you may not like it, but this is what peak freedom looks like
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
72 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32943 readers
623 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I read they were kettled and the police let them filter through to leave but then just arrested them and cited aggressive misconduct. So the cops lied. Call me shocked.
So the offence was protesting outside a sanctioned area? That the reason they used for arresting 77 people?
Weak sauce.
The reason they used was potential destruction of synagogues in the area of the BBCs offices, despite the fact that there's has been absolutely no damage or even people protesting outside any during all of the pro-Palestinian marches since October 2023.
It's the usual fear mongering bullshit from zionists
TheGuardian is very misleading here. They were are arrested for protesting BBC's pro Israel bias. TheGuardian buried this far down their article.
Thank you, we all agree that the correctness of the news title is more important than people getting fucking arrested because they are exercising their freedom of speech.
You don't think it matters that a news outlet is running cover for their ally? A news outlet that themselves forbid their journalists from using the word "genocide" in the context of Israel's genocide of Palestinians until November 2024?
Sorry but I don't understand the first question. The other thing yeah, it wasn't good. Anyway I don't particularly like The Guardian but what is misleading here? People were arrested because UK government kneel to the zionists, the prohibition to get close to the BBC it's just a silly justification for the arrests.
It's not that The Guardian buried a technical detail of the story, the protestors deliberately got close to the BBC offices, because they were protesting the BBC. The BBC is complicit in this genocide, together with The Guardian. The Guardian's reporting is slightly uninformative in a way that shields the reader from knowing the subject's opinion on The Guardian's complicity.