The BBC’s success in taking down Wings Over Scotland’s YouTube channel – and Youtube’s complacent compliance with the BBC instruction – has a very dodgy foundation in law. Excerpts of copyright material may be published for purposes of “criticism, review or quotation” provided the source is acknowledged. As Wings would only use BBC material for review and criticism – they are hardly repeating it as great news reporting – the BBC’s copyright infringement claim is at best very dubious.
More to the point, this despicable infringement on freedom of speech is appalling behaviour for a state broadcaster. Removal of criticism is the BBC’s only purpose here. The BBC is not protecting a state asset – the old news clips in question have zero commercial value; Wings was not republishing episodes of Dr Who.
Not content with constant anti-Scottish output, the BBC is extending its reach to anti-Scottish censorship.
If you have not yet seen it, I do urge you to watch this eye-opening, indeed breathtaking, documentary on the BBC’s fake news output in the Scottish referendum campaign. The strange colour toning in the BBC excerpts were in fact an additional defence against a copyright claim. Watch it now in case the BBC and YouTube take this one down too.
Recent democratic elections have produced a government in Westminster, a rejection of Scottish independence, and an acceptance of Brexit.
Accusations of rigged elections in the UK are now as regular as in countries elsewhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were, but I don’t care how hard people try to bend the citizens will to their side. All sides are up to it, it’s normal, it’s electioneering, it’s a zero sum game, the ballot box really does decide.
What this article perpetuates, is a false assurance to those who believe in democracy, that it is the be all and end all of civilisation……what tosh……what needs to be pointed out is that democracy has a shit deal for some, because somebody always loses the vote…..and guess what…_
Agreed. It is naive. Sometimes, but only sometimes, it can be tactically sensible to say “we’re going to hold our opponents to their word”, but those who believe in democracy assume it’s always sensible to take that approach, basically because they believe in crap like democracy and free speech and all the rest of it. They are essentially a subset of the sheeple. Perhaps deep down they wish to be the “conscience of the sheeple”?
“Conscience of the sheeple”…..love the phrase.
As has been found out, the downcast mob who have been ignored by the liberal elites for too long have kicked out, ‘verree hadd’ at the whole shower of nobs, wether they wear a tartan loincloth or not.
Worry for me is they have kicked out singing right wing battle songs…_
You gloss over two problems with this current ‘democratic’ process. The electorates make a choice based on false promises and there is no comeback when these are exposed as such. Unlike elections, Brexit is irreversible in 4 or 5 years. The second problem is that if winner takes all even if this ‘winner’ is elected by sometimes less than 30% of the voters.
“The electorates make a choice based on false promises” You speak as if the whole electorate is as thick as mince. We’re not.
But what are the electorate to do when all too often it seems the only choice is between Dr. Harold Shipman, or Fred West.
You display an all too common arrogance towards the electorate. How many times does it simply come down to voting for the lesser of two evils…_
No, the electorate are asked a stupid question, making it impossible for them to give an intelligent answer.
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such a thing as a stupid question…_
Yes there are. For instance, the ‘news’ media ask them relentlessly, setting the tone of discussion before people think of more revealing questions, ‘journalists’ fulfilling the letter of their job description but contradicting the spirit of their vocation.
Knowing how best to vote in a Westminster election depends upon knowing how everyone else will vote, and in the many constituencies where that is know there is little point in voting at all. It’s a question asked in a way that distorts how people will answer. The question may not be entirely stupid, but there are far better ways to ask it, such as “please rank your order of preference of these candidates”.
A couple of comments.
1) Anyone who relies on Google (which owns YouTube) to get their message out is a fool. Whingeing afterwards is embarrassing and shows that the lesson hasn’t been learnt. Which perhaps isn’t surprising because people don’t like to admit long-term errors. The best thing that can be said in this context about A&S (advertising and surveillance) companies such as Google and Facebook, all of which are in cahoots with secret state agencies including CIA, NSA and GCHQ, is that c***s will be c***s. Hold the front page! The internet didn’t make us free! It didn’t prove to be a great medium for undermining the ruling elite. Whoever thought it would was naive. I also have to notice that most who use the internet with the purpose in mind of undermining the powers that be are remarkably unimaginative in how they do it. At least half of them seem to be failed journalists who want to show how journalism “should” be done.
2) (From the previous thread). “Finally, the key factor that unites all the three opinion poll charts above – General Election, Brexit and Scottish Indyref – is that opinion swings very fast indeed inside the period of broadcasting restrictions, when broadcasters have to give at least a semblance of fair time to the view which the Establishment generally derides.”
“Factor”? “Generally derides”? So if the “establishment” doesn’t control the Murdoch and Rothermere press, which had been ramping Euroscepticism for decades, who does? The whole way the British brand had been run internally – and like many things the management of the brand is a matter of “private” and “state” “cooperation”, and I hope the reason for those inverted commas is clear – had been Eurosceptic for a long time. I can’t remember a single leading politician referring to the EU as “we”. It’s not like that in France or Germany. “Dave’s deal” was Eurosceptic too.
