aintforever

The more Palestinians they kill and buildings they demolish, the easier it will be to build Trump’s resort.

What do you expect? You bang on about the lies in the ‘mainstream media’ then go and post some complete bollocks from “somewhere on social media”. If you actually want to know more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8vjd3n3dzo

I didn’t say I thought it was justified, just inevitable.

Inevitable if people are having their land stolen and being denied their human rights.

If people have nothing to lose they will fight anyway.

It fucking has got worse, SR would be mental to keep him on for next season.

Agree about the difference in generations. My grandad’s generation fought in the war so earned the respect of the country, all the boomers that followed have done is get rich off the housing boom, rack up a massive debt and fuck up the environment.

Well he's a football hooligan, racist and has got himself banging up in jail so he's going to need bloody good bedtime-reading skills to win Dad of the Year.

Why don’t you go on a Rangers forum, I expect they would have a better idea.

This has to be the first time ever in my life I have looked forward to a Cricket season.

I think you’re forgetting how shite the Championship is. We need to freshen the squad up but there are plenty of decent Championship players in there.

That’s your opinion, other people have different opinions which is why the BBC try to report facts.

Of course you can, you can see what someone has done and why they did it and form your own opinion on wether they are a terrorist or not - you don't have to be told by people in government what to think. By your rationale, if Jeremy Corbyn happened to be our PM and he didn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation then that would be a Fact.

Am pleased for Newcastle despite them being owned by murderers. Only downside is now they have won something it does make our ‘fuck all since 1976’ seem just that little bit more shit.

Not all governments consider them to be a terrorist organisation because they believe they are fighting a just cause so I would say it was a matter of opinion. Calling someone 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' is just stating facts. Personally I think it’s good to have a news reporters trying to be as impartial as possible, saying someone is a gunman is not saying they are not a terrorist and doesn’t diminish what they have done.

In my opinion they are, I would also class some of the things Israel has done as terrorism as well.

I don’t know enough about their members to say. I listen to Radio 5 a lot and they are always calling Hamas a terrorist organisation on there so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.

They did actually, would have preferred it if more had joined up in though.

It’s a policy they have had for ages, it’s not worth getting upset about and makes perfect sense because in some situations wether someone is a terrorist is a matter of opinion not fact. And it makes sense that it applies to news reports, not programmes, because they are reporting events as they happen. ”The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding". They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. "We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'. "We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom." If you are in favour of unbiased reporting, as you say, then surely you agree with the above?

Are fans are a bunch of pussies, they should have been giving those wanker players dogs abuse for playing like that yet most just sat there in silence.

So you are having a go at the BBC for not calling Islamic terrorists terrorists, yet provide a link showing them calling Islamic terrorists terrorists. Not that it really matters but those are links to programmes, I expect their rules on labelling terrorists applies specifically to news reports.

He’s been shit for weeks now. Strolls around the pitch like he thinks he’s Matt Le Tiss or something - just another rat that will jump ship when we go down.

He’s just fucking clueless, way worse than under Martin.

Of course it makes sense to get your news from a variety of sources, that’s just obvious. I don’t think anyone on here has suggested otherwise. Whatever you read will undoubtedly have some bias but you will be hard pressed to find anything with the same standards as what the BBC have imo. You are all over the place on this, BBC’s wording with regard to terrorists is what it is because of their aim to not show any bias (one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter etc), yet you claim the opposite.

Which news outlets would you say are more balanced?