Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 6, 2011 20:39:21 GMT
I must admit I haven't followed reporting by the BBC on the OCCUPY protests around the world, but from the little I know about the supposed objectives, and the way they are going about achieving it, and reading comments from those who have followed it, I have no doubt about which way the BBC adds their weight. The agenda for the BBC is simple, it costs them nothing, and it makes them appear as if they share similar values.
Statements like 'no greed' and 'no corruption' are easy to make, but I would like the BBC to add their weight to that by first reducing the salaries and expenses they award themselves and asking that the licence fee be reduced commensurate with the real value of their output. But we know that is not going to happen, so the BBC jumps on this bandwagon to try and maintain the façade to its still brainwashed audience that it really is a moral organisation.
Reading this article in the Daily Mail today about how staff at St. Paul's are having to clean up human waste left by those protesters who have been using the cathedral as a latrine. I knew even before I searched that the BBC would not be mentioning this 'detail', which frankly shows a more realistic view of the mindset of these protesters.
Seeing the articles that did appear in the search however showed very clearly that nearly all of them were pro-protesters. In fact, the only one that voiced a view against them was in regard to Theresa May on Question Time, where she stated that she thinks they should leave St. Paul's. The article however is meant more to be negative to her, as the Conservative Home-Secretary, than the protesters.
So where is the balance that the BBC is supposed to provide. I wonder how many of these protesters who ruin truly great landmarks of this country, on pretext that they are saving the world, are on benefits of one kind or the other. I've no doubt it would be most, if not nearly all.
How then do they define GREED? In my book, something for nothing is GREED. They have no right to protest so long as they are content to milk the system. If they don't really contribute to society, then they have no voice worth listening to. I've no doubt that there are many like myself who feel the same - where is the views expressed by them on the BBC website?
Statements like 'no greed' and 'no corruption' are easy to make, but I would like the BBC to add their weight to that by first reducing the salaries and expenses they award themselves and asking that the licence fee be reduced commensurate with the real value of their output. But we know that is not going to happen, so the BBC jumps on this bandwagon to try and maintain the façade to its still brainwashed audience that it really is a moral organisation.
Reading this article in the Daily Mail today about how staff at St. Paul's are having to clean up human waste left by those protesters who have been using the cathedral as a latrine. I knew even before I searched that the BBC would not be mentioning this 'detail', which frankly shows a more realistic view of the mindset of these protesters.
Seeing the articles that did appear in the search however showed very clearly that nearly all of them were pro-protesters. In fact, the only one that voiced a view against them was in regard to Theresa May on Question Time, where she stated that she thinks they should leave St. Paul's. The article however is meant more to be negative to her, as the Conservative Home-Secretary, than the protesters.
So where is the balance that the BBC is supposed to provide. I wonder how many of these protesters who ruin truly great landmarks of this country, on pretext that they are saving the world, are on benefits of one kind or the other. I've no doubt it would be most, if not nearly all.
How then do they define GREED? In my book, something for nothing is GREED. They have no right to protest so long as they are content to milk the system. If they don't really contribute to society, then they have no voice worth listening to. I've no doubt that there are many like myself who feel the same - where is the views expressed by them on the BBC website?