I don't recall any of these signatories opposing the National Union of Miners when they were threatening to overthrow Margaret Thatcher or her "democratically elected government".

The BBC would never be part of a coup to overthrow the British Government as it would be biting the hand that feed's it!

Except that wasn't what the NUM were doing. They were withdrawing their labour in opposition to a government determined to wipe out their jobs for purely ideological reasons.

Oh, noooooo.... boring.... not the bbc conspiracy against the tories again. Get a proper life snafu!

This is a very dangerous and incorrect road to go down. If various individuals/companies have broken the law in supporting them a coup they should be prosecuted for that - but taking away freedom of speech is saying two wrongs make a right.

Of course Putin is employing very similar arguments when taking away TV licences from his opponents in Russia - but of course that is different or is it?

It's perhaps worth remembering that the NUM would have won their strike if Scargill had the sense to trust democracy and his members and had a proper ballot beforehand.

I don't agree, Stephen. I think if you are allowed a license to broadcast then responsibilities come with that. A television station openly backing an unlawful coup against a democratically elected government would lead to the loss of their broadcasting license in any country I can think of. Do you think that Al Quaida would be allowed to broadcast messages advocating terrorist atrocities in the US or Britain, and that stopping them doing so would be curtailing freedom of speech?

If the television station had broken an existing law fine - but just supporting the actions of people who committed illegal actions doesn't mean that your freedom of speech should be limited.

Al Quaida are allowed to broadcast messages advocating terrorist atrocities - and on the whole we can trust ordinary people to make up their minds. I don't think banning the IRA was very effective either.

Worth noting that you are again employing the same arguments that Putin employs.

I'm happy to support Chavez, but there is a real danger he is scoring an own goal here - when you support democracy you have to trust it and have higher standards than your rivals. I suspect that he has done just the thing that his opponents want him to do.

Perhaps you will tell me the last time the mainstream US or UK television stations devoted even 10 minutes to Al Quaida?

RCTV didn't just report news of the coup, they encouraged people to take part in it. This wasn't 'the miners' strike' this was an armed insurrection against a democratically elected government in which 13 people were killed, and the President taken captive and stripped of his powers. If you think for one nano second that Channel 4 would have its licence renewed if it broadcast hour after hour of programmes during a coup calling on people to overthrow their government... well, frankly, you're off your rocker. Note: Chavez did not close the television station down 5 years ago, but under legislation existing before he came to power, the government have determined this station is not fit to broadcast.

This isn't freedom of speech, it is libertarianism gone mad!

Bob,

Just wanted to say that on your advice I watched the film. I've also included a link where you can watch it on Google.

I think it is remarkable. It shows quite clearly the loyalty that Chavez has to democracy while his local, and our international media, is using this current situation to paint him as a dictator.

An absolutely incredible piece of film.

You feel that if you had the ability to put it on prime time TV across the world, just once, then everything might just change.

Maybe.

Chavez is a dictator that handles his International propaganda very well. To all the comment in his favor, from different parts of the worlds I invite you to come to Venezuela and experience the "Chavez Life" for yourselves.

Also, RCTV was not closed because it participated in a coup. All tv stations, except the government ones, transmitted ads showing the wrong doings of Chavez. The so called participation was when the stations divided the signal in the middle of a "Chain" (don't know the term in English but basically all tv stations are forced to transmit whatever the government wishes). The stations did this because Chavez was stating that nothing was going on while the truth is that a peacefully march heading towards La Casona (Government House) was being shot at by Snipers placed on buildings and by adepts to Chavez government, some of them people from the National Assembly, yes there is footage of this and I believe it's shown on the video yet taken out of context.

Don't be fooled by the King of International Propaganda. Venezuela is not a country you wished you live on, and if so, then just come experience it for yourselves.

BTW, this documentary was financed by the Venezuelan government, and also, doesn't it strike to anybody as odd that this Irish women had access too all the places, at all times, in the middle of a coup, to the most important places on such coup? Just so you know, most of their footage is taken out of context, or was recreated and not filmed live as they claimed. I know, cause I live the events first hand

Not sure what definition you are using to describe a 'dictator'. My dictionary defines it as someone who rules unconstrained by laws, an absolute ruler, one who rules by tyranny. None of these things describe the Chavez government which has won a popular mandate eight times altogether.

It is very nice of you to invite me to your country and I weould hope to visit there sometinme in the next couple of years.

By the way... if it is odd that 'this Irish woman' happened to be there all the while (no, not really, they were making a film about Chavez) why shouldn't it strike me as odd, Saps.... that YOU were there?

Chavez is ruling unconstrained of laws. at least for the next 18 or 17 months, since the National Assembly gave him the power to rule by decree.

And here's an interesting link for you bob:
http://www.11abril.com/index/especiales/chavezthefilm.asp

You misunderstand my point - democratic socialists have to higher standards when it comes to freedom of speech - if RCTV participated in the coup then then they should be prosecuted for that - but taking away freedom of speech because you call for the overthrow of a government is not and never will be democratic behaviour. It is the ends justify the means argument - and we all know where that leads.

I'd be interested in whether you think that it right for Putin to employ the same argument - and believe me he does - or are you allowing Chavez's political stance to argue for relative rather than absolute values.

