Chris Middleton Profile picture
Aug 4 11 tweets 5 min read Read on X
The BBC does not report on protests fairly.

How do I know?

Because I used to work there.

🟢 If they agree with you, you get sympathetic coverage.
🔴 If they disagree with you, you get smeared or ignored.

This is how the BBC rigs public perception of protests 🧵 Image
This weekend, thousands of people protested at hotels across the UK.

The BBC ran just one story on it, focusing on “arrests”, “clashes”, and “anti-migrant groups”.

No interviews. No photos. No voices from the protestors.

Just framing: these people are dangerous.
I know first hand how this works. I worked at the BBC during the Sunderland protests and riots last year.

Here’s what I was told:

“The protests may go off peacefully, in which case they’re not newsworthy.”

The BBC only wants to cover protests against immigration when they are violent.

Let’s look at how the BBC has framed past protests, and how they reported on this weekend.
🟢 BLM: 7th June 2020

“George Floyd: London anti-racism protests leave 27 officers hurt”

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…

The BBC reports that the protests were “largely peaceful”.

That’s despite the fact that 27 police officers were injured, including one “who suffered a broken collarbone, a broken rib, and punctured lung”.

The BBC then quotes a protestor, who says “"these situations don't come from nowhere" and the police had been "acting very aggressively" towards protesters.

Sympathetic coverage for the protestors and their cause, despite the fact that 27 police officers were injured.
🟢 Pro-Palestine: 22nd October 2023

“Pro-Palestinian protests take place in London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Salford”

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-671821…

This time the BBC doesn’t call the protests peaceful, even though there were only 10 arrests at this one (including an assault on an emergency service worker).

But the tone is sympathetic: no condemnation, no smears, no alarmist headline.

And the BBC actually does journalism: it provides a background on why the protests are taking place, and it provides positive quotes from the protestors.
🟢 Southport Counter Protests: August 2024

“Police thank London for unity and 'community spirit'”

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

In 2024, thousands protested against the “far right”, who apparently didn’t turn up.

The BBC frames it positively as a “coming together” full of “community spirit”, calling the protests “largely peaceful”, even though “15 arrests were made across the city”.

The message is clear: this side is good, the other side is dangerous.
🔴 Epping Hotel Protests: 26th July 2025

The BBC has covered some of the protests at migrant hotels.

But they only seem to do it when they can frame it negatively towards the protestors.

“Protests leave asylum seekers afraid to exit hotel”

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

The article is framed around violence and the fear of an asylum seeker, with quotes from the charity Care4Calais and the chief executive of Refugee Council, who are both against the protest.

The BBC does give a brief background on why the protests are taking place: “The venue has been thrust into the national spotlight after a man living there was charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.”

But there is no wider context, no quotes from any of the protestors, just a framing that puts them in a negative light.
🔴Epping Hotel Protests: 27th July 2025

The next day they covered it again, but this time around the negative frame that there were more counter-protestors.

“Rival groups stage protests at migrant hotel”

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

“Between 300 and 400 anti-migrant protesters… But they were greatly outnumbered by an estimated 2,000 counter-protesters.”

The goal is to downplay the side protesting against hotels.

The BBC also describes the two sides as “anti-migrant” and “pro-immigration”, implying the protestors are against individuals, rather than the government’s immigration policy.

It’s subtle, but labels matter. Call them “anti-migrant” and the public sees them as cruel. Say “anti-mass migration” and they sound more reasonable.
🔴 UK-wide Hotel Protests: 2nd August 2025

Now let’s look at the one story the BBC ran on this weekend’s protests, in which protestors across the UK far outnumbered any counter protestors.

“Arrests after asylum hotel protests in England” bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

The headline focuses on the arrests, even though there were fewer arrests than the "mostly peaceful" BLM protest.

The article leads with violence and it frames the protestors as “anti-migrant” while downplaying the scale of the protests across the UK.

No depth. No context. Just enough to frame it as a public order threat.

The only voices quoted? Not the protestors, but Labour ministers, spinning why hotels might close by 2029.

Yet no mention of Labour’s broken promise to shut the hotels within a year.
What have we learned?

The BBC doesn’t report on protests.

It curates narratives.

🟢 If your cause fits the worldview, you get empathy.
🔴 If it doesn’t, you’re erased or smeared.

No overt lies, just framing that dictates whether the reader should sympathise with the cause or not.
Thanks for taking the time to read this thread.

Please like and share if you found it useful.

For more in-depth threads about media bias, free speech, and government lies, give me a follow @ChrisMid.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Middleton

Chris Middleton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChrisMid

Aug 27
The biggest lie in the ECHR debate is that leaving it means Britain “loses” its human rights.

That’s pure nonsense.

Britain invented most of these rights centuries before the ECHR even existed 🧵 Image
Britain didn’t join the ECHR to get rights. We already had them.

It was signed in 1950, drafted heavily by British lawyers led by David Maxwell Fyfe, a Nuremberg prosecutor and later Home Secretary.

Churchill championed it as a way to export British liberty after fascism and as a bulwark against Communism.

