Jump to content

BBC News - Breaking news


Zoot Zoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just minutes ago in Zurich, the UK attempted to get the Zurich alliance to use force to stop the Commonwealth from defendin itself.
Here is a transcript of their statement and the Commonwealth response.

[quote]"The Western Region of the United Kingdom will not agree to do anything until the facts are in and the dust has settled. Considering the range of foreign intervention in the North American Civil War, any kind of promise or agreement for either faction is premature, at best. We will say, at this point in time, that we will begin a routine investigation into the current UK-EoPI treaty, that is the best we can do until the Civil War comes to an end. This pact first and foremost is for European peace, so what we should be speaking about is the English's militarization of the UK's border, their closing of all territorial waters and airways - even to Zurich as allies, etc... The English have not contacted the U.K. either in private or public channels to speak with us about their dramatic military increase along our borders - this would be acceptable if we were only NAP holders, but we are now allied through Zurich and the English are getting dangerously close to violating the following article.


[quote] Article I: Non Aggression
The undersigned hereby agree to establish a policy of non-aggression. No signatory will launch military, political, or covert operations against the other.[/quote]


Their flights into international waters, getting close to the UK's EEZ are now a daily occurrence. This, in addition to their other practices, in my opinion, showcases a clear policy of aggression against the United Kingdom's Western and Northern territories. We call upon the Zurich pact to assist the United Kingdom in preventing further English militarization and aggression against us."
[/quote]

[b]The Commonwealth response is as follows.[/b]

[quote]Thats !@#$%^&* and you know it. Our airborne patrols are in international and English territorial waters aswell as over sovreign English soil. We are militarising our own border, inside our own Nation agaisnt the possibility of UK aggression againt us through your still, unexplained relationships between the present Emperor of the EoPI and their former Emperor, Mr Harland. Whom Might I add was the only leader to support you when we were at war, though I dont think I need to remind you. You also hold a base in Florida, SAS controlled territory and you have not yet begun removing your troops, or removing SAS forces to aid the legitiate Imperial Government. Why?

It is these actions of your own that is making England nervous and we will NOT be caught out by surprise against a UK surprise attack along with an American attack. We do not need to contact the nation we are taking the liberty of preparing ourselves for an attack against Sir, that would be an obvious national security flaw, but as it concerns you so much, there you have it. We are ensuring English independance against the possibility of UK aggression against us, regardless of how you may be allied to us. It is our sovereign right to close our airspace and territorial seas and has been a long standing policiy of England when we are threatened with war.

There has been no agressive action taken against the UK, we have breached none of your territory and we have launched no political, military or covert attacks against you. Our actions have taken place inside our own borders and are therefore legal and your attempt to gather European support in launching a war against us because we have closed down England's borders and placed more units on the borders than usual, is laughable and pathetic."
[/quote]


We now broadcast a message straight from Windsor Castle from the King.

"Let me make this clear. The Commonwealth will remain Independant and we will not be bullied by [i]anybody[/i] into removing our military forces from a high state of alert. War has been threatened against the Commonwealth and we will face this threat and respond accordingly to [i]any and all[/i] acts of aggression taken against England or Maine.

The British Army is as I speak, fortifying the borders between England and the UK and there is a significant military presence on the borders in the form of British Army formations and the airforce.

We will protect ourselves from UK and American aggression. The most recent of the UK's announcements were, in short, a call to Europe to turn on England and force us to remove our military from the borders, to force us, stop protecting ourselves from the threat of aggression from the Nation who used four nuclear weapons of a strategic scale against British cities and towns.

I will say it once more.

The Commonwealth will [i]not[/i] be bullied into submission, into bending to anothers will and we will respond with the full force of the Commonwealth military to aggression taken against the Commonwealth or its allies."