3) Socking it to politicians? Many thought they were doing that by voting No in the indyref.
4) Some big stimuli are coming. What the responses will be we don’t know, but those who are preparing the stimuli do know. One “banker” bet is that one day – and it could happen at any time – there will be almighty rush on the pound. Traders will borrow it in huge amounts to bring it down, and the British central bank won’t be able to support it even if they mortgage London to Saudi.
i really agree with your first sentence about google / youtube / fool… that ought to be embedded in any thinking persons mind…
Yah good stuff but I didn’t know anyone was whinging about Google’s role in this. Well, not beyond what we all say and think of Google generally. And wingsoverscotland doesn’t rely on Google/YouTube to get his message out — they have a website and they play the twitter game.
Wings is basically a household name as far as political blogs go; it’s in the top 5 in the U.K. or something. I actually think they have a very under-developed YouTube presence and could do much more with it.
That all said, there’s nothing wrong with relying on Google or any of these technologies. If you look into say The Protestant Reformation, you’ll find technology in the form of Gutenberg’s printing press was utilised (relied on) then too. Some people say that’s why they had success where other attempts at reform failed.
And it’s the same all through history with new technologies like radio, film, TV, etc., etc. And, naturally, we can guess that ‘the powers that be’ did everything possible to deny reformers and others access to technology for obvious reasons. Nobody is surprised by any of that.
In the English / British government, though, you really have a culture of manipulating elections and political outcomes that goes back centuries. If it wasn’t for the BBC propagandising on the government’s behalf, even the thick bastards of the world would see through the whole scam.
That’s the big problem they have right now and technology is playing a huge part in it, I’d say — nobody trusts anything they say. Complaining to YouTube in order to shut down Wings is shameful desperation. And it won’t help, it’ll just make people more determined, more clear in their minds, and it’ll blowback in their faces like everything else they do.
Whingeing four years after the event is sad. Politics is dirty. You want to win? Then play dirty.
No need to play dirty. You play your cards as dealt to you, enjoy the arguments, and be honourable.
If you win the mob, don’t betray them is my warning…_
Who’s ‘whingeing’? And what about? Please provide an example of ‘whingeing’?
Crappy conspiracy documentary to suit crappy conspiracy website. Craig’s clickbait.
Crappy comment, Mark, given you don’t give specifics of where you feel the documentary is “crappy”. What does your ‘B’ stand for – Bereft? ?
“<Craig’s clickbait”
And yet you clicked, AND read the story, AND viewed the video, AND typed in your commenter name of ‘Mark B’, AND typed in your email-address, AND typed in “Crappy conspiracy documentary to suit crappy conspiracy website. Craig’s clickbait.”
More like Click-Gourmet-Dinner, I suspect.
I bet you’re even continuing to monitor this site, to see if you get any responses – aren’t you, Mark B?
Mark B the Bullshitter – If you actually watched the documentary and came to that feeble and rather infantile conclusion, then you really are the dumbest of the dumb. It was actually fully researched, but of course, truth makes you squirm, doesn’t it? Seen your kind before, like an open book, and as lazy and prejudiced as they come.
This is a very good documentary actually, unlike those now produced by Newsnight which is pure propaganda. In it Craig highlights how it points out how the BBC bias is now exposed for what it is, not just on the Scottish Referendum but in its leading role as a cheerleader for the neoliberal agenda. This is so noticeable in the cases of reporting on Syria, Russia and Corbyn. There is no longer even any attempt at hiding bias and thier answer to complaints of bias are pathetic.
A most illuminating documentary about bias at the BBC.
My perception is that it is right, although I have been suspicious for a long while about how in concert and disproportionate the chorus of conservative voices is when it comes to discussing matters threatening the status quo. And it is peculiar that the BBC insists on airing in its news programs the views of so-called independent think tanks (like the Andrew Jackson society)* or so-called grass roots voices (like the TaxPayers alliance)** when little evidence of their actual independence or evidence of their grass roots basis is provided. It is also telling that the critical voices you allow to vent on the blog seem to have been particularly vocal, clearly they are upset that you express yourself so clearly, non of them actually denying that what you say has substance.
*see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
and : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
and : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
“In addition to his legal and political career, Jackson prospered as planter, slave owner, and merchant. He built a home and the first general store in Gallatin, Tennessee, in 1803. The next year, he acquired the Hermitage, a 640-acre (259 ha) plantation in Davidson County, near Nashville. He later added 360 acres (146 ha) to the plantation, which eventually totaled 1,050 acres (425 ha). The primary crop was cotton, grown by slaves—Jackson began with nine, owned as many as 44 by 1820, and later up to 150, placing him among the planter elite. Jackson also co-owned with his son Andrew Jackson Jr. the Halcyon plantation in Coahoma County, Mississippi, which housed 51 slaves at the time of his death. Throughout his lifetime Jackson may have owned as many as 300 slaves.
