Who was the typical attendee? Here are some pictures of the crowd and their banners. Note the preponderance of “Free Palestine” signs. (And the ones saying, “Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!”) However the BBC quotes an ex-soldier and a lady from CND.
(Via Rottweiler Puppy – read his comments – and House of Dumb)
UPDATE: Following Rottweiler Puppy’s links, I see that the BBC ran not one but two picture-series illustrating the demo. (I don’t remember them doing that for the ten times bigger Countryside Alliance march.) This series of ten pictures consists of: (1) Side view of the crowd, (2) Man with lots of badges, (3) Lady with sign saying “Make Tea not War”, (4) Crowd shot from front, centred on a Trade Union banner, (5) Two ex-soldiers carrying symbolic model coffin – note the caption states as bald fact that 100,000 people have been killed by the war, a highly controversial claim, (6) Peace choir, (7) Coffin guys again, (8) Hippy with quirky sign, (9) “Women say no to war” sign carried, not surprisingly, by women, and finally (10) a shot from the speech platform where Messrs Benn and Galloway graced the multitudes.
This series of eight pictures shows (1) Mum & kid, (2) guy with sign saying “End occupation now”, (3) old lady, (4) the “make tea, not war” lady again, (5) gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, (6) family with dog, (7) a young Asian girl in Western dress, bareheaded, (8) Andrew Murray of the Stop The War Coalition. (And of the British Communist Party; not that you’d get any hint of that from the BBC.)
A splendid collection of lovable British eccentrics, eh? The BBC quotes a mother of two daughters who says their father is out there and who thinks it is nice that her girls can be around “people who care.” The Guardian says that, ‘Protesters sang: “George Bush, Uncle Sam, Iraq will be your Vietnam.”‘ Caringly, no doubt, but it is odd what a different tone the Guardian takes talking to the faithful compared to the BBC talking to a general audience.
Notably absent are crowd shots taken from such a distance that you can read a wide selection of banners, though picture (4) does show one “Free Palestine”. Compare them again to the pictures linked to earlier. I am told, though I do not know this from my own knowledge, that the green flags with Arabic writing are Hamas flags.
The BBC, somewhat defensively, mentions that the placards carried by the protesters were pre-printed. I must say at once that I recall from my own days attending CND and Anti-Nazi League marches that the distribution of banners may not accurately represent the distribution of opinion. That said, the banners do represent the people that the marchers are willing to be seen with.
All but one of these eighteen pictures focused on white people. Other reports of the march suggested that among the crowd there was quite a high percentage of non-white people, overwhelmingly Muslims. Many have enthused about the way Muslims have been brought into politics by this very issue. The Muslim Association of Britain, along with CND and the Stop the War Coalition, was one of the three organisations that organised the march. I fully support the right of people of all races, all religions and all opinions to peacefully demonstrate. But it is striking that the BBC, an organisation that usually goes out of its way to illustrate racial and religious diversity, should under-represent minorities and Muslims in traditional dress in its pictoral record of the demonstration.
The Countryside Alliance had in excess of half a million marchers, but were downplayed by the BBC and left leaning politicians, so its not such a surprise that 45,000 antiwar marchers are massaged in the media to be greater and more important than they actually were. More importantly, is the fact that so many in the BBC were willing to accept the continuation of the Sadam regime knowing its barbarity.
Kind of like Shabina Begum and her extremist brother turning up at court. No mention of him or any questions directed towards him, but let the poor oppressed little 15 year old girl speak because that’s what the case is all about.
What would I know anyway, I’m just a liberal 😉
Charlie,
What is The Countryside Alliance?
Did anyone catch Nick Griffin’s letter to the BBC? Tremendous stuff. http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/chairman2.php?ngId=18
Just had a peek at the BBC’s selection of front pages. Noticed again how they have managed to include “The Morning Star” – a blatantly small read socialist newspaper … up against the other well known broadsheets & tabloids. This is a regular occurance and this is just patent bias. They don’t even prentend to be balanced half the time!