There is now hardly any terrestial TV in Venezuela that is allowed to be openly critical of Chavez (saying that there is satellite and cable TV - is really silly given the financial situation of most ordinary Venezuealans) . Whatever you might say there are a large number of Venezuelans who do not support what is happening (polls say 70-80% - but even if they aren't true there must be a significant minority - and you should remember what Bevan said about minorities). There are also a large number of Latin American (and Venezuelan) socialists who are not enamoured by what Chavez is doing - together with others such as Dennis MacShane and the European Parliament (who have just passed a resolution condemning the takeover of RCTV)

Even if you believe what Chavez is doing is morally right - it is not at all sensible - he has just given his rivals a very big stick with which to beat him - and believe me they will try.

You probably ought to be aware that Chavez once led a failed military coup against a democratically elected President of Venezuela (he was corrupt and his party was a member of the Socialist International but that is besides the point)

Re Al Quaida - when did the UK News devote 10 minutes of substance to anything - the point i'm trying to make is that there reviews are reported - even though they are not exactly forthcoming (e.g trials/videos after attacks) and people are allowed to make up their own views. Remember the farce we used to have over Sinn Fein/IRA.

Might be worth reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia - as I'm sure there are some parallels!

For the record - the film is was not financed by the Venezuelan government.

Stephen,

RCTV did not 'call for the overthrow', they actively urged people to participate in it. Also, the vast majority of Venezuela's media remains in private hands. In fact, the other major TV stations critical of Chavez, whose licenses were up for renewal, did receive them.

Perhaps you can tell us where you get your polling data. The ones I am using come from the ballot box. According to an article in The Guardian the majority of those upset about the closing down of the station were concerned about the loss of their soap operas.

If ANY democratically elected goverenment refused to renew the licence of a broadcaster which openly encouraged people to break the law, I would find that perfectly understandable. For heaven's sake there were calls for Channel 4's license to be revoked over celebrity bleedin' Big Brother for some alleged trivial breaches of the law (trivial, that is, compared to encouraging armed insurrection).

I am aware Chavez led a military coup, and that he was tried and dealt with by the law for his actions.

Your comparison with our news 'reporting' is extremely silly. I don't know how many times I have said this, but they weren't 'reporting' the coup, they actively participated in it by encouraging Venezuelans to get involved.

Finally, it is interesting that other nations who have recently decided not to renew broadcasting licenses for stations that violated radio and TV laws, such as Peru in April of this year, and Uruguay last December, received little if any press coverage or condemnation. Were you objecting? Was Dennis MacShane, the EU Parliament or the US Senate bleating?

Oh, and I can see absolutely no connections at all with Homage to Catalonia.

Bob, no TV station actively encourage people to participate in the coup, cause the truth is, people did not throw a coup. A couple of individuals made use of the situation to throw a coup which backfire and all the blood, sweat and tears from those days (April 8 to 11) were lost because of the stupidity and selfishness of this people.

You may not know, or you are not pointing out that people had been marching for days. And when I say people I refer to millions, yes, there are pictures of this which are not shown on your praised documentary.

Now, when I say no TV station encourage people to participate on the coup I mean no TV station went in and deliberately said to people, let's oust Chavez. All they did was run anti Chavez propaganda, and encourage people to join the pacific march in their right to protest a totalitarian government. Now, if that is not freedom of speech but libertarianism, then I think we differ greatly on our meaning of freedom of speech, cause to me, freedom of speech give you the right to say what you want, to protest and to encourage others to protest as well.

Oh, and one other thing, wasn't Hitler democratically elected too? I guess all it takes to be democratic is to be democratically elected, your actions after the fact don't count.

The question you need to answer is why if RCTV was being closed down for its role in the coup why wasn't this done in 2002 rather than now in 2007?

In addition, why is Chavez's government now pursuing Globovision - the only remaining non state terrestial TV company (with limited coverage) using new anti slander legislation that has been recently introduced?

You might also want to look at this letter from Amnesty International to the 2006 Presidential Candidates

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530082006?open&of=ENG-VEN

Is this really the sort of letter a so called socialist should be receiving after being in power for 8 years?

I agree that the comparisons with our news reporting are somewhat far fetched - but the simple point I am trying to make is that (even in our limited experience) the best way to deal with anti democrats (and I have no doubt that some of those behind RCTV are just that) is not to censor them but to report then at face value and then let ordinary people decide.

Are you a little worried that Putin has used exactly the same arguments for closing down Russian TV channels? And yes I hope I will always complain whenever freedom of speech is denied and by whoever - I don't know enough about Uruguay or Peru to comment - but if what you say is right it is wrong. You can also add the Chilean parliament to those who have objected about RCTV.

Sorry you didn't get the parallel with Homage to Catalonia regarding about how a noble cause was eventually destroyed becasue its leaders eventually attacked the idels on which it was founded (as represented in Orwell's eyes by the POUM) - but perhaps you can see the parallel with Animal Farm and Chavez's current behaviour - didn't Napoleon use the excuse of past excesses by the humans to justify his crackdowns as well. Remember Orwell's criticism of certian left wing causes did not make him very popular with some on the left at the time.