** see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance
“John Prescott, former UK Deputy Prime Minister, stated that the Charity Commission’s announcement of an investigation showed the Taxpayers’ Alliance was “exploiting the taxpayer rather than protecting their interests as they claim to do”. He also wrote to Dame Suzi Leather, the Commission’s chairwoman, requesting that the Alliance’s charitable status be immediately suspended; he has in the past called the Alliance “a Conservative Party front”.
Updte from Wings.. Truley Sinister stuff going on here –
” So what we only suspected is now official. In a response to The National, the BBC have confirmed that they were behind the termination of this site’s YouTube channel.
We have to admit, that “irrespective of the political views” line is a classic.
All joking aside though, we must confess to a modicum of shock. Despite everything, we still at least partly thought there was a chance that it was down to some malicious impersonator, but the state broadcaster has now publicly acknowledged that it demanded the removal of some short clips of news and current-affairs programmes, published in full accordance with the fair-use exemptions of copyright law, and all of which identified the sources of the clips used.
When YouTube have stopped making quite such a gigantic pig’s breakfast of all the technical aspects of the termination, we will of course be filing formal counter-notices for all the allegedly offending items. YouTube’s normal procedure in such cases is to reinstate the videos, having provided the complainant with the necessary details to bring a court case should they decide to do so.
So either our channel will be back online soon, or YouTube will be making a special exception to its own rules in order to suppress a political voice at the behest of a supposedly impartial media behemoth, or the BBC will be taking a website to court for reporting the news.
Either way, this could be about to get very interesting.
[EDIT 9.18pm: We just received a response from YouTube to our latest counter-notice, which listed the 60 most recent videos posted on the Wings channel. According to YT the BBC had only objected to ONE of those, and after some effort we managed to identify which one it was. It was the first one from this article.
Which is to say, it was an interview WITH ME from Sunday Politics Scotland. The BBC has had YouTube shut down my entire channel for supposedly infringing its copyright by posting a video of myself. This story gets madder and madder.]
Regards the bbc protest it’s on for me..I shall be there.. Maybe I’ll get a Syrian Flag for that one.
Of course the BBC is biased, it’s the state propaganda machine, and it feed propaganda to the masses in line with the biases of those who control it. But I think we’re in a mess more generally with the media and democracy… and it’s going to get worse as the population of the UK is aging, the ratio of old to young increases…
ONS: The growth in [UK] population size is partly because the population is ageing. The percentage of the population that is 65 years or older is growing. It increased between 1975 and 2015, from 14.1% of the population to 17.8%. It is projected to continue to grow to nearly a quarter of the population by 2045
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017
The older people are, the more time they seem to spend watching or listening to mainstream media (like the BBC), particularly if they no longer work and have more spare time on their hands.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269918/daily-tv-viewing-time-in-the-uk-by-age/
I think it’s an enormous problem for the young, an enormous problem of their representation in the UK’s democracy.
It’s not a problem, it’s a solution. Basically, as you point out, society has a disproportionate number of old people right now. They won’t live forever though. As they expire, the balance of old to young will tip in favour of those who do not rely on the TV, the BBC, newspapers, and traditional information sources.
What sources do you rely upon?
I don’t see that many younger people producing quality alternatives.
Can you direct me to some of their work.
Original like, not derivative of older peoples work.
It isn’t an age issue per se. The important thing isn’t age, it’s the question of where people get their news and information from.
Right now with society having so many old people that see the internet as evil sorcery, the traditional news channels (which generally tow the establishment line) have good leverage but as those older people drop off they will lose a lot of leverage.
Try going up to a guy who depends on the Daily Mail and TV news for information and asking what he thinks of Syria or the Palestinian problem. GIGO
Ask someone who gets their news online the same things and you’ll probably get a much more balanced response.
“The important thing isn’t age, it’s the question of where people get their news and information from.”
Right.
So can you point me to these alternatives.
I’m questioning your assumptions, you see.
Be nice to have something concrete to work with rather than blather.
Most of the people I know, of my age, are way way ahead of the young zombies bumping into people as they text their frivolities walking down the street.
Of course, I can provide a million alternatives. More common ones are this website, Wingsoverscotland, Russia Today, infowars, btselem, buzz feed, the canary, etc., etc.
You shouldn’t disregard the power of social media itself though for sharing information, links, generating conversations, etc.
As for your quest to justify attacks on young zombies, I don’t know what age you are but I repeat, it isn’t an age thing.
If I were to generalise, based on personal experience, I’d say most people over the age of 65 think they know everything and have the most rancid views imaginable on race, the role of women, politics generally, foreign policy, and history, amongst other things. They’re basically neanderthals.
I could write without end about my problems with the older generations. Over 65 year old men in particular seem to be the most hate-filled of all, and the most dangerous. These are the people who vote Tory and drool when cruel new plans to torture the poor or bomb Arabs are unveiled — the polls shoot up accordingly.