Now we return you to the regular schedule;
Doctor Who
Eastenders
Holby City

Edited by Zoot Zoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[u][b]More statements by the UK in Zurich spark outrage with the English people![/b][/u]


[quote]My dear associates, perhaps now you can see what my nation is dealing with? Nowhere, not once, have I advocated for any sort of force to remove the English's forces from the border with my nation. Their representative, has taken private communication between our persons in Zurich and allowed it to be broadcasted to the world. This is not the way to support European cooperation, nor unity. Quite frankly, delegates, this is insanity on the part of the English government. I once again reiterate my call for Zurich help in calming the English situation. Obviously, the United Kingdom can not do it ourselves, and we need cooperation from our allies."
[/quote]

This latest statement comes minutes after the Kings speech. A call to war, it would seem the Ministry of Defence and the Kings fears had some credit to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If we are not mistaken, it seems to us the English had gotten worked over nothing. It seems to us that the United Kingdom had done nothing than ask Zurich to help meditate over the growing tensions between the UK and England, and England's actions had done nothing to remedy this. The UK had not issued a call for war (indeed, they had called for Zurich to "help in calming the...situation", which in no ways constitutes a call for war). Has the English considered the crucial fact that they hold treaties with the UK, and that if the UK genuninely wanted to go to war against England, it would be doing that right now - and in doing that, it would be violating the treaties? It seems the English, in their negative statements against the UK, has demonstrated a distinct lack of trust in their treaty partner. Their inappropriate conduct in diplomacy did not help matters further.

Now, I ask the English King this: how does the UK's call for "Zurich help in calming the English situation" constitute a call for war? And the fact the English published the UK representative's statement in such a short time, and in a way that attempted to accuse the UK of something it did not do, indicates that the English is clamoring for war, not the UK that it alleges."

- Jacob Kalla (no relation to Union President Suhadi Kalla), Ph.D in International Affairs, correspondant of the [i]Union Times[/i].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The United Kingdom has never, in the course of any public or private talks, called for the use of force against the Commonwealth. We are not the ones arming our border with extraordinary paranoia, nor are we the ones leaking private talks, nor are we coming close to violating English sovereignty. In fact, the English themselves have admitted that they are preparing to go to war with the United Kingdom, not the other way around."

Edited by Sargun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must remind commentators this is not a state run media. For this reason we are unable to get another statement from the King at this time.

Also was the comment from the UK an official statement?

In response to Mr Kalla, out political analyst believes that with an SAS base in Scotland, the King has the right idea in regards to fortification. Moreover it's been a long time policy of the MoD to fortify the border when threatened with war by a foreign entity they believe constitutes a significant threat to England.

As for a matter of trust, once more, our analyst can only speculate, but with Irelands usage of nuclear weapons against civilian targets, trust is something that is very strained between the UK and England.

Yes England has been preparing for a war against the UK as admitted, but as also stated, a defensive war. The MOD believes from what information we have, that the UK will attack or offer some form Of aggression towards English sovereignty which as also stated by the King, will be met with a response.

We eagerly await the next statement from the Government as much as other nations and we will broadcast it as and when this occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The first lie is that you have information on the United Kingdom - you have none and will continue to do so. In fact, by saying you have information you would be admitting to violating the treaty of Zurich. The second lie is that this false information will attack or offer aggression against English sovereignty. In fact, we are worried that [b]you[/b] are coming close to violating [b]ours[/b] and that was the entire purpose of the complaint.

"Your nation, in the past, occupied and persecuted Scotland and did untold horrors to the population. Should we prepare for war every time you perform a military activity?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like we said. We are not state run media. We cannot speak on behalf of the Government.

In regards to the information, it is simply speculation from the statements from the Government and the relationship between the UK and the EoPI.

Information can be interpreted differently, we in the BBC can only guess that the King sees this relationship as a threat to English security when you are housing soldiers of the organisation which issued direct threats against England.

We must re-iterate, we are not state run media and have no new information at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you believe the UK 'consistitutes a significant threat to England', then why do you have treaties with it, specifically a NAP if I believe correctly? In fact, isn't the purpose of a NAP is to maintain non-aggression and peace between your two countries? If that treaty remains in effect, and the UK seems to have no intentions of breaking it, then why do you continue to be so paranoid regarding UK "aggression toward English sovereignty"? All these military posturing does not help mollify the situation as it is - in fact, if you continue to do what you are doing, then conflict will break out eventually. And when it does, it would be completely England's fault, not the UK. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course.

