Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: "Fod" <friendsofderek@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Aug 2005 04:39:20 -0700
> > so you agree that all the fuss ( which happened over the leak) wasn't
> > anything to do with Indy Media, which most people in the UK wouldn't
> > have heard about?
>
> No, merely that Indymedia wasn't among the liars.
In this case they were telling the truth but its still likely that the
bulk of the people in the uk were not listening.
>
> > And do you also agree that this event was already being investigated (
> > admittedly with resistance from the met) by an independant body >
> It wasn't independently investigated for a whole week, during which
> time the crime scene had been compromised, including the CCTV tapes
> apparently.
3 days and that was due to the met holding off the independant
investigation, something they were later slammed for. I've yet to hear
the CCTV tapes allegation, care to give us a link?
[snip]
> > I'm sure it was always possible to listen to someone rant on
> How, apart from soapboxes and paper publications with a very restricted
> circulation?
a website needs to be found, it can be just as obscure as a guy on a
soapbox.
>
> > but these
> > websites are only of interest to a small small percentage of the
> > population in the UK and their reliablity of coverage is hard to
> > measure.
[snip]
> You are missing the point. The fact that they are available worldwide
> means they have a much bigger audience than they would if they were
> confined to the UK.
the point you are missing is that in every country the people looking
for this kind of info is tiny. Most people don't bother with them.
>
> > Mind you the mainstream UK media is also pretty piss poor and
> > unaccountable.
> It is also controlled by corporate and national security concerns. Any
> publication carrying advertising will not wish to alienate a major
> source of income and I believe there is something called a 'D Notice'.
hence why they are piss poor. Mind you its impossible to know how
objective and accurate Indy Media are.
Fod
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- References:
- Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Conor
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Mark Hewitt
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Stuart Gray
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Stuart Gray
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Fod
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: Fod
- Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- Prev by Date: Travelling from St Neots area to Welwyn Garden City
- Next by Date: Re: Time for road rules 'refreshers' on TV?
- Previous by thread: Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-Road protesters occupy Dept of Transport.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|