The strange thing is they are as a matter of fact the most pampered generation in British history. They had everything handed to them on a plate, jobs, houses, pensions, you name it.
If I was to generalise, then, I’d say I despise them as a collective, but I’m not so keen on generalising like that. That said, I’d much rather be stuck in a lift with one of those people you call zombies.
Hatuey
July 30, 2018 at 12:02
“Right now with society having so many old people that see the internet as evil sorcery,”
Ha Ha Yes we older people created the internet not as evil sorcery but sorcery to manipulate
people like you. Because your static and gathers dust.
@Hatuey
I see no solution there, sorry. The Aging demographics of the UK is just a problem that will keep getting worse right up until 2045 according to the ONS projections I linked to. If you think the establishment won’t also have increasingly better control of the internet by then, leveraging these aging voter demographics to continually pass new laws, then I think your probably not thinking things right through.
“Of course the BBC is biased, it’s the state propaganda machine, and it feeds propaganda to the masses in line with the biases of those who control it.”
Yes. This is fundamental. It’s the premise to all discussion of the matter. So obvious.
“But I think we’re in a mess more generally with the media and democracy… and it’s going to get worse as the population of the UK is aging, the ratio of old to young increases”
Older people tend to transcend early conditioning, and eventually all conditioning.
Been through most of life’s stages, you see.
Have perspective on the whole thing. The whole gig.
It’s the yoof’s the problem.
Especially those raised not by extended family, but by corporate media.
And mass porn.
It’s an attack upon the fundamental organising principle of humanity, and the yoofs will witlessly see it through because they’re culturally divorced from the ancien regime, their parents, uncles, aunts and family elders, and instead see the state and corporatism as their organising principle.
Yeah sure, they think they’re free.
Ryanair, Ibiza, wherever.
Hedonistic time of their lives. And the moment is all that matters.
Not the best peeps to be asking about long-term political stuff.
Is what I’d say.
a recent gallup poll shows only 32% of americans trust msm. levels of trust are lowest among the elderly…and the young.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
I don’t know what the label ‘yoof’ is, sorry…
Media/social media has changed fast. People who are old now may listen to TV and radio because they grew up with it and haven’t got used to other methods, people getting old in the future may be less trusting (if older people actually are trusting not throwing things at the screen) or have more sources.
And your “other methods” are what.
Go on, surprise me.
All these young people blowing away the msm.
Where?
silly comment Herbie I must say. My mother would listen to TV and radio and never got used to anything online. I am not that young but I am used to it. Lots of other people the same. You get more used to looking around, checking your sources, who said what and how reliable do they seem. Same with non political, it’s a big change from my youth when I’d have to go to libraries and print out scientific papers for research and now with looking everything up online. But not everyone in their 80s and above have got used to it. So, not surprising they seem in surveys to use older methods more. You can’t assume that what people over 80 do now, is what people over 80 will do in 10 or 20 years time, different background.
Ahh well. You’re upping it to 80s now.
I was thinking more 60s kinda thing.
Our host is nearly 60, and he’s been blowing the arse out from under msm for quite some time now.
I don’t see any young people doing that, you see.
I think your’re wrong and that it’s older people who shall lead the way. People in their 60s today, straddle two worlds, mixed economy to neoliberalism, and three generations of human life. Loads of perspective in there.
When they’re gone there’s nothing on the horizon to replace them.
None that you can point to, anyway.
what did I say that you think is wrong? You are making up what I said and reacting to your invented version. Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough. I was only responding to whoever said that surveys have shown that older people watch more TV , and I only mean to say that if this is so, it will not necessarily last. That’s all.
Herbie, here is one such young person – Caitlin Johnstone. One of her recent articles – Be Suspicious Of Everyone Who Habitually Defends The Powerful From The Weak.
She certainly challenges the status quo and is worth a read. I can’t for some reason post the actual link!
Max_B, your comments about older people are extremely disparaging. I am 69 and take everything that is reported by the BBC with a pinch of salt as do most of the people I know and who are retired. The biggest problem is the apathy of the electorate because they simply do not trust politicians of any hue and don’t vote. The reason that Brexit happened is because too many people thought it was a foregone conclusion that we’d stay in and also too many 18-30 voters simply did not bother, despite the fact that it was their future that would be affected.
Which side did the “popular” press support? Which side did Murdoch’s rags get on, together with the Express, Mail and so on?
It’s a very rare election/ referendum indeed, where the side backed by the mass press didn’t just happen to win.
@AlexHillier
The statistics I linked to speak for themselves. If you think you are clever enough to see through mass media propaganda, you are mistaken. One can’t watch or listen to the BBC without being affected by it. Even those who write it become affected by their own propaganda. I won’t bother commenting on your ‘biggest problem…’, theory and reasons…
Oops..
The W.O.S Update link –
https://wingsoverscotland.com/big-auntie-is-watching-you-update/#more-105083
Knew some of this content , but the depth of deceit is astounding .
