BBC Scotland’s cowardly and dishonest labeling of both violent racists and their innocent victims as merely ‘rivals’

For the second time in a week racist thugs have attacked peaceful protesters in George Square. Allegedly, the National Defence League, the rioters, have been heard to sing Rule Britannia, clearly stating their identity as British Nationalists.

One group shouted illegal racist comments and attacked both peaceful protesters and the police, leading to arrests, while the other group, Glasgow No Evictions, was forced to abandon its protest and was led away by the police. There are no reports of arrests among this group.

BBC Scotland had this to say:

Anti-riot police have separated rival groups of demonstrators in Glasgow city centre. National Defence League supporters gathered from 17:00 in George Square. They said they wanted to “make a stand” and “protect the Cenotaph”. Shortly afterwards activists from Glasgow No Evictions arrived for their planned demonstration, chanting “refugees are welcome here”. The group from Glasgow No Evictions were then guided away by police.

There’s no account of the arrests or of the behaviour leading to them, only the Justice Minister mentioning them in a quote.

Why was the unplanned and violent demonstration not broken up and dispersed if the other group had permission and was behaving in a legal manner?

We’ve seen this before, in September 2014:

How BBC Scotland covered it then:

14 thoughts on “BBC Scotland’s cowardly and dishonest labeling of both violent racists and their innocent victims as merely ‘rivals’”

  1. Yes, quite strange. From what I heard anyway – BBC radio Scotland news had a reporter (independent one) on who had been there and was subject to racist abuse, and the police moved him on, not the thugs causing the problems. Perhaps the police are too scared to touch the potentially disease-ridden thugs. I am assuming that if you don’t mind breaking the law (with violent ‘protest’) then you won’t be washing your hands either.

    I looks too much like the thugs were mobilised (can’t have people getting confidence in making public displays of disaffection, someone might decide they are not happy with the U.K. Gov’t and want to protest them) and the police colluded. It’s not a good look anyway. If you are in danger of being attacked by thugs, the police will remove you from the area, not the thugs? Not sure that inspires confidence in me. The BBC reporters didn’t seem to be horrified by it all either.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. After seeing some phone footage I think the Police were better prepared than the last time. Unbelievably its the racist, bigoted british nationalist thugs, demonstrating without permission, quoted by the media, not those who have been treated so abominablely by the westminster gov and servo( might have the name wrong).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I thought you meant ‘sevco’ which was a name applied to bankrupt Glasgow Rangers whose more ardent adherents would certainly have been ‘protecting’ the statues in George Square.


    2. There were 6 arrests made. Perhaps police at previous demonstrations asked people to leave for their own safety and because the police knew at that point they did not have enough feet on the ground to control the situation if matters got out of hand. This time they did.

      It is a judgement that police have to make in any situation and make it quickly as to how best to protect the publi and stop the thugs spreading their thuggery to other areas where ordinary members of the public are going about their business peacefully.

      Seem really OTT to talk of ‘collusion’.


      1. Surely the Police should protect innocent members of the public and discourage repetition of anti social behaviour.
        There was forewarning that the statue protectors would be at George Sq. so IMO the police should have been there in the required numbers to control the SP’s, prevent them taking over the Square and beating up members of the public and a cameraman. And make arrests.


      2. That’s what I was thinking Clydebuilt. A lawfully arranged peaceful protest needed to be relocated because,,, thugs rule the streets – and the police can’t or won’t control them? I hope the review shows up the police judgement to be flawed – as flawed as Legerwood’s. The point is – the lawful protests are arranged and so the police can say no beforehand if they can’t handle it. If you are mugged on the street – is it you that should not have been there, or the thug intending harm? Where is the disincentive to the thug if the police say it is you that should not have been on the street?


  2. The BBC in Scotland don’t want “phone voiced” Unionists to realise their world view is shared with these knuckle draggers.

    Once again Kaye is encouraging listeners to imagine what they will do when lockdown is lifted. She’s got minds to control. Pressure to build on the Scot Gov.
    Maverick epidiemologists to bamboozle us.

    Liked by 1 person

    I wasn’t just looking at this for bias , it was pointed out by non-Independence blog BTL comments.

    The very first sentence under the sub-heading.
    ‘Concerns had been growing about the practice but gamekeepers insist Holyrood has made a “grave mistake” and the move is bad for land management.’
    Wow, statements like that are usually at the bottom.

    Oh hang on this is Scotland, for a second i forgot.

    This bias is not just anti SNP but anti Green, actually the SNP had to be dragged into backing it. The SNP have previously blocked extremely progressive sensible ideas of the Greens for what seem to be only party political reasons.
    But for BBC any independence party is fare game. Tally ho chaps.

    P.S. This is only the first step in protecting Mountain Hares because SNH dishes out licences like parking fines.

    Protecting raptors next.


    1. An amendment to a Bill has been passed and the BBC think it is their job to write this:

      ‘This is a controversial move executed in an equally controversial way.
      Ecologists will point to a study by the late Dr Adam Watson, much renowned, whose meticulous records demonstrate that the populations have plummeted.
      But land managers say that is at total odds with their own observations, and that a lack of control will harm the species.
      The views are polarised and to come down on one side with a ban is provocative enough, but to do it without proper parliamentary scrutiny is another level.’

      Like i said before the gentry have their mouthpiece and it is screaming loudly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.