exactly the same question phrased the same way on 5 programmes in one day).

I think the "mid ground" majority views (many centring on UN support for legitimacy) may be either unmotivated or intimidated from calling. This is a view built up over several weeks.

It also forces our presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers -- sometimes making us appear to be siding with govt. Not true in all cases.

Equally it is of course important we have someone to articulate the Bush/Blair line.

I know a lot of thought is already going into this -- but we need to be careful both to get a realistic balance and to ensure a diversity of views.

On interactive polls -- we will increasingly need to ensure they are representative. Currently numbers voting and the fact that we don't know the make up of those voting mean they are not psephologically worth a fig. We should either declare numbers voting so audience can take their own view of how representative the views are or clearly say they are not representative and are basically "a bit of fun" (though hardly an appropriate phrase in the circumstances.)

These are delicate judgements but we will pay a high price for getting them wrong. I suggest further discussion in programme meetings and at Ed Policy and Ed Board

R --------------------------------------------

The BBC is putting its staff under pressure to keep dissent over Iraq off the air. An internal memo written by Director of News Richard Sambrook and circulated throughout the BBC, advises staff to 'be careful' and that it is 'important' to have voices 'to articulate the Bush/Blair line'. The memo indicates a growing nervousness in the Corporation which seems to be taking a line much more restrictive than other channels.

'Can I share a growing concern' wrote Sambrook in the email sent on 6 of February, nine days before the biggest marches in British history. 'Listening to phone-ins and emails it seems to me we are attracting some of the more extreme anti-war views.' While acknowledging that the public is against 'unilateral US action', Sambrook goes on to complain that those 'motivated to call in or email are, to my ear, frequently from the more extreme end. (The "lets have regime change in Washington London and Israel" variety). We may sometimes unwittingly be nobbled by anti war campaigners (I heard exactly the same question phrased the same way on 5 programmes in one day). Of course anti war campaigners are trying to influence the media, but a more likely explanation for the uniformity of message is the widespread use of the internet to access the real news that the BBC will not broadcast.

Sambrook also notes that the preponderance of dissent 'forces out presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers -- sometimes making us appear to be siding with the government'. You couldn't make this up. The notion that 'balance' requires anti-war views to be countered with the 'Bush/Blair' line shows just how out of touch the BBC is. The real debate in the UK is between those who would accept war with a UN resolution and those who would not. In between are a vast array of dissenters who worry about the 'evidence' for war. All the opinion polls show that this is the case. Most revealingly, Sambrook goes straight on to note that the appearance of siding with the government is 'not true in all cases'. Could there be a clearer admission that the BBC is on occasion 'siding' with the government. How does this sit with the legal duty to be impartial? The appearance also means that the BBC is desperately casting around for pro Blair voices: 'Equally it is of course important that we have someone to articulate the Bush/Blair line'

The memo reveals the increasing distance between t he BBC and the British public on this question. Other broadcasting outlets have found it difficult but have started to adapt to a situation where most of the political establishment is adrift from the vast majority of the public. Normally the media fill their news bulletins with authorised knowers' - politicians, experts, people of importance mistaking status for authorititativeness. The anti-war protests have sent a shock through the media system. Some - such as Channel Four have tried to adapt: Jon Snow presented Channel Four News from the London demo; ITN broke new ground by arranging for six anti war protestors to meet Blair. Channel Five News - until recently the preserve of candyfloss lifestyle news - have gone further and appointed an 'anti-war correspondent'. These are very much adaptations to a seismic democratic shift.

Senior BBC management meanwhile have spent much time worrying about how to keep anti-war sentiment off the airwaves. BBC bosses publicly worried about how they could best excise anti-war sentiment from the Bafta awards, noting that 'When it comes to editing, we will be concentrating on what is appropriate to the event.'. A Radio Three world music poll disqualified the front runner on the basis of 'voting irregularities'. 'This is intended to be a musical award... not motivated and organised for political reasons' said Stephen Whittle, head of Editorial Policy. In BBC TV news reports on the 15th Tony Blair's speech in Glasgow was reported but no mention at all was made of the 70-80,000 people - the biggest demonstration in Scottish political history - who marched to protest at Blair's visit. On the morning of the 15th Radio Four's Today programme refused to interview any representative of the Stop the War coalition, CND or MAB the organisers of the march. The BBC's Deputy Director of News Mark Damazer, told the organisers he had 'no intention' of allowing them on. The leaked memo reveals why such judgements are made. But the record of the BBC will now be marked with the stain that their flagship radio programme failed to interview any of the organisers of the biggest march in British history on the morning it happened.