In 1948 he called for “a charter of human rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

Britain’s legal tradition shaped the Convention. The aim was to spread our principles, not import new ones.
Britain’s tradition of rights is centuries older than Strasbourg:

⚖️ Magna Carta (1215) – no one above the law
⚖️ Habeas Corpus (1679) – protection from arbitrary detention
⚖️ Bill of Rights (1689) – fair trial, free speech in Parliament
⚖️ Act of Settlement (1701) – judicial independence
⚖️ Abolition of slavery (1833) – Britain led the world, enforced it at sea
⚖️ Reform Acts (19th–20th c.) – expanded the vote to all

The ECHR didn’t create British rights. In many ways, it was a British history lesson written down for the rest of Europe.
Read 12 tweets
Aug 15
This is how the BBC can make a true story seem false.

Last week: @CharlotteCGill reported that schools got children as young as 5 to make Valentine’s Day cards for asylum seekers.

This week: The BBC runs a piece making the whole idea sound like misinformation.

🧵 Image
Background:

Schools of Sanctuary is a national programme that last year explicitly asked students to “Show Your Heart for Refugees This Valentine’s Day”.

Charlotte exposed multiple social media posts showing children preparing Valentine’s cards to be “given to refugee recipients”.

Children as young as five were involved.

charlottecgill.co.uk/p/children-sen…
Unlike some media outlets, the BBC did not report on Charlotte’s initial story.

Instead, they put out a piece titled “Schools targeted in ‘simply untrue’ online campaign”.



The implication is clear: Charlotte’s reporting is false.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…
Read 12 tweets
Aug 13
Is the BBC smearing protestors?

After a recent BBC article, @orlaminihane says she’s received death threats and had people trying to get her fired.

This is how loaded framing and selective quoting in reporting can seriously harm someone’s reputation 🧵 Image
Orla is a local mother, long-time resident, and Reform candidate for Epping.

She spoke to the BBC for an hour about crime, girls’ safety, and govt. failings in relation to the Bell Hotel protests.

But what appeared in print was very different — and damaging to her reputation.
She says the BBC portrayed her unfairly, and as a result she’s had:

🔴Death threats to her and her family.
🔴Emails trying to get her fired.
🔴Old friends asking if she’s a racist.
🔴Strangers calling her “Nazi Barbie” and “the female Tommy Robinson.”
Read 13 tweets
Aug 1
The Online Safety Act has been in force for one week, and it’s already censoring rape victims, protest footage, and even lactose intolerance.

Starmer says it’s about protecting children. In reality, it’s stifling free speech.

Here's what's been censored so far🧵 Image
The Act gives Ofcom powers to slap platforms with fines of up to 10% of global turnover for “harmful” content.

“Harmful” is so vague that companies are over-censoring in order to avoid trouble.

It’s not protecting kids. It’s incentivising mass censorship.
A rape gang survivor’s testimony? Blocked.

Sammy Woodhouse (@officialsammyuk) says “the UK’s Online Safety Act—put in place by our government—has done nothing but silence the victims.”

How does silencing survivors “protect” anyone?

Read 12 tweets
Jul 29
A lesson in how media bias works from the “impartial” BBC.

Yesterday, Trump publicly challenged Starmer’s policies at a press conference: immigration, energy, tax, free speech.

The BBC ran two articles on it.

Let’s examine what they showed you, and what they didn’t. 🧵 Image
At the press conference, Trump:

– Questioned Starmer’s immigration approach
– Warned against free speech restrictions
– Urged Starmer to cut taxes
– Criticised wind turbines and UK energy policy
– Called Sadiq Khan “a nasty person” who’s “done a terrible job”

Trump was taking aim at Starmer’s policies, live, on camera.

Full video here: youtube.com/watch?v=oBJqr1…
BBC’s first article:

“Trump takes another swipe at London's mayor”

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

The headline chose to focus on the Trump vs. Sadiq Khan aspect.

Not a single mention of any of the criticism’s against Starmer’s policies.

In fact, the article quotes Trump saying: "I respect him much more today than I did before because I just met his wife and family."

The BBC ignored every single criticism the President made of Starmer, but quotes an instance where he offered him support.
Read 11 tweets
Jul 28
The UK is descending into an Orwellian nightmare.

Today Keir Starmer told President Trump that the UK has free speech.

This is a lie.

📷The government watches what we say.
🚨Police investigate non-crimes.
💭People are arrested for wrongthink.

This is not 1984. It’s 2025. 🧵 Image
In the UK you can be:

⚖️ Prosecuted for causing offence
🖼️ Investigated for memes
🚪 Visited by police for social media posts
🧠 Arrested for thinking in the wrong place

Sound dystopian? This is Modern Britain.

Here are real UK laws that restrict free speech.
The Communications Act 2003 makes “grossly offensive” posts a criminal offence, even in private.

❗ Vague, subjective wording
🃏 Applies to jokes and memes
⛓️ Used to jail people for satire

📌 Example: In 2022, ex-cop James Watts was jailed for 20 weeks for memes in a private WhatsApp group.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(