Tags

,

Share it

An interesting BBC Radio Sheffield interview with Nigel and Sam from Occupy was conducted on Toby Foster’s morning show on 23rd December 2011. You can listen to an extract of the show below (or download the mp3), following is an article about the radio show written by one of Occupy Sheffield.

 

Interesting because of Foster’s inability to let Nigel or Sam finish their responses to the few actual questions he did put to them; this listener counted twelve separate interruptions from Foster before either Nigel or Sam had finished their replies.

Interesting because the supposedly neutral Foster keeps stating his own opinions unsupported by evidence. For instance, he says that a small number of people at an Occupation in a city of half a million means we do not represent the views of the city; one could have countered that the Cathedral was barely half full when the writer of this article attended last Remembrance Sunday, so that shows that most people in Sheffield could not care less about those who have died in conflict and war.

Evidently Foster has some sort of preternatural insight into how many people are supporting Occupy around the country and the world when he seems to refute that people are Occupying in thousands of towns and cities and that our following is large and growing.

Sam tells him those people’s views are being listened to by Occupy; ‘no they’re not’ says Foster with absolute confidence, presumably with access to the kind of omnipresent surveillance and research tools that the world’s governments and market research companies would kill to have.

When Nigel refuted that Occupy Sheffield are interfering with the work of The Archer Project, Foster interrupts again saying ‘so the Christians are lying to us now then are they?’; the point of being given the chance to talk on a public broadcasting platform is to be able to refute such allegations without words being put in ones mouth by an interviewer.

Foster does not even have the good grace of most professional interviewers to allow his guests the last word; when Sam says he would like to move on to something slightly more positive, Foster says he can’t because they are ‘bang out of time’. Poor show I think most people would agree. Even ‘Newsnight’s’ Jeremy Paxman allows his guests the final word; evidently Foster is no Paxman.

So, on to Foster’s separate interview with Peter Bradley from the Cathedral; we hope that Peter wasn’t frightened off being interviewed in the same room with Nigel after their last meeting. Foster eventually remembered his manners for this one; this listener didn’t hear him interrupt Peter once. Peter begins by asserting that the Occupation is a ‘distraction’ for people who use the Archer Project but not expand on what he means by that.

One could say that those who use the Archer Project are adults and they are capable of deciding whether being part of a movement that provides them with a voice, a place where they can confidently meet fellows who want to find answers and reasons for their situation in life is a distraction or not.

Does Peter believe the aims of the Archer project and Occupy are mutually exclusive? When Foster questions the Christianity of Peter’s stance towards Occupy Sheffield, Peter asserts that the Occupation is illegal; those who are familiar with the laws on trespass may question this.

Peter at least identifies some common ground with Occupy Sheffield when he says that the Cathedral and its partners have a vision for the future; whether such visions are the same may be a matter for open debate at a future GA, which Peter is welcome to attend. Peter seems to think that making camp on Church St, opposite RBS, is the same as doing so outside a private residence; RBS is not a private residence. And the Cathedral which Peter represents, if he is referring to that, describes itself as ‘a place for all’; many people would say that their own houses are not.

Peter goes on to say that in Sheffield we have a well-functioning, local democracy, although anyone who attended the recent full Sheffield City Council meeting may disagree. He also says that he and his commercial partners are working towards solutions. That’s great; Occupy welcome Peter’s friends if they are genuinely willing to engage with us.

Peter also says that he was talking about some of our issues three years ago and wants to know where we were then; I’m sure many people involved with our Occupation were doing the same three years ago. The fact that many people who weren’t doing so three years ago and now are might just be down to the Occupy movement and those elements of the church who support us and engage with us. (It’s worth noting that Foster once again thought it acceptable to put words in Sam’s mouth when he tells Peter that we think he is supporting ‘mammon’.) And Peter must have a special, foolproof ‘Daily Telegraph’ style thermal imaging camera to back up his assertion that very few of our tents are occupied.

Finally, going back to Foster’s interview with Nigel and Sam; he asserts that apart from this interview, our Occupation had received no media publicity that week; yet Occupy Sheffield appeared on BBC Look North earlier in the week this interview was broadcast (following on from a feature on Occupy Leeds). Sheffield Live radio has also been featuring us and we are making constant and ever improving use of social media. Our joint direct action with UKUncut on 17th December was seen by hundreds of people and received a lot of online coverage locally. And the most important publicity is coming from actually meeting and talking to so many diverse people in person at camp. Everyone apart from Peter Bradley that is.

Peter has not yet stepped foot inside the Occupy camp on Church St, opposite RBS. If he does so he should pause to read our banner before we greet him inside; for he would see that it reads ‘Occupy Sheffield’ rather than ‘Occupy Peter Bradley’.

Of course, to Peter’s and Foster’s credit, Occupiers do not enjoy their level of local celebrity or vested ecumenical power, no matter how parochial that status; if we did it would be the easiest thing in the world for us to use that to make unsupported assertions and statements about people who do not enjoy our advantage and with whom we have, through our own choice, had very little engagement.