It’s beyond me why anyone watches or listens to the BBC.
You would only have to watch these two examples, ‘London Calling’ and the fakery in the Panorama doco ‘Saving Syria’s Children’
(https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/ ) to realise that you can’t believe a word they say.
Robyn
You have to hear and watch the BBC, read the Guardian, even the Times and the Mail, and gag, in order to know the depth that has befallen the MSM and you have to know the enemy to fight them.
Sad to say, I know people who consume the MSM so I get their ‘news’ secondhand. To balance that, there are various web sites and blogs (eg Craig’s blog, Off-Guardian, fair.org – there’s a long list) who critique the disinformation. Still plenty to gag at, but there’s a certain satisfaction in boycotting the liars.
I had a dream. Party leaders arranged to meet at Chequers to discuss Brexit. Given the importance of Brexit and its implications, they tell us it’s best for everybody that the leaders cooperate with one another rather than fight. A united front. Even the SNP was invited.
It’s all for the cameras. Through secret back channels agreement had already been reached. They intend to form a national coalition government, proportionally representative of all parties, and postpone Brexit. There’s going to be another referendum and the coalition government will guarantee that the decision will be final and honoured.
This sort of thing has cropped up before.
None of the big parties campaigned for Brexit before and they won’t do it this time; that job will be left to UKIP and a few rebels.
What’s important here is that no single party will expose itself to a backlash and go down as the party that scuppered Brexit. They’ll share the blame.
And they all lived happily ever after.
“There’s going to be another referendum and the coalition government will guarantee that the decision will be final and honoured.”
Provided you stupid bastards vote remain this time. Wet dream I think.
It is a very good dream Hatuey. I have always maintained that as Brexit affects us all, that it should be a non-partisan non-party endeavour, not just left for a handful of petulant Tory wreckers. Now it seems that it is only TM that will be determining the fate of the nation, and they say that Putin is acting as a Czar.
Absolutely, Hatuey. However, I have been convinced from the start that Brexit is being orchestrated from outside the UK, with the precise aim of disrupting, dividing and weakening the country. Hence how even the half-hearted attempts at compromise are quickly crushed.
But let’s hope we get the kind of leadership you’re suggesting in the end.
I agree but I’d guess the goal was to weaken the EU rather than the UK. I also think there are a lot of people, currently forced to do their “business” in places like Turkey, Greece, and the Bahamas, who quite the prospect of having a laundry closer to home.
There’s no doubt it was funded by elite none-state actors, globalists.
The EU wasn’t an “issue” I heard a word about before. But I avoid red top readers. They say they don’t take them seriously etc, but that’s kind of the point. & the internet has made it WORSE. Pushing buttons, it’s annoying because I generally like people but I avoid that conversation, young peoples future & the wrecking ball.
& no matter what their is going to be trouble, hidden behind nationalism.
I may have to live with it, but I don’t own it. Im ‘literally a communist’ anyway really, organising human life on “free market” principals is just absurd. & dangerous. & id like to see more democratic input than a vote for “leaders”.It just doesn’t & arguably shouln’t work like that.
It only “works” with the communism of natural human relations & capacities anyway. Pass me the hammer?, -how much? ….it’s just absurd.
Id like to see an army run ON capitalist principals though (not for) .Yes Sir, that’ll be £10.50 sir. ..It seems about making them NOT calculate the value of their life, with religion. ?
Boat with medical supplies trying to break Gaza blockade seized by Israeli navy
29 Jul 2018
‘A vessel belonging to the Freedom Flotilla activist group was “hijacked” by Israeli forces after having been “threatened” via radio, the group said on Sunday. The boat was en route to Gaza with 22 people from 16 nations on board and carrying a cargo of €13,000 ($15,000) worth of medical supplies. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed the interception of the vessel, saying it violated the blockade of Gaza. The IDF added that the boat is now being towed to the port of Ashdod and all the supplies can only be delivered through it.’
https://www.rt.com/newsline/434584-israeil-seizes-boat-gaza/
‘Israeli Defence Forces’ Ha!
I do wish the BBC Sound Archives and Back Catalogue would be transferred to The British Library who could then rent them out and generate an income. The BBC could then be turned into an encrypted service selling Code Cards in newsagents and have its radio stations focus on reporting LOCAL matters and cut adrift from BBC centralism.
The whole institution is like the Medieval Church
The sad thing is that the BBC is capable of producing some excellent documentaries and programmes in most fields other than politics. It is a shame. Some of thier nature programmes are really excellent and the BBC proms is an amazing festival that is broadcast live on radio and sometimes on TV. If they could only stick to this. Maybe the license fee should be used to only subsidise these programmes and the current affairs contribution should be optional.
The IEA – the Institute of Economic Affairs. Their director Mark Littlewood was replying in an aggressive manner on Radio 4 this morning when he was being interviewed on the IEA offering access to UK ministers to US donors in return for cash. In particular, production of hormone reared beef and chlorine washed chicken was mentioned. He sees nothing wrong.
