Riots Film Banned

[jackanada]

Well ok maybe not banned.

Riots: In their own words was meant to be broadcast last night but got pulled.

This can happen for various reasons but the explanation worries me

A court order has been made that has prevented the BBC from broadcasting the programme The Riots: In their own Words tonight. We will put it out at a later date."

Who made this 11th hour application and why?
Bit of insight, some real and some entirely imagined inside knowledge and a hat full of conspiracy theories please.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

I turned on just to watch it and it f***ing got cancelled. Well pissed

 

[The Large One]

Well ok maybe not banned.

Riots: In their own words was meant to be broadcast last night but got pulled.

This can happen for various reasons but the explanation worries me



Who made this 11th hour application and why?
Bit of insight, some real and some entirely imagined inside knowledge and a hat full of conspiracy theories please.

I've got a feeling that not all of the court cases have been heard yet.

Pure supposition as to whether that's the reason, mind.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Preview

The Riots: In Their Own Words
9pm, BBC2

Pulled together from interviews conducted by the Guardian and the LSE with some of those involved in the London riots last year, In Their Own Words puts you in the centre of the turmoil with a series of largely depressing first-person accounts. Rather than up the gravitas, the use of actors speaking the words of anonymous interviewees feels forced, like an episode of a gritty urban drama. The result is somehow unconvincing, despite the testimony being intercut with genuine footage. Continues on Wednesday with the point of view of the police. Ben Arnold

TV highlights 16/07/2012 | Television radio | The Guardian


Riots: BBC documentary cancelled after court order

The BBC pulled a documentary about last summer's riots off air just hours before it was due to be shown after a court order was issued.

The programme, which had been scheduled for BBC Two at 9pm, was the first of a two-part series in which the events of last August were reconstructed by actors.

In the hour-long film, testimonies gathered by the Guardian and the London School of Economics were enacted following the spread of protests and looting across the country.

It was also expected to include some little-seen footage of the disturbances.

The BBC would not comment on the type of court order issued and said it did not know what effect it would have on the second part of the series, which was due to be broadcast tomorrow WEDS.

"A court order has been made that has prevented the BBC from broadcasting the programme The Riots: In their own Words tonight. We will put it out at a later date," a BBC statement said.

More than 270 people involved in the riots were interviewed anonymously. Their experiences were then turned into two documentary films.

The transcripts were brought to life by playwright Alecky Blythe, who gave the actors audio files of the interviews, which they used instead of a script.

They listened to the recordings through earpieces and repeated them verbatim a few seconds behind to imitate the style of the interviewees.

The second episode featured interviews with police officers who were on the streets during the disorder.

The riots began after Mark Duggan, 29, was shot dead by police. A peaceful protest ended in violence before spreading across the capital and then to many other parts of the country, leading to violence, looting and clashes between the public and the police. Five people died during the four-day disorder.

Instead of the documentary, the BBC showed Operation Crossbow, a feature on Spitfire pilots during World War Two and their 3D photographs that helped thwart the Nazis' weapons of mass destruction.

Riots: BBC documentary cancelled after court order - Telegraph

 

[Common as Mook]

Sounds to me like an attempt to rationalise inexcusable behaviour. Not too worried it wasn't shown.

 

[jackanada]

I've got a feeling that not all of the court cases have been heard yet.

Pure supposition as to whether that's the reason, mind.

That would be a reasonable reason, but if so then why is it:

Preview

The BBC would not comment on the type of court order issued

Thats the suspicious part.

 

[rrruss]

I have to say though, what they showed instead was excellent.

 

[Davemania]

I'd like to see what the nsc poster, The Truth would have to say about all this

 

[keaton]

Sounds to me like an attempt to rationalise inexcusable behaviour. Not too worried it wasn't shown.

Yeah, there's no way anything could be learned from that.

 

[cunning fergus]

I have to say though, what they showed instead was excellent.

Very true.

I would like to think whoever chose the replacement programme did it with a full understanding of the delicious irony there was between the 2 programmes.

Two generations of British youth faced with an almost overwhelming sense of helplessness...........one generation chose to front up and do what was needed to confront the challenge facing the nation, the other generation despite having greater opportunities than the predecessors chose to burn down the homes and businesses of the neighbours, whilst trying to get a flat screen TV on the side.

There was a programme on TV recently that covered the release of rioters from prison, one individual was a community worker before the riots and was adamant that despite being caught looting in Currys by the Police that he was proud of being involved in a protest.

When challenged to explain this by the presenter he mumbled some bollocks about Mark Duggan and the Police..............it was embarrasing, I suspect the programme pulled was more of the same.

 

[jackanada]

One of the best ways to expose vainglorious idiots is to give them a platform. As (apparently we may never know) all the voiceover in the film were originally spoken by rioters (I think they were then read by actors, how much they redacted ums ers likes and whatevers I don't know) it is hard to see how it would end up providing much of an excuse. My worry is we are not being told who wanted this program not to air, or why, or even being told it is in some manner sub judice and we can't be told.

 

[Was not Was]

... the other generation despite having greater opportunities than the predecessors ...

Whaaaat? The lucky ones get to work in a no-skill job for subsistence wages, surrounded by reminders that our worth in a globalised economy depends on consuming stuff.

 

[Durlston]

Glad it wasn't shown. The scum that rioted last August don't deserve any more publicity.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I'd like to see what the nsc poster, The Truth would have to say about all this

"What riots?"

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Well ok maybe not banned.

Riots: In their own words was meant to be broadcast last night but got pulled.

This can happen for various reasons but the explanation worries me



Who made this 11th hour application and why?
Bit of insight, some real and some entirely imagined inside knowledge and a hat full of conspiracy theories please.

With the Olympics starting in a week and a half I guess the Government didn't want us to watch a programme that could cause copycat action. All that's needed is a fortnight of sunny weather and the "yoofs" will be raring to go.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Or, the far more logical explanation that somebody has a court case coming up, and there are people involved in this documentary also involved in the court case, whether as witnesses or suspects. It could even be that the victims are on there, and a defence lawyer has kicked up a fuss because they think the sight of a weeping victim might prejudice a jury against their client.

Could be any number of things. It really doesn't take a lot to put a trial at risk.

 

[jackanada]

Or, the far more logical explanation that somebody has a court case coming up, and there are people involved in this documentary also involved in the court case, whether as witnesses or suspects. It could even be that the victims are on there, and a defence lawyer has kicked up a fuss because they think the sight of a weeping victim might prejudice a jury against their client.

Could be any number of things. It really doesn't take a lot to put a trial at risk.

Except it is clearly not that, details still not out but we have been allowed to know the reasoning is "highly unusual" and that it is being appealed.

 

[Davemania]

"What riots?"

Or judging by The truths other posts, it would be something like the illuminati in collusion with the army were deliberately trying to incite an uprising against the government thereby creating an anarchic society within which they would be free to fill the the void left during all the chaos and assume control of the country

 

[Davemania]

Got a bit sidetracked there from the original post. Furtgermore the hidden elements of the illuminati and/or army embedded in influential positions within our societ, upon realising that the plot had failed then exerted their influence to get this programme banned and cover up any possible evidence to their imvolvement. Obviously

 

[BHABen]

Have to admit I was well pleased with the replacement programme, as my grandad received the DFC for taking part in operation crossbow