Rupert Lowe

[Football Special]

9 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Sorry to break your heart but the BBC call terrorists, terrorists.

Anyway, you can actually name a more balanced news outlet if you like.

 

FYI 

[LeBizzier69]

10 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Sorry to break your heart but the BBC call terrorists, terrorists.

Anyway, you can actually name a more balanced news outlet if you like.

 

I'm not sure why you'd think a forum discussion about the BBC would break my heart.

Well the evidence suggests they didn't refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

To obtain a balance of opinions on anything you need to hear all sides. That's how you get a balanced view. I watch all news outlets to try and be informed, and come to my own conclusion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975

That article is from 21st January.

Opening paragraph.....

Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip. On 7 October 2023 it attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

Can't see the BBC describing them as a terrorist group.....can you?

[CB Fry]

4 hours ago, Football Special said:

FYI 

 

3 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

I'm not sure why you'd think a forum discussion about the BBC would break my heart.

Well the evidence suggests they didn't refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

To obtain a balance of opinions on anything you need to hear all sides. That's how you get a balanced view. I watch all news outlets to try and be informed, and come to my own conclusion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975

That article is from 21st January.

Opening paragraph.....

Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip. On 7 October 2023 it attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

Can't see the BBC describing them as a terrorist group.....can you?

Jesus wept. 

Still waiting for you to name another balanced news source you are using whose record I have no doubt will be absolutely faultless and unblemished on the standards you are requiring.

[LeBizzier69]

24 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

 

Jesus wept. 

Still waiting for you to name another balanced news source you are using whose record I have no doubt will be absolutely faultless and unblemished on the standards you are requiring.

Jesus wept indeed. 
It’s ok to be wrong. 
You do understand that balance comes from a variety of sources? 
I don’t listen to any one source and regard that as the truth.

I know, my standards really are very high. Unthinkable to want a state broadcaster that we pay for, to call a terrorist group….a terrorist group.

 

 

 

[Ted Bates Statue]

Quote

"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."

For decades this has been used as a stick to beat the BBC by various governments and competitors in the media. I think there used to be similar issues with how the IRA were reported on. Normally I shrug my shoulders and get on with life, but now I've read it, the reasoning is pretty sound to me - just calling someone a baddie doesn't really mean very much, and a news outlet should be expected to be more specific in their language.

 

 

[kitch]

1 hour ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Jesus wept indeed. 
It’s ok to be wrong. 
You do understand that balance comes from a variety of sources? 
I don’t listen to any one source and regard that as the truth.

I know, my standards really are very high. Unthinkable to want a state broadcaster that we pay for, to call a terrorist group….a terrorist group.

 

 

 

A state broadcaster's job is to remain impartial. If they were to pick a side and say that Hamas are terrorists, I'm sure 99.9% of people (among which I count myself) would agree with them, but that isn't the point.
The point is that state news needs to remain impartial. It CANNOT dictate the narritive to the public like a monetised news corporation can, on ANY subject. All it can do, is tell you what's happened. The BBC is the only outlet we have that cannot pick a side in any matter, and that's really important because the second your state news outlet does, you slip into being dictated to, and your government (who'd be pulling their strings) a dictatorship. Our govt is many things, but they're not dictators.

The Scum, Daily Fail, Mirror, 'Independent', Telegraph...they can all pick sides and say whatever they want, and they do, because they want to influence people. By contrast, the BBC cannot and should not. 
Have they done so in the past? That's a different argument. Hard to look past Kuensberg (sp) suckling up to Bozo in recent years, and it's certainly not an organisation free of corruption and bias, but it's meant to be.

It doesn't need to label them terrorists. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that's what they are.

Edited Friday at 14:41 by kitch

[East Kent Saint]

19 minutes ago, kitch said:

A state broadcaster's job is to remain impartial. If they were to pick a side and say that Hamas are terrorists, I'm sure 99.9% of people (among which I count myself) would agree with them, but that isn't the point.
The point is that state news needs to remain impartial. It CANNOT dictate the narritive to the public like a monetised news corporation can, on ANY subject. All it can do, is tell you what's happened. The BBC is the only outlet we have that cannot pick a side in any matter, and that's really important because the second your state news outlet does, you slip into being dictated to, and your government (who'd be pulling their strings) a dictatorship. Our govt is many things, but they're not dictators.

The Scum, Daily Fail, Mirror, 'Independent', Telegraph...they can all pick sides and say whatever they want, and they do, because they want to influence people. By contrast, the BBC cannot and should not. 
Have they done so in the past? That's a different argument. Hard to look past Kuensberg (sp) suckling up to Bozo in recent years, and it's certainly not an organisation free of corruption and bias, but it's meant to be.