The pressure from management has not gone down well in all parts of the BBC where - away from the flagship networked programmes BBC journalists have been adopting creative ways to represent mass dissent. But clearly such attempted innovations do not please the hierarchy.

As Sambrook writes 'these are delicate judgements and we will pay a high price for getting them wrong. I suggest further discussion in programme meetings and at Ed Policy and Ed Board.' The price may well be high and depending on which way they jump it will be paid either in viewers or government intimidation and harassment. The evidence of the war is increasingly showing that the reason that viewers have been turning off from broadcast news and current affairs is not because of their lack of interest in politics but rather their disdain for dull bite size government friendly reporting. The audience for question time, for example, routinely languishes at around a million. Yet, according to BBC sources, when there is a real debate such as when Ken Livingstone was on talking about the war or when Andy Gilchrist of the FBU was on the audiences reached around 1.3-1.4 million. In the last couple of weeks Question Time has bitten the bullet and evaded the routine Millbank attempts to control the guest list. First George Galloway and then Vanessa Redgrave have appeared. Viewing figures shot up to 2.3 and 2.4 million. But this BBC success in their mission to bring back audiences to serious politics is something of a state secret in the Corporation. You will look in vain for a press release on the BBC website.

If the BBC does start properly representing public views they risk the wrath of No10. Maybe that wrath has already been expressed. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear how this debate is playing out in the BBCs confidential editorial policy meetings?

Caspian · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 12:58 am Post subject:

I have noticed every night now on the BBC six o' clock news they show a live shot of a B52 at Fairford just sitting there and then move on to the rest of the news. Why do they do this? Why cross live to Fairford for a couple of seconds of a bomber? What are they trying to tell us?

We can never trust the BBC again after all this.

Anglo Thug · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:12 am Post subject:

Anglo Thug · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:22 am Post subject:

ktholcombe · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:31 pm Post subject:

hug"]

Anglo Thug · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:02 am Post subject:

Secret Fairford:
What You Won't Find In The BBC Rough Guide

As you all watch your screens and try to hold onto your lunch as the excited BBC news crews drool at the latest B52 take off (or refueling or loading or standing around doing not much at all) shot, ask yourself this:

Why haven't the following images been shown? The following images represent the real Fairford.

What you see on the BBC is the sanitised Fairford. Which would you rather have? The Truth or the BBC?

Because it's not possible to have both, you know.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Write to the heads of BBC news and ITN and ask them why there has been no mention, no images, no interviews with the dedicated people who have protested outside the base for the past month. Ask them if the could please start reporting the real news rather than the sanitised version much appreciated by government:

Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news.
Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk

Roger Mosey, Head of BBC Television News:
roger.mosey@bbc.co.uk

ITN News Viewer Liaison:
viewer.liaison@itn.co.uk

Write to the editors of The Guardian and The Observer:
Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Roger Alton, Observer editor
Email: roger.alton@observer.co.uk

Simon Kelner, Independent editor
Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk

G10 BIRTHDAY: It's also coming up to a time of celebration with G10 approaching its first month Birthday. Remember that G10 bomber watch camp was launched by Kate Holcombe (now excluded by bail conditions) and Sergeant of the Peace Corps Nick Barry on 2nd March, the day before the B-52's arrived. Follow this link for more details:

http://www.cynatech.demon.co.uk/g10-camp-27mar.htm

And remember - every time one of those B52 bombers leaves BRITISH SOIL its mission is to kill people for the benefit of THE UNITED STATES.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair

Turpitz · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:48 pm Post subject:

Another suggested action is to get the BBC back off the Zionist Rothschilds, who Maggie flogged it too.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

USAF Fairford - Peace Camp Established - page 4