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 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
Jul 25
🚨 UK’s Online Safety Act just came into effect, promising a “safer” internet.
It’s a lie.

This law threatens YOUR privacy, free speech, and democracy and paves the way for a surveilled, censored web.

Want to know how bad it gets? 🧵 Image
It’s 250+ pages of confusing legalese. Its vague wording leaves even experts unclear on its full requirements.

Experts have derided it as incoherent and authoritarian.

The alleged goal is to protect children, but the approach is so broad it ends up undermining the very freedoms it claims to defend.
What does the Act do?

It creates a new “duty of care” on all online services to police user content. This means:

✅ Platforms must proactively detect and remove "illegal" and "harmful" content.
✅ Age verification to block under-18s from adult material.
✅ Private messaging apps must scan messages for banned content.

WhatsApp and Signal warn this poses an unprecedented threat to encryption and privacy.
Read 12 tweets
Jun 20
Today, Parliament reaches a pivotal moment with the third reading of the Assisted Dying Bill, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in decades.

Some see choice. Others fear risks.

It’s a deeply complex issue. Here's the arguments from both sides.

A thread 🧵 Image
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is the most significant attempt yet to legalise assisted dying in the UK.

It would allow terminally ill adults to request medical help to end their lives, but only under strict safeguards.

On a technical level, it is not voluntary euthanasia. And it is not death on demand.

It is physician-assisted dying, where patients self-administer prescribed medication under regulated oversight.
The bill is the work of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced it in October 2024 after topping the private members’ ballot.

Since then, it has passed a major Commons vote (330–275), endured 29 committee sittings, and undergone key amendments.

It is now in its final Commons stage.
Read 20 tweets
Jan 23
Labour is on track to become the most hated UK government of all time. Their net approval rating sits at a disastrous -45%.

It seems to just get worse and worse. Here's a month by month breakdown of every Labour scandal so far 👇

Please LIKE and SHARE! Image
1⃣ The Betrayal of Pensioners

Just 3 weeks after getting into power on 29 July 2024, Keir Starmer's Labour announced they'd cut winter fuel payments for 10 MILLION pensioners in England & Wales that weren't on Pension Credit. This bombshell seemingly came out of nowhere, it was NOT in Labour's manifesto. But it was justified by Chancellor Rachel Reeves citing a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled.

On 11th September at PMQs, Rishi Sunak grilled Starmer on whether the death toll from this policy would be higher or lower than Labour's own grim report in 2017 that said 3,850 pensioners would die as a result of this policy. Starmer dodged the question – a theme that seems to be common with this government.

Is this how Labour cares for the vulnerable?
2⃣ The Southport Cover-up

On the very same day, Southport was struck by a horrific tragedy when Axel Rudakubana killed three young girls and injured several more in a stabbing attack, sparking outrage across the nation. Protests and riots followed, with Labour MPs blaming the spread of the disorder on misinformation being spread online. However, the real controversy lay with the government's response to the event.

Keir Starmer was accused of withholding critical information about the suspect to avoid political damage. Despite knowing the motivations and background of the killer, Starmer chose to address the nation by labeling those questioning the government's transparency as "far right," rather than providing the facts. This move not only failed to quell public unrest but also raised suspicions of a cover-up aimed at protecting Labour's image over ensuring public trust and safety.

Is this what a government of service looks like?
Read 26 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!

:(