Rightwing UK thinktank ‘offered ministerial access’ to potential US donors
Exclusive: Institute of Economic Affairs boss tells undercover reporter it is in ‘Brexit-influencing game’
Sun 29 Jul 2018
‘Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.
The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank and that its findings would always support the argument for free-trade deals.
This could hugely benefit US farmers by lifting the ban on the sale in the UK of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and chlorine-washed chicken.
Speaking about what kind of Westminster access the IEA could provide donors with, Littlewood told the investigator: “I have absolutely no problem with people who have business interests, us facilitating those.”’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit
Also for reference, this refers to the new UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, and his connection to Neil Record of the IEA.
The New Tory Health Secretary Matt Hancock is funded by rabid NHS privatisation lobbyists
10th July 2018
https://evolvepolitics.com/the-new-tory-health-secretary-matt-hancock-is-funded-by-rabid-nhs-privatisation-lobbyists/
I note from Sputnik that John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, well expatiates on the progressive collapse of Parliamentary authority.
If you are about to have Independence thrust upon you I hope you are ready.
#FreedomFlotilla boat carrying medical supplies for #Gaza hijacked by Israeli forces
July 29, 2018
https://jfp.freedomflotilla.org/news/freedomflotilla-boat-carrying-medical-supplies-for-gaza-hijacked-by-israeli-forces
The BBC action will only increase interest in the already influential Wings site. Will only make people even more willing to contribute to the site’s fundraisers. For Scotland Britishness increasingly means colonial subjection, asset stripping and censorship. The BBC supplies the last and helps out Westminster in propagandising for them about the other two.
In other news a Welshman won the Tour De France! That’s right a Welshman, not a Briton. Geraint Thomas proudly held up the Y Ddraig Goch and no other flag on the podium in Paris.
The British era is ending and no amount of BBC censorship will delay it.
Dawn Sturgess’s funeral takes place today. She is being cremated. RIP.
Charlie Rowley – Rowley: ‘I just can’t process what happened’
https://news.sky.com/video/rowley-i-just-cant-process-what-happened-11453521
I looked at this earlier on the Wings Over Scotland site and saw the article and the BBC response to The National running this as a story. There are, as you’d imagine a few holes in the BBC response to the journalist’s questions…
In reference to that response – “Whenever we receive complaints…” it said, “about large volumes” it said, “of our materials being used”
So, they allege they are acting a complaint from, as it says “receive”, I assume they mean from ‘outwith’ the organisation. I’m not even going to assume it was a member of the public.
Second point first, IS 60 clips a “large volume”? (This is the ‘Wings’ count on the BBC clips they’ve linked to) I’m not really sure whether it is or whether it is, as Wings says “some” clips. Neither descriptor is quantative and how much is TOO MUCH for the BBC (following a complaint, obviously)
Well, I know that TWENTY is definitely okay and I know that because there is a YouTube channel called ‘Politics UK’ who have nineteen clips of PMQs from the BBC ranging from 13 mins approx. down to 4 mins approx. and ONE other clip showing Parliament which comes from BBC broadcasting. (Please note, I have only checked their playlists and three of their videos, there may be a LOT more and they may have had some of it removed [who knows!] but they certainly HAVEN’T been shut down, have they?)
So perhaps twenty or so is okay, but sixty isn’t?
On the subject of content, he is Pro-Brexit, Pro-Tory, Anti Left-Wing. But I’m sure the BBC and their mystery complainant will get round to him at some point (well, as soon as he says something they don’t want us to hear, they will)
However, to bring some balance to my scribblings, this YouTuber DOES make ONE interesting point on the subject of copyright and fair use etc. In one video he states he HAS had issues but, rather obviously, blames them on the EU.
If you care to hear what he says on the subject (it’s ‘Article 13’ he’s talking about) then use the link https://youtu.be/a_kvyx5D0q4 or go to his channel ‘Politics UK’ for the video 16th June 2018 entitled “The EU are trying to ban my YouTube channel” his name is Steven Edginton. Please note, this Youtuber is a schoolboy, he references doing his A Levels, there is time yet for him to change his views, be kind, he’s too young to know what he’s saying.
So, in reality, the above channel can put on whatever BBC content it likes, along with ITN content and Sky content. Not a problem. But it’s NOT okay for Wings and the other channel targeted. Although ‘targeted’ may be an unfair word, unfair as the BBC didn’t just decide to do this on their own, did they?? No, of course they didn’t, as per the quote given to ‘The National’ it was due to a specific complaint “received” by them.
“Received” is an interesting word, isn’t it? You’d think that meant from a member of the license-paying public through normal channels, perhaps a letter or one of the standard forms on their website? Where is the section on the website to complain about this?? I have, in the recent past made a BBC complaint, so I know there is no such section. Not to say it can’t be done though (although we know it wasn’t) This complaint is political, either from outside the BBC by someone with a direct line, or from within the organisation from someone who can ‘make a complaint’ and have it acted upon ie the DG or someone with considerable clout. Either way, just as political, just as smelly, just as oppressive.
