India uses emergency powers to order takedown of BBC documentary India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting appears to have filed takedown requests to prevent access to a BBC documentary series titled India: The Modi Question that investigates prime minister Narendra Modi's policies and actions toward India's Muslim minority. Modi represents the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has links …
This post has been deleted by its author
Ah, this accusation again. As with the last time someone said this, I've hopped onto a UK endpoint I have access to, typed in the URL, and got their website immediately. Possibly some ISPs have put in a DNS modification on their server, but it's not all of them, it's not legally mandated, and if you don't understand the difference, you need to learn some basic IT.
I'm not in the UK, but I can VPN in to my employers' London office.
After a "checking your browser" interstitial page indicative of some kind of DDoS mitigating reverse proxy (understandable), it worked just fine.
So if you think that RT is being blocked to UK users, I suggest that it's entirely self-inflicted.
-A.
You can't help but feel impressed at Modi and how he is handling this. He's definitely taken Qatar's lead in how to control the public image.
What do I mean? Well, until Qatar won the world cup I didn't know how much of a shit hole despot country it was. So today, I didn't know Modi was involved in the massacre of a thousand Muslims in India.
I really do appreciate people who go out of their way to hide something just so that I can see it.
The article quite clearly states investigations took place, but they don't say what investigations or by who. The British Government had it's own investigations in to it which led to a diplomatic boycott of Modi by the British. Where are the other investigations and who were they done by? If it's by the ruling party who don't particularly like Muslims then it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that the investigations might be a bit squiffy.
Plus, you don't go to these extremes if you don't like what's being said. The truth can speak for itself and if you're frightened of what's being said then maybe it's something that speaks louder than your actions eh?
Investigations by the Supreme Court of India staffed almost entirely by judges appointed by Congress which is the opposition to the BJP found him not guilty.
The UK running “investigations” from a continent and ocean away and running this document based off of a report by Jack Straw who falsely claimed WMDs in Iraq to justify the UK invading Iraq seems to be more falsification and shit stirring, like the WMD’s in Iraq.
I have thoroughly investigated whether I took the last biscuit from the jar, and have found that my behaviour is totally consistent with my not having done so, and that the crumbs found on my desk were completely coincidental and came from an entirely, completely unrelated incident.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why does a state-media company get to put out opinion pieces as if it were fact and not just that, an opinion?
India is not a free-speech state. Free-speech in India is a privilege and any abuses will get the full consequences either from govt or judicial bodies. Problem it's ripe for abuse and powertrips.
Any foreigners or Indians should take note of liberties freedoms and limitations such as foreign persons protesting in India can be subject to arrest and deportation. Only Indian citizens and not even residents have that right. So take care and be mindful of local laws wherever you may be.
They only prosecute you if they can tell what you're thinking;
Police: "How did you think your MP would feel when he read your email?"
Suspect: "I thought he would feel angry enough to actually respond to my concerns."
Police: "Banged to rights Sonny Jim, you've just admitted to a crime under the Communications act!"
As demonstrated above, RT was not blocked. There is a difference between government-ordered blocking (didn't happen), corporate-enforced blocking (unpalatable but legal, mostly didn't happen), and leaving off a DNS entry (if you don't know how to get around that or find out that happened, you don't have the skills expected of a reader here, also didn't happen universally as demonstrated by several posters who do not have any problem loading it from UK connections).
And yet you just exercised your right of free speech.
Do try not to be an idiot.
Being allowed to do something once does not prove you have a strong, comprehensive, legally-protected right to do many things in that class.
I drove a car yesterday. That doesn't demonstrate a protected right to drive anywhere and anytime I like.
Why does a state-media company get to put out opinion pieces as if it were fact and not just that, an opinion?
BBC isn't state media - its a public service broadcaster independent of state control, but partially funded by taxes imposed by the state.
RT is state media - it is state controlled and funded by the state.
The documentary in question doesn't portray opinion as facts, it presents an investigation into the events surrounding Modi's rise to power. Its left to the viewer to draw their own conclusions.
Its quite good actually.
"BBC isn't state media - its a public service broadcaster independent of state control"
That's the theory. It's under party control (not "state control"), and the party is the Tory party. It's a defanged little poodle.
Look at the top brass and how they got their positions (and massive salaries that makes sure they are compliant).
Of course it pretends to be "impartial", but it's really very, very poor at examining power here in the UK.
Normally a country would say "thank you" to people exposing crimes, followed by an official investigation. When they don't do that, that speaks volumes.
If it is an "opinion piece", an investigation will show one way or another. I doubt that an organisation like the BBC would produce this without a lot of evidence.
"So is Modi Paddington?"
Sticky paws and marmalade on his face?
Do all these autocratic ursines have sticky paws?
More seriously I had forgotton about these atrocities so I am grateful for the reminder.
The relationship between Paddo and Adani has attracted some notice in these parts (AU.)
Is this the same BBC that is a primary state sponsored broadcasting company in the UK, which banned RT UK from broadcasting ? Or is this another BBC from another UK that doesn't have multiple fingers pointing back at itself while pointing one finger elsewhere ?
Britain bans Russian state TV channel RT
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/18/media/uk-bans-russia-rt-tv/index.html
You say you have your detailed reasoning for banning RT while having your own detailed reasoning for why you think BBC is being treated badly by India ? Guess what - everyone can play that logic parlour game. There's nothing that makes you fundamentally better.
As far as India is concerned, the BBC documentary meant for a domestic audience targeting at Rishi Sunak, not Modi. We in India already know that BBC and any part of the UK press that's Labour friendly cannot stand the guy.
Oh thanks for that advice on how to finesse it. Like "he wasn't fired, he was involuntarily encouraged to solicit alternative employment avenues."
Got it.
I'm sure the Indian government can be suitably informed so that the Beeb will just 'lose its license to broadcast' in India, next time. It's the BBC - there'll always be a next time.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