And you place the basis for your continuing distrust toward the UK because of "Irelands usage of nuclear weapons against civilian targets", which occurred in the past? From what we see, you are dwelling in the past, and by doing that, you have used the past as a pretext of obstructing peaceful relations with the UK, both present and future, and brought forth possible conflict. And we all know Europe had been wreaked by far too conflicts in the past. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course.

In light of England's aggressive actions against a neighbor - much less a [b]treaty partner[/b] - I would caution any other nations against entering any treaties with England lest England accuse them of posing a "significant threat" to it at some time in the future. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course."

- Jacob Kalla, Ph.D in International Affairs, correspondant of the [i]Union Times[/i].

Edited by JEDCJT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1303259332' post='2694074']
"If you are not the state run media, why do you speak for the Ministry of Defence?"
[/quote]

We do not speak for the Ministry of Defence, we speak of their releases to the press such as the above news announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JEDCJT' timestamp='1303259567' post='2694081']
"If you believe the UK 'consistitutes a significant threat to England', then why do you have treaties with it, specifically a NAP if I believe correctly? In fact, isn't the purpose of a NAP is to maintain non-aggression and peace between your two countries? If that treaty remains in effect, and the UK seems to have no intentions of breaking it, then why do you continue to be so paranoid regarding UK "aggression toward English sovereignty"? All these military posturing does not help mollify the situation as it is - in fact, if you continue to do what you are doing, then conflict will break out eventually. And when it does, it would be completely England's fault, not the UK. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course.

And you place the basis for your continuing distrust toward the UK because of "Irelands usage of nuclear weapons against civilian targets", which occurred in the past? From what we see, you are dwelling in the past, and by doing that, you have used the past as a pretext of obstructing peaceful relations with the UK, both present and future, and brought forth possible conflict. And we all know Europe had been wreaked by far too conflicts in the past. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course.

In light of England's aggressive actions against a neighbor - much less a [b]treaty partner[/b] - I would caution any other nations against entering any treaties with England lest England accuse them of posing a "significant threat" to it at some time in the future. Once again, we can only speculate at this point, of course."

- Jacob Kalla, Ph.D in International Affairs, correspondant of the [i]Union Times[/i].
[/quote]


The NAP was signed after Ireland illegally breached English territory during a brief conflict between England and Athens during the transition back to Royal Rule.

You would be better sending your analysis to the Government directly Mr Kalla for a more solid answer with more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1303259834' post='2694089']
We do not speak for the Ministry of Defence, we speak of their releases to the press such as the above news announcement.
[/quote]

"Please point out the Ministry of Defence report detailing the information referenced."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"SAS base? I'm sorry, but England needs to check their facts. That base is staffed by 30,000 Imperial troops, and we've had no communications that would indicate they have joined the separatists. Further, the base does not currently have naval ships stationed there, and has never, by agreement, housed any type of missile. We are wondering what threat, exactly, is posed by 30,000 troops surrounded by another nation dozens of miles from your own border."

- Statement from General Eugene "Sarge" Ryder, commander of Imperial Ground Troops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1303263363' post='2694156']
"SAS base? I'm sorry, but England needs to check their facts. That base is staffed by 30,000 Imperial troops, and we've had no communications that would indicate they have joined the separatists. Further, the base does not currently have naval ships stationed there, and has never, by agreement, housed any type of missile. We are wondering what threat, exactly, is posed by 30,000 troops surrounded by another nation dozens of miles from your own border."

- Statement from General Eugene "Sarge" Ryder, commander of Imperial Ground Troops
[/quote]

You mean the BBC needs to check it's facts?
Theningormation comes from our liaison with the MoD who informed the BBc of this revelation after the Scottish representative in Zurich said they were seperatist forces.