Given the current situation I personally think that anyone who can unequivocally claim that the war was right or wrong is letting their ideology mask reality – it’ll be clearer in a couple of years – however I think it’s wrong to suggest that the BBC is biased for continuing to cover anti war opinion.
We’ve spent billions on the war and suffered the loss of a lot of servicemen yet just under half the country are still against the whole thing, which must be newsworthy. Saturation coverage of a few nutters with nothing better to do than come to London and shout might be overkill but comments on here to the effect that the media should stop banging on about intelligence, civilian deaths, terrorism etc etc are ridiculous.
Cockney, I don’t suggest that the BBC should cease to cover anti-war opinion. I suggest that its coverage soft pedals its more extreme aspects and, for the report on the recent Stop the War marches, represented the marchers as a more broadly based group than was actually the case.
Some time ago Observer journalist Nick Cohen said he was contacted by BBC people angry that stories describing the extreme politics of StWC leaders Murray and German had been spiked by BBC management.
John Bull’s refers to a letter from the leader of the British National Party – a man who was arrested for racial incitement last December. In the earlier thread JB kept attacking the Jews.
Is there any pattern here ? I recommend we ignore JB – he is out to stir up trouble.
>but comments on here to the effect that the media should stop banging on about intelligence, civilian deaths, terrorism etc etc. are ridiculous.
As Natalie says, no-one here thinks these stories aren’t newsworthy. But the BBC and the rest of the leftist media gives far too much coverage to the negative aspects of these stories.
After all, if half the country is against the war (a figure I’m not convinced by), then half the country is in favour. But you rarely get any sense from the BBC why the war was a good idea. It takes a blogger working for free, Arthur Chrenkoff, to inform us.
Meanwhile, terrible things are happening in the rest of the world, which the BBC ignores. For example, Venezuala is removing press freedom, and this has gone entirely unremarked by the BBC, even though the similarly left-leaning Washington Post has reported on it critically.
The BBC, because of the massive funding it receives, is capable of reporting on such matters and bringing them to the attention of the wider world. It really could do some good. But because it thinks Bush is a greater criminal than Castro, it doesn’t do so. It persistently creates the impression that America and captitalism are the real threats to the world.
(The exception is Zimbabwe – even the BBC has finally realized how bad things are there, and has done some good work).
“The exception is Zimbabwe”
Which came first, truly critical reports of the Mugabe regime (rather than Mugabe seeing the BBC as a tool of the “neo-colonialist Blair”) or the BBC’s expulsion from Zimbabwe, thus prompting truly critical reports?
JL.
You may wish to ignore JB. but what cannot be ignored, at least on this blogsite, is the obvious bias of the BBC against the BNF.
I hold no truck for the BNF but they are entitled to their say along with anyone else. That letter of Nick Griffin’s contains much truth about the bias of the BBC and isn’t that the very thing that concerns this particular medium.
Thanks, Thomas, JohninLondon and others are very selective as to which BBC Bias they are concerned about. He and others seem happy with censorship in the case of the BNP, but then call me a “liberal”.
I think people like JohninLondon demonstrate clearly the mindset of those at the BBC. Certain kinds of bias are acceptable depending on your outlook. The word hypocrisy springs to mind.
I just don’t like attacks on the Jewish being dragged in extraneously, as in the earlier thread. Maybe it is a generation thing. The advancing of anti-semitic ideas stank in the 1930s and 1940s, and it still stinks now.
What is The Countryside Alliance?
Denise W
It’s an organisation formed to counter the views of the Polly Toynbees of this world.
I think I’ve seen this flag before…
http://www.trumpetsounds.com/aw013.JPG
I can’t say for sure, but I think I recognize the arabic writing and it says something like ‘Victory to the Islamic Creed’. Does anybody else know?
