London Black Lives Matter Protest | Page 27 | Vital Football

London Black Lives Matter Protest

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13556
  • Start date
Loads of short clips prove difficult to locate soon after the event, many of them quite inconsequential. I don't think he said anything in the least controversial.

A far more important clip involved I think another one involved in pulling the man clear. He said his aim was to save lives in two ways, first the injured man and second the lives of young lads "who might have ended up in jail for taking a life". There are some good people out there.

Maybe inconsequential to you as maybe you have a side and therefore you did not understand his real message or maybe not lol.

It was not a divide and rule statement and therefore no value to the media.

The reason that the black guy saves white guy is a good story to suck on is that it can be milked. Normally a good news story is not click or advertisement revenue added value.
 
Maybe inconsequential to you as maybe you have a side and therefore you did not understand his real message or maybe not lol.

It was not a divide and rule statement and therefore no value to the media.

The reason that the black guy saves white guy is a good story to suck on is that it can be milked. Normally a good news story is not click or advertisement revenue added value.

I'm struggling to understand the point that you are making. This story wasn't hidden and the interviewee was making very similar points to the one, who got more headlines. To be quite clear I'm on Marcus Levi's side for what he says on that clip. I do not subscribe to anything and everything said by random people claiming to support BLM so please do not dismiss my thoughts because you think I have a "side".

Are you arguing that the saving of a man from a worse beating was not a good story, that it is clickbait and therefore should be downplayed. Curious. More to the point Marcus Levy is saying very much the same stuff so why is that not also good news clickbait.
 
I'm struggling to understand the point that you are making. This story wasn't hidden and the interviewee was making very similar points to the one, who got more headlines. To be quite clear I'm on Marcus Levi's side for what he says on that clip. I do not subscribe to anything and everything said by random people claiming to support BLM so please do not dismiss my thoughts because you think I have a "side".

Are you arguing that the saving of a man from a worse beating was not a good story, that it is clickbait and therefore should be downplayed. Curious. More to the point Marcus Levy is saying very much the same stuff so why is that not also good news clickbait.

It is not about a good story. VG asked why he could not find it or the full script is not easy to find.
My answer is that the media or social media in general only have a story or quote or clip that divides opinion or feeds into the narrative that they want.
Without divide and rule the media cannot survive as good news or stories that could unite everyone against the powers that be are not in their interest.

The odd good news story they can milk (rightly in this case) is also a good short term advantage to them. As we know from experiments - good news does not attract views, clicks or advertising revenue.
 
It is not about a good story. VG asked why he could not find it or the full script is not easy to find.
My answer is that the media or social media in general only have a story or quote or clip that divides opinion or feeds into the narrative that they want.
Without divide and rule the media cannot survive as good news or stories that could unite everyone against the powers that be are not in their interest.

The odd good news story they can milk (rightly in this case) is also a good short term advantage to them. As we know from experiments - good news does not attract views, clicks or advertising revenue.

 
It is not about a good story. VG asked why he could not find it or the full script is not easy to find.
My answer is that the media or social media in general only have a story or quote or clip that divides opinion or feeds into the narrative that they want.
Without divide and rule the media cannot survive as good news or stories that could unite everyone against the powers that be are not in their interest.

The odd good news story they can milk (rightly in this case) is also a good short term advantage to them. As we know from experiments - good news does not attract views, clicks or advertising revenue.

I understand some of that Jerry but do you believe that Sky & the BBC simultaneously shut down a story with intent to keep divide and rule going on?

If you are saying that good news stories do not attract views and clicks then why was the Patrick Hutchinson story promoted so widely. I don't see anything sinister in the fading away of one of many interviews done on the day. I could, with equal conspiratorial intent, declare that the man carried to safety was a retired Police Detective and then suggest he was an agent provacteur. I won't do that because it would be daft.
 
I saw it at the time but did not record it. Thought it was longer, will look into it.

The guy stood out because he tells you what I have been saying about the reality of the system (puppet masters) backing both sides and why only working together as one will achieve real change.

He is a bit of an anarchist so of no use to msm or social media as it will not get clicks or annoy enough people. Only divide and rule gets lots of airtime plus lets face it, if you realised what he was saying is the truth then you would be out of the matrix and become very dangerous. People hear what myself and buddha say and turn a deaf ear as it sounds outlandish.

You also do not hear from people of faith preaching peace and togetherness.

But if/when enough people wake up, jerry, the matrix will fold...
 
I know Jerry gets the reason I first mentioned it. Levi was not following the narrative , and accusing media of stoking trouble. People , black and white are being used.

Jerry and I maybe poles apart on our politics and we could argue robustly, but it nevers results in rudeness or pointless insults.

Some posters on this site might do well to learn from that.
 
I understand some of that Jerry but do you believe that Sky & the BBC simultaneously shut down a story with intent to keep divide and rule going on?
.

You only have to look at the BBC's coverage of Brexit night and the way they only gave voices to remainers. The BBC is more than happy to only give airtime to those with views they agree with.