Bottom line, OTHER CHANNELS are being allowed to use the content, why not Wings? (I know the REAL reason, but how are they going to TRY to make it sound genuine??)
I do hope he takes this further. They state it is the amount, when it clearly isn’t. They state it is not targeted, when it clearly IS. They state that they are acting upon a “complaint received” when I never even knew that you could complain about such a thing.
They then MADE the complaint in such a way as to get the channel closed. They are not naïve about this, they are a State Broadcaster, they set out, knowingly, to close the channel and stifle debate.
And, as it turns out, the video they DID complain about (wait, it was only ONE video? Should YouTube not ask this be taken down, isn’t there a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule? More questions to answer, may YouTube is being overly acquiescent in light of it’s recent failings) was the one where he is the one being interviewed!!
The plot thickens!! So, going by what I have read of it (sorry, I missed the interview – don’t suppose I’ll be seeing it anytime soon either!) he (Stuart Campbell of Wings) gave a good account of himself at the interview. To the extent to which that it may have upset the apple cart at the BBC. So, directly after he gives a good interview where, perhaps some may feel, the ‘other side’ of the debate and/or the BBC itself were left looking and feeling moreover, foolish – they go to YouTube to get his channel closed.
The full might of The British Broadcasting Corporation Versus a lone blogger, with able assistance from an unusually co-operative multinational media company to help finish the job.
There is no other word for this, it IS oppression. The aim to stifle free speech. I’ve read about this in other countries for YEARS. Despite my dislike and distrust for the BBC I did NOT expect this.
Should I stop using the word ‘government’ and start using the word ‘regime’ like the BBC does when it wants you to know that you are to think that the country in question is our enemy and bad?? So be it…
Developments suggest you are correct and there was a lawyer involved. Acting on behalf of who? We will probably never know.
The BBC vs Scottish Independence is one small example of a much greater problem.
Mainstream media has abandoned any pretense of objectivity on any matter. See how they report on Brexit, Donald Trump, Victor Orban, the Ukraine, refugees/migrants, the Polish government, Tommy Robinson, the EU, Hillary Clinton, Russia, Novichok, Israel/Palestine – basically just about everything.
Support the neo-liberal agenda or you are a racist/sexist/xenophobe. No facts, no evidence, no nuance. All this at a time when the economic well being of vast swathes of the population is under un-remitting pressure. This leads people like Martin Armstrong to pose the question as to whether CNN is seeking to provoke a civil war in the US.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/is-cnn-creating-a-civil-war/
…and it is not just the mainstream media – it is everywhere. Just look at this blog, a blog authored by a former Ambassador. Presumably someone who is trained in diplomacy and nuance – and then recall the bile and invective that has been spewed toward Spain because of Spanish efforts to deal with Catalonia. Here we have a region of the pure, and the noble and the good cowering under their beds while Spanish Nazi’s prepare to exterminate them. Who could believe such garbage? and who could write such garbage and then dare to complain when the same tactics are used against a cause closer to their hearts?
It would behove people to recall that in Rwanda RTLM played a key role in inculcating hate into people and that this inculcation of hate was a necessary prerequisite for the genocidal killings that were to come. The western world seems very keen to follow the same path. Ask why, if you dare.
An interesting comparison for the depths of British ‘censorship’ from Ireland 100 years ago and today’s weekly erosion of Scottish identity perhaps?
_______________
”Gaelic Sunday: When the GAA took on the British empire.
It’s 100 years since one of the most unified acts of defiance in the face of British rule.
The association had just delivered an organisational triumph by staging a nationwide programme of games – ‘Gaelic Sunday’ they billed it – in protest against what the writer described as an ‘unjust ban’ that had been placed upon them by the British administration in Ireland.
The disruption to Gaelic games was widespread. In Banagher, Co. Offaly, baton-charging police rushed a field to halt a match that had started without their say so. In Dublin’s Phoenix Park, nine young boys were picked up by a military wagon and removed to the Bridewell where they were held for five hours before release. Their offence, the Manchester Guardian reported, was failing to ‘go to a policeman and ask leave to kick a football’. The Camogie Association described the stoppages at their games as ‘just a petty piece of the absolute tyranny exercised over the whole country just now’.
It wasn’t just low-level sporting activity that was targeted.
On July 8th, the Ulster senior football semi-final fixture between Cavan and Armagh at Cootehill was abandoned when armed police and soldiers intervened with 3,000 spectators already gathered and the two teams in the dressing-rooms set to start.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-sunday-when-the-gaa-took-on-the-british-empire-1.3579894
______________
Has anything changed regarding the depths unionists will sink to 100 years later, to keep you Scots in your place (out of the EU, shat on at Westminster)?