Hey, is that Charlie Wolf in the crowd?
http://www.trumpetsounds.com/aw014.JPG
Hey, is that Charlie Wolf in the crowd?
http://www.trumpetsounds.com/aw014.JPG
Yes I’ve seen that bunch before; it’s the same bunch of misguided people I saw last year.
The Countryside Alliance is an organisation formed to ensure that the Conservative party never gets elected again by annoying the hell out of the urban and suburban voters who make up the majority of the electorate.
More specifically, the Countryside Alliance is a grouping of organisations brought together to oppose – unsuccessfully so far – the ban on hunting with hounds.
I’m confused Charlie. Are You actually the legendary right wing shock jock Charlie Wolf?
“More specifically, the Countryside Alliance is a grouping of organisations brought together to oppose … the ban on hunting with hounds.”
The original remit of the CA was – and still is – far wider than just foxhunting. See their website for more information. I personally believe they were somewhat hijacked by the pro-hunt lobby, to the extent that a lot of the population now equate them with “toffs who want to kill foxes”, which is clearly untrue.
That’s certainly my view. The Countryside Alliance is an admirable organisation addressing a range of issues which should have public support. Unfortunately they seem to have attracted a load of idiots whose idea of arguing a cause is to splutter spittle flecked nonsense about socialists, revolution and civil disobedience, when they’re not deliberately inconveniencing people on the road and in London.
Hence they end up being just a(nother) reason why the Conservatives are going to get hammered in May and their very worthy causes get pushed firmly to the bottom of the pile.
Annoying the hell out of the urban and suburban voters who make up the majority of the electorate.
More like the other way round I think! The banning of fox hunting will probably bring about a free for all, shooting, gassing, trapping and many more undesirable means to control the fox. Then hell what do I know? The urban and suburban voters who vote are willing to see badgers protected at the expense of cattle on farms which all have to be slaughtered when diagnosed with TB, at the cost of £80,000,000 and rising every year, even though three hundred vets signed a declaration saying the link between badgers and cattle was irrefutable, even though the rise of TB in London is rising at a rate most doctors think is worrying.
But it is ok because the urban and suburban voter as long as it does not affect them, couldn’t give a shit.
There was a huge protest in Taiwan very recently against China’s aggressive actions.
Not much coverage of that protest on the Beeb.
According to Labour MPs:
Slaughtering Foxes = Bad
Slaughtering Ruddy Ducks = Good
MONKEY: “I can’t say for sure, but I think I recognize the arabic writing and it says something like ‘Victory to the Islamic Creed'”
Actually, the Arabic banner simply has the standard Islamic dictum: “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger.”
(The word for “God” here is Allah)
Hello Cockney
Using your own ‘logic’, I think it is true that history will be the judge in Iraq. Therefore both sides of the argument should be covered. Indeed, even the Independent which has been the most vociferous and consistent critic of the war has carried the headline:
Was Bush right after all?
So surely a balanced view would be to give the pros and cons? We have had enough of the cons- remember the Power Of Nightmares:
“This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world……blah, blah,blah”
I would just like to see one little pro – Neocon argument. Surely if the jury is still out on Iraq, then there should be some articles covering the pro?
Point me to one if you can and I might change my view…Can’t say fairer than that can I?
On topics that the BBC agrees with (in this instance the Anti War stance of these Simpletons) there is comprehensive and sympathetic coverage, whereas other topics that the BBC does not agree with (i.e. foxhunting) there is no coverage, or whatever coverage there is it is biased against them.
Indeed, the Editor of the Today Program, Rod Liddle, was sacked by the BBC for impartiality after suggesting that the Countryside Alliance ( who support foxhunting) supporters were:
“the public schools that laid on coaches; the fusty, belch-filled dining rooms of the London clubs that opened their doors, for the first time, to the protesters; the Prince of Wales and, of course, Camilla,” would remind many why they had voted Labour.”