Is there some sort of conspiracy? Maybe those at the top who make the decisions believe it is in the public interest to give a consistent message of what they believe to be true. Possibly they thought the guy a conspiracy theorist not worthy of screening.
 
jogills yes sky and BBC blatantly lie for their own agenda. You have to view it from the other side of the fence to see how they manipulate the real truth . So many times they have edited videos, added things that wernt actually there, it's just so frustrating that people are being brainwashed into the medias agenda.
 
But if/when enough people wake up, jerry, the matrix will fold...

You can only wake up when the conditions are exactly right in your thinking and the veil is pulled back inside your mind or maybe taking a drug lol.. Its why mostly all buddhists can never reach enlightenment.

Our very thoughts are not our own as they are either hereditary, pre-programmed, biological, limited by the human brain or part of environmental brainwashing. The only reality we can see is the world that the brain creates for us in the first years of life.

Most people do not like to think that what they see is an illusion or that they were wrong or have been a puppet all of their life.
 
You only have to look at the BBC's coverage of Brexit night and the way they only gave voices to remainers. The BBC is more than happy to only give airtime to those with views they agree with.

Is there some sort of conspiracy? Maybe those at the top who make the decisions believe it is in the public interest to give a consistent message of what they believe to be true. Possibly they thought the guy a conspiracy theorist not worthy of screening.

Strange how many jump to attack the bbc when all of the media do it lol.
 
I understand some of that Jerry but do you believe that Sky & the BBC simultaneously shut down a story with intent to keep divide and rule going on?

If you are saying that good news stories do not attract views and clicks then why was the Patrick Hutchinson story promoted so widely. I don't see anything sinister in the fading away of one of many interviews done on the day. I could, with equal conspiratorial intent, declare that the man carried to safety was a retired Police Detective and then suggest he was an agent provacteur. I won't do that because it would be daft.

I did not say that in this instance anything was purposely taken off. It just did not meet the interests of the media to discuss it.
The black man saves enemy is in their interests as it gets clicks etc over a news period.

A more appropriate one is, why have the media only just started reporting the armed clashes in Dijon France.
Or, why no reporting of the Israeli backing of the forces against Corbyn or a million other ones depending on your leanings.
 
Strange how many jump to attack the bbc when all of the media do it lol.

The BBC are on a pedestal.
A neutral , fair and un-biased projection of UK news. Or that is what they are supposed to represent anyway.
We are aware of the license fee situation , incl the punishment of imprisonment for not paying.
When lies and deceit become obvious , they can expect more anger than the other channels might receive.
You are quite correct , all media do it in the UK.
 
The BBC are on a pedestal.
A neutral , fair and un-biased projection of UK news. Or that is what they are supposed to represent anyway.
We are aware of the license fee situation , incl the punishment of imprisonment for not paying.
When lies and deceit become obvious , they can expect more anger than the other channels might receive.
You are quite correct , all media do it in the UK.

Do you think that the BBC is left-wing, val?
 
The right are channeled to attack the bbc as it concentrates the mind of their followers. I have noticed that when it suites their agenda they will quote it.
This is dangerous because when they are telling a truth you dont like its easy to rubbish the message. Most tv channels and media are as bad and mostly worse than the bbc so singling them out is not helpful.

We could be lot worse off without their added coverage. Calling for the banning or defunding of a single news agency is moving towards totalitarianism.
 
We could be lot worse off without their added coverage. Calling for the banning or defunding of a single news agency is moving towards totalitarianism.

The problem with that argument is that most news agencies are not funded by the taxpayer. If the BBC was defunded then they would need to compete and survive like all other news outlets in the UK. The UK might go the way of having news media like CNN and Fox News without the BBC but neither CNN or Fox News claim to be unbiased.
 
The problem with that argument is that most news agencies are not funded by the taxpayer. If the BBC was defunded then they would need to compete and survive like all other news outlets in the UK. The UK might go the way of having news media like CNN and Fox News without the BBC but neither CNN or Fox News claim to be unbiased.

Holding up the usa as an example is a bit rich lol.
The bbc detractors just want to get rid as currently it does not bow down to their views and prejudices. Labour used to have the same complaints. They do not want to just have it self funding, they want it banned.

The local newspapers have already gone and the lack of diversity of stories and opinions in the msm is obvious. Just own up that the bbc does not follow your views.
 
Just own up that the bbc does not follow your views.

What I wrote is still true regardless of my views. The fact is that the BBC is the only taxpayer funded news outlet and if they lost funding then they would need to find advertising and other sources of income like all the other news outlets in the UK.

Is the BBC biased? Name a news organisation that doesn't have biases and agendas.

As per a prior post, on the Brexit leaving night they didn't even attempt to have a balanced number of pro-EU and pro-Brexit experts. And on a historic night when the bells chimed, did they go over to the stage to listen to Nigel F's speech? Considering over half of the voters voted for Brexit, doing a show full of remainers implying people who voted for Brexit were racist idiots is hardly going to get people on their side.