It doesn't need to label them terrorists. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that's what they are.

Yes but you have to look at history to see why they became terrorists in the first place .

Don't forget the Jewish terrorists who blew up King David Hotel , killing 90 people or the group that kidnapped and hung a British soldier. They later were part of the Israeli government.

Nowadays since the "War on Terror" every government's enemy is labeled a terrorist group to the point where it is meaningless.

[kitch]

9 minutes ago, East Kent Saint said:

Yes but you have to look at history to see why they became terrorists in the first place .

Don't forget the Jewish terrorists who blew up King David Hotel , killing 90 people or the group that kidnapped and hung a British soldier. They later were part of the Israeli government.

Nowadays since the "War on Terror" every government's enemy is labeled a terrorist group to the point where it is meaningless.

I don't really feel it matters how or why a terrorist is a terrorist. They weren't the first; they certainly won't be the last and they're all scum, regardless of ethnicity, origin or whichever fairy in the sky they support. I don't give a shit which flavour they are.

[Dark Munster]

Rupert Lowe is a complete bastard. 
 

<Getting thread back on topic.>

[CB Fry]

2 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Jesus wept indeed. 
It’s ok to be wrong. 
You do understand that balance comes from a variety of sources? 
I don’t listen to any one source and regard that as the truth.

I know, my standards really are very high. Unthinkable to want a state broadcaster that we pay for, to call a terrorist group….a terrorist group.

 

 

 

"A variety of sources" and still you cannot name just one. Third time of asking. Name a variety, name one, do what you like, but you can't seem able to.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

I'm not sure why you'd think a forum discussion about the BBC would break my heart.

Well the evidence suggests they didn't refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

To obtain a balance of opinions on anything you need to hear all sides. That's how you get a balanced view. I watch all news outlets to try and be informed, and come to my own conclusion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975

That article is from 21st January.

Opening paragraph.....

Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip. On 7 October 2023 it attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

Can't see the BBC describing them as a terrorist group.....can you?

From the article you linked :

Quote

Hamas, which the US, UK, Israel and many other nations have designated as a terrorist organisation, continued to fire rockets into Israel.

I've handily highlighted a few words for you as I assume you missed them when you read the article the first time....

 

[LeBizzier69]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

"A variety of sources" and still you cannot name just one. Third time of asking. Name a variety, name one, do what you like, but you can't seem able to.

 

29 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

From the article you linked :

I've handily highlighted a few words for you as I assume you missed them when you read the article the first time....

 

I’m assuming you can’t read properly. The countries mentioned here believe that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The BBC haven’t. 

Their definition was at the top of the article - Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip

Edited Friday at 16:59 by LeBizzier69
Clarification

[LeBizzier69]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

"A variety of sources" and still you cannot name just one. Third time of asking. Name a variety, name one, do what you like, but you can't seem able to.

Have a seat, and let's start again shall we?

A variety of sources is any number of news outlets that one might read to form an opinion. BBC, Sky, ITV, C4 or the written media.

Now that i've written the names of other news sources, does that help you a bit?

Edited Friday at 17:00 by LeBizzier69

[Barsiem]

I know I'm going to sound like a grumpy old man... But why the f is this thread on the main board??

[LeBizzier69]

3 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

I know I'm going to sound like a grumpy old man... But why the f is this thread on the main board??

I know,. you're right....was thinking this earlier on. I'm assuming it can be moved?!

[Weston Super Saint]

15 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

 

I’m assuming you can’t read properly. The countries mentioned here believe that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The BBC haven’t. 

Their definition was at the top of the article - Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip

Are you saying the quote I put up was definitely not in that BBC article you linked to?

Are you also saying an 'armed group and political movement' can't also be a terrorist organisation?

[LeBizzier69]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Are you saying the quote I put up was definitely not in that BBC article you linked to?

Are you also saying an 'armed group and political movement' can't also be a terrorist organisation?

It’s in the article yes.

By definition possibly, but the BBC won’t refer to them as a terrorist group.

That’s the issue. 
 

This is quite an interesting read on it. 
 

https://www.thearticle.com/the-bbc-and-hamas-the-perils-of-impartiality

Edited Friday at 17:23 by LeBizzier69
Amendment

[ApprenticeBillionaire]

1 hour ago, LeBizzier69 said:

 

I’m assuming you can’t read properly. The countries mentioned here believe that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The BBC haven’t. 

Their definition was at the top of the article - Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and political movement in the Gaza Strip

Even I'm losing the will