Yes in fact they've made different versions of the programme for the UK because they can't show the footage.
What an utterly nonsensical, illiberal, and even vaguely repressive policy.
You don't remember when coverage of Parliament was sound only do you? It took a lot of effort to get cameras in there in the first place...
There were, and are, very real concerns that video footage of parliamentary proceedings could be edited and used to misrepresent the proceedings in the houses. The rules that broadcasters have to follow with regard to editing and modification of the footage are still quite strict to ensure that viewers are not misled.
In an era of fake news - this may not be such a bad thing...
As far as I know, the UK is the only democracy, in Europe or elsewhere, with such an absurd policy. (When one is curious whether some policy makes sense or not, it's usually a good idea to do a quick transnational comparison.) Yes, parliamentary footage could be misrepresented, but so could any other political footage, regardless of where it was taken. To claim that such legislation leads to a reduction to "fake news" is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and, frankly, doesn't even pass the smell test.
A complete ban of broadcasting from a certain place could at least be justified, but prohibiting the use of parliamentary footage for satirical purposes while allowing it for news is a near-perfect example of a chilling effect
, and considering the long tradition of political satire in the UK, even un-British. Satire is vital element of the democratic exchange and to stifle it -- even slightly! -- in the name of neo-Victorian propriety and order makes zero sense. After all, MPs are chosen by the people to act as their representatives; why should the same people who elect them face restrictions if they decide to comment satirically on their actions while using footage of those actions as evidence?
Last edited by WW Update on 10 November 2019 3:45am - 3 times in total