Judge bans BBC from showing docu-drama about riots

[Empusa]

Article

"The BBC has pulled a film about the experiences of rioters during last summer's disturbances just hours before it was due to be broadcast after a ruling from a judge. The film, due to be broadcast on BBC2 at 9pm on Monday, was a dramatisation based on the testimony of interviews conducted for the Guardian and London School of Economics research into the disorder.

The programme, part of a two-part series, features actors who play anonymous rioters speaking about their experiences of the riots last August. The BBC said in a statement: "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.""

"The ruling from a judge prevented the docu-drama, which had been due to be broadcast on BBC2 at 9pm on Monday, from being broadcast "by any media until further order"."

"For legal reasons, the Guardian cannot name the judge who made the ruling, the court in which he is sitting or the case he is presiding over. However, it is understood that lawyers for the BBC strongly object to his ruling, the nature of which is believed to be highly unusual."

Wonder what on earth is in this docu-drama that has meant it's been banned?! Seems unusual to not be releasing any information on why it's been banned.

I wonder if the police or government were worried it would stir things up again.

Possibly, though I'm pretty sure there were documentaries not long after the riots happened, I'd have thought they would have been stopped as emotions were still running high back then? Not so much now.

They're probably afraid what might happen if enough people are exposed to the idea that some or many people rioted for other reasons than wanting a new pair of trainers.

The social situation in England is really quite bad. I think there are a lot of very pissed off people out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see another eruption within a year or so.

www.defendtherighttoprotest.org/bbc-lawyers-consider-formal-appeal-over-court-ban-on-riots-drama/

I wondered why it wasn't on.

I imagine it's so people don't get inspired to riot during the highly profitable Olympics.

It's really not so cynical. The absurd has become part of daily life.

Cops at the Olympics have to put their crisps in plastic bags so that they don't show the packet brand because of branding rights.

Primary school children are being told they should wear Adidas or non-branded shoes when taking part in the Olympic opening ceremony.

We have rocket-launchers on rooftops.

The whole thing is one big exercise in Corporate-takeover of public spaces and democracy:

Why the Olympics are worth protesting:

www.protestlondon2012.com/10reasons.html

Umm maybe there are trials still going on and therefore the matter is sub-judice (if refers to particular individuals)? Hardly "highly unusual", just a basic principle of our legal system.....

TBH reports and docs on rioting has been been banned since 1998 in regards to events in N.I, even regular news broadcasts have been sanitised to hide the real truth both in N.I and mainland Britain.

"The whole thing is one big exercise in Corporate-takeover of public spaces and democracy:"

The whole thing is exactly the same as the Football or Rugby World Cups, Athletics World Championships the recent Euro 2012 Championships, in short, any large international sporting competition that's taken place over the last 25 years. They all rely heavily on commercial sponsorship and, in return, sponsors expect exclusivity. Seeing it as some kind of sinister takeover of democracy is ridiculous.

"They're probably afraid what might happen if enough people are exposed to the idea that some or many people rioted for other reasons than wanting a new pair of trainers.

The social situation in England is really quite bad. I think there are a lot of very pissed off people out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see another eruption within a year or so."

Exactly what I think.

If it was sub judice I think it would be handled in open court and refer to specific cases. I'd have thought the BBC lawyers would have checked all that out beforehand anyway.

I think it probably is because of the Olympics. Shocking.

Also Cogito, I don't remember this level of control for Euro 96 or the Commonwealth Games

Having been closely involved in the sponsorship of large sporting events in the past I know the level of control required by the sponsors is in direct proportion to the spend. Ambush marketing is a genuine problem and brands go all out to protect their trademarks and multi-million investments. Euro 96 and the Commonwealth Games have a much smaller reach than the Olympics but FIFA were criticised in 2010 for 'overprotecting sponsors' and 'heavy-handed restrictions'. article here.

It was a secret hearing, we are not allowed to know about.

we are not allowed to know either the Judge's name or which Court this Order was from.

Dear people in Scotland / Ireland, Please kindly twitt Judge's name so that we can name and shame this Judge and the judiciary that is involved in this shameful, oppressive and cowardly act. This is not Justice, our judges and judiciary are becoming more like those in Egypt under the Mubarak everyday.

Those Judges want to stay anonymous should be removed from the payroll of the UK tax payers. We should have them extradited to any country that will have them.

Perhaps our Judges should wear their wig back to front, then we will never know their identity. Perhaps they should consider wearing a Burka instead of issuing banning orders to prevent us knowing their identity.

There is also a media blackout of this news, Telegraph has not reported a single word about this banning order.

meewan

There is also a media blackout of this news, Telegraph has not reported a single word about this banning order.

If there was a media blackout then the Guardian wouldn't be able to report it.

Maybe the Telegraph isn't bothered about a left-wing TV channel being told not to broadcast stories made up by a left-wing newspaper and a university founded by the Fabian society.

No matter it is left-wing or right-wing, it is about our right to know. If we are going around the world lecturing other countries about democracy and freedom of speech and using these as pretext to invade other countries, at least we need to be honest when we are just as bad instead of pretending as if we are somehow superior.

meewan

No matter it is left-wing or right-wing, it is about our right to know. If we are going around the world lecturing other countries about democracy and freedom of speech and using these as pretext to invade other countries, at least we need to be honest when we are just as bad instead of pretending as if we are somehow superior.

I'm not suggesting that the banning order was right, just disagreeing with your claim that there's a media blackout.

a reader on boingboing.net suggests that " It is probably because LOCOG rules don't allow the brands of sportswear being looted to be shown on TV until after the Olympics for fear of upsetting sponsors

Cogito-

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point.

The fact that corporate sponsors want to complete control of everything during the Olympics is not in doubt. There's no need for you to provide an 'explanation'. An explanation isn't a justification.

What is being criticised is the fact that, once again, democracy and free speech come second to big business and corporations.

For example, requests to prevent anyone using the term 'Olympics' - whose origins predate Christ - should be politely ignored.

The suggestion that LOCOG don't want the documentary broadcast because of sponsor demands are heresy, but entirely plausible and in-line with the way the government is willing to act to sponsor demands.

Is it true that the cops policing this corporate jolly have to empty their crisps into non branded bags? I see MCDs backed down over not allowing workies to get a bag of chips as they now 'own' chips or something

"An explanation isn't a justification"

So what would be the ideal? A sponsorship-free non-commercial Olympics with 100% of the costs being footed by the UK taxpayer? National ballots on all decisions? Elected representatives on the various committees?

the BBC left wing? What a load of bollocks.
In the same week of the RBS/NatWest/Ulster shambles there was not ONE mention of it on Question Time. Yet on that particular edition they still found a good 15 mins to have a go at benefit claimants.
Newsnight stitched up a young single mum earlier this year presenting her as unemployed when she wasnt.
John Humphreys did a programme about the welfare state earlier this year saying it was too "generous". omitting the fact that many people are having to use food banks
and then he did a Panorama programme about people in Greece having to rely on the generosity of charities!!!! Yet the idiot refuses to see the connection.
BBC also broadcasts Saints and Scroungers. If you want any more examples Flatpack im sure i can come up with some more. Left wing MY ARSE!

It's also a bit of a laugh that the LSE is obliquely mentioned here as left wing. It may well have been founded by the Fabian Society but things have changed rather since then!