As for the Scottish request, we are not at liberty to disclose sensitive information in regards to our sources, but you have our assurances we are not run by the state. As it happens the BBC is run by the people as it is the TV licenses which pay for the BBC's continuation.

We have said several times now, we have no further information until the government issues a press release.

Edited by Zoot Zoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1303264585' post='2694169']
You mean the BBC needs to check it's facts?
Theningormation comes from our liaison with the MoD who informed the BBc of this revelation after the Scottish representative in Zurich said they were seperatist forces.

As for the Scottish request, we are not at liberty to disclose sensitive information in regards to our sources, but you have our assurances we are not run by the state. As it happens the BBC is run by the people as it is the TV licenses which pay for the BBC's continuation.

We have said several times now, we have no further information until the government issues a press release.
[/quote]

"Scotland has never stated they were separatist forces.

Your liaison with the Ministry of Defence is deliberately giving false information to the BBC - information that the BBC refuses to give out when we press for actual, verifiable facts. Either the Ministry of Defence is lying or the BBC is lying."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1303266730' post='2694194']
Oh perhaps both have incorrect information.
[/quote]

"So you admit there is a very likely possibility that your entire basis for this travesty of a spectacle has been incorrect information?

"Thank you. I believe this entire made-up conspiracy is over now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The days where the BBC was a respected source of news for the free world clearly are long since past. I remember sitting by my shortwave radio with my father when I was a boy in New York City. My father passed away when I was eight so this is one of the few treasured memories I have of the man. Back on point, I would sit next to my radio with my father late at night listening to the BBC broadcasts.

He would always tell me to listen carefully because the BBC is one of the best at what they do, which is report the news. What happened to that old BBC? Has it been perverted for political gain? Has it been taken over as an official mouthpiece of King Alfred's government?

I haven't the faintest clue, but I sure do miss the old BBC. The news, the music, the sports, and everything seems to be lacking these days. Bring back the old BBC you dirtbags or be gone!"

Mad Dog Bob Denard
Somewhere in Austria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1303267186' post='2694201']
"The days where the BBC was a respected source of news for the free world clearly are long since past. I remember sitting by my shortwave radio with my father when I was a boy in New York City. My father passed away when I was eight so this is one of the few treasured memories I have of the man. Back on point, I would sit next to my radio with my father late at night listening to the BBC broadcasts.

He would always tell me to listen carefully because the BBC is one of the best at what they do, which is report the news. What happened to that old BBC? Has it been perverted for political gain? Has it been taken over as an official mouthpiece of King Alfred's government?

I haven't the faintest clue, but I sure do miss the old BBC. The news, the music, the sports, and everything seems to be lacking these days. Bring back the old BBC you dirtbags or be gone!"

Mad Dog Bob Denard
Somewhere in Austria
[/quote]

Private to Mr Denard

Your complaint has been received and will be taken Ito consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The fact that you have failed to adequate address the questions that we had posed to you, coupled with the fact that you keep on parroting that you were "not at liberty to disclose sensitive information in regards to our sources" and that you were "not run by the state", makes us strongly suspect that you are, in fact, run by the state. On top of that, the fact that you essentially admitted that your information was "incorrect" had lent weight to the possibility that the BBC may have been colluding with the Ministry of Defense to deceive the UK of England's true intentions. This is our speculation, of course.

Thank you for clearing it up. The basis is: you (or should I say, the English government?) are unable to give out "further information" to satisfy the UK's inquiry for "actual, verifiable facts", you keep hiding behind the "no further information" claim, and that you failed to address our and the UK's concerns in a satisfactory way. The thesis: England's whole position on this "travesty of a spectacle" was a fallacy, that it was based on fear-mongering, deception, and aggressive posturing with the goal of disrupting the peace in Europe. Have a good day."

- Jacob Kalla, Ph.D in International Affairs, correspondant of the [i]Union Times[/i].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There actually is no further information at this time due to
The on going situation.

OOC
I'm on my phone, it's 4am.
Give it a break for a few hours so ican get a proper post written up. I'm sort of limited to what I can do at the minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...