This after Alliance’s march – attracted over 400,000 supporters, the most ever recorded in Britain at that time and received no news coverage on Today the following Monday.
“urban and suburban voters … are willing to see badgers protected at the expense of cattle on farms … even though three hundred vets signed a declaration saying the link between badgers and cattle was irrefutable, even though the rise of TB in London is rising at a rate most doctors think is worrying.”
Charlie,
Please tell me you don’t believe there is a link between rising levels of urban TB and badgers.
Lee,
There have been plenty of pro-hunting reports on my local BBC news programmes. I currently live in a rural, pro-hunting area and the regional reporting has reflected this opinion.
A few years back, I lived in a more urban area. Although the issue was not quite as high profile as it has been in recent months it was still making news. The local reportage in that area was remarkably different – having an overt anti-hunt stance.
So, in my experience – at least as far as foxhunting is concerned – a lot of the coverage depends upon where you live.
“Hey, is that Charlie Wolf in the crowd?”
Although it looks like him I don’t think it is. I met Charlie Wolf and had the pleasure of walking around with him at the Duke of Beaufort Hunt the day after the ban on hunting with dogs came into effect. A crisp, cold winter day and two fingers up to Blair, magnificent! If that was Charlie Wolf he’d be on the ground scrapping with all the nutters around him.
Cockney
” … when they’re not deliberately inconveniencing people on the road and in London.”
You mean exercising their right to protest, yes? How come I’ve never heard you mention the deliberate inconveniencing of people in relation to anti-war protesters?
Lee I completely agree. I have to say my money now is on the war ultimately being a good thing and that the BBC should be and isn’t reflecting both sides of the case. My argument is against those who think the case is already closed which clearly isn’t true.
Re: Countryside Alliance, as I said my opinion is that as an organisation they do an excellent job. Re: inconveniencing people I meant the go slows on the motorways ,scrapping with the police and the generally belligerent attitude which I encountered towards ‘townies’ trying to meet their mates for a pint.
I can categorically state that I’m equally fed up with anti war protesters if that makes you happy. One can hardly get around London at the weekend these days without some gaggle of cretins getting in your way. What happened to voting for a party pledging to deal with your concerns in a democratic election?
Cockney, you’re sounding very reasonable and sensible today – have you been wearing your right-wing personal responsibility hat again? 😉
It quite suits you, you know!
I recommend that everbody read this enlightening article about the Respect Coalition:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=590
Hello Cockney
Glad to hear that we both agree that History will be the judge of whether the intervention in Iraq was good or not.
Unfortunately, in terms of who we vote for, we have to make our minds up pretty soon (election coming and all) and we had to decide a couple of years ago whether we were in favour or not.
In the context of impartiality of the BBC, which is after all the theme of this website, I have only seen ‘The power of Nightmares’, ‘The War Party’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3021001.stm
“They brought us war against Iraq – what do the hawks in Washington have in store for us now?
Panorama investigates the “neo-conservatives”, the small and unelected group of right-wingers, who critics claim have hijacked the White House. ”
From the Power of Nightmares:
“This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists.”
Transcript available at:
http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmares1.html
All I would say to you is, and I admit that I do not watch the BBC, largely because I find it to be ignorant and unintelligent, I could damage my own tv set if those buffoons are on, could you please find me an equivalent pro- Neocon argument.
I think your logic would suggest that there should be a pro neocon case? Since, in your own opinion you even believe that the neocon argument is (probably) correct given the available information.
I am sincerely offering to change my opinion, if you can prove me wrong.
Hello Mike
Thanks for your comments. But since the BBC actually sacked Rod Liddle, and admitted that he was ‘impartial’ on the Today program, the BBC news flagship, I do not think you have much of an argument?
Unless the BBC who sacked him got it wrong? Or was Rod Liddle who got it wrong? BBC wrong..Oh Dear, think I need to lie down now….