If I was a Scottish activist seeking independence I would utilize every opportunity to show the greatness of Scottish culture against the heavy handedness of British Unionism. Have an annual Scottish Independence day march. On the 12th of July. Only one side will come out looking respectable. Only one side will gain widespread support from fair minded, decent folk.
Alternatively Indy supporters can continue the route they seem set on right now to go quietly into the night, scared shit-less of offending, agitating, confronting the opposition on what ever terms needed. Modern day kilts must come with underpants sown in these days, eh? A nation castrated?
Ireland gained its independence by giving two fingers to British constitutional probity. Still had one of its four green fields carved off in the most shamelessly undemocratic fashion imaginable. But that’s British constitutional probity for ya.
Strictly speaking YouTube is not at fault here. Their policy of accepting every copyright claim as valid, then re-instating the material upon appeal, is the most sensible response to current copyright law. It means they are acting as honest brokers.
Fair use does not prevent a copyright owner from making a valid claim that someone has infringed their copyright. Fair use is only part of what might be presented in court and other factors might weigh in favour of the pursuer, especially where some kind of misrepresentation has taken place.
For example, whilst WOS might argue that their use of BBC material is fair use, the BBC may argue that defamation trumps fair use, at which point the matter might become a little more complex.
(PS – I’m not a lawyer, but I did study copyright law about ten years ago and maintain a strong interest in the matter.)
Yip. I think we all assumed there’d be a complaint behind it.
The fact that the BBC played a part in facilitating the 1953 Iranian coup should tell you all you need to know about it. The BBC World Service broadcast the very code word that was to spark revolution. They agreed to begin the Persian language news broadcast with “it is now exactly midnight” instead of the usual “it is now midnight in London”. The BBC meddling in Iran continues.
Britain, the BBC and their war on Iran https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/02/24/britain-the-bbc-and-their-war-on-iran-2/
The idea for the coup originated in the UK before being taken up by the United States.
@ Unionised,
You said:-
‘Alternatively Indy supporters can continue the route they seem set on right now to go quietly into the night, scared shit-less of offending, agitating, confronting the opposition on what ever terms needed. Modern day kilts must come with underpants sown in these days, eh? A nation castrated?’
Like every other Yoon, you wait and deliver the snide dismissal against the Independence cause; you just can’t help it, you people, can you? And I can assure you we have no intention of going quietly into the night. One could forgiven thinking that you are not quite up to speed with things, given that comment.
Get real, will you? Your precious Union is already fractured; it’s just a matter of time before it all falls apart. And, personally, I can wait!
Who said this just after the Nazis came to power?
“I am pretty certain … that the Nazis will clean things up and put Germany on the way to being a real power in Europe again. They are being ruthless and most determined.”
And this just after the infamous ‘Night of the Long Knives’ massacre in 1934:
“I really admire the way Hitler has cleaned up what looked like an incipient revolt. I really admire the drastic actions taken, which were obviously badly needed.”
And this just following the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939:
“Hitler continues his magnificent efficiency.”
Answer: Lord Reith, original head of the BBC. According to his daughter, he did everything he could to ensure that the BBC did not broadcast anti-appeasement opinions.
Craig,
Interesting video, and the Beeb – judged by its news website (I don’t listen or watch anymore) – has since quite a while ago become a parody of itself: totally divorced from impartiality, fact or reality. And a rather pathetic state propaganda tool…
However, the fat bird in the first few seconds going on about SAVILLE is retailing fake news. He might have been a creepy, a slimeball, etc. but I challenge you to show any actual evidence that he was a kiddie fiddler. I think you will find lots of allegations, some reports, all at great public expense, that fail to produce any actual evidence. But the solicitors made a nice windfall, at the expense of the charitable trust that he left.
You might recall the late (great) Anna Raccoon – she did a lot of investigative work on this and her site has been archived, you can go look for chapter and verse.
My point being: if you include falsehoods in the narrative then the whole becomes suspect.
(Great blog though)
The BBC’s forcing of this documentary off the Wings/Youtube channel on the dishonest basis of a bogus copyright claim is even worse than the disgraceful journalism of which it has been guilty. I am embarrassed to be English. Terrifying.
I think this just a specific example of how extension and enforcement of copyright on the web is a major threat to freedom. We escaped by the skin of our teeth from the new EU directive last month, but the commission will be back next with probably with something nearly as bad, but I think most of the British parties including SNP backed this terrible package despite its oppressive content, and despite widespread protest not covered in the mainstream media.
The British Brainwashing Corporation becomes more detached from reality every day.
Pity the useful fools that swallow it up.
“Richard Dido July 30, 2018 at 10:39
Who’s ‘whingeing’? And what about? Please provide an example of ‘whingeing’?”
Here you go….
https://wingsoverscotland.com/when-circumstances-change/
Here you will find loads of people whinging about the outcome of the “rigged” referendum in 2014.
Go back further and you will see a trend…. https://wingsoverscotland.com/frigging-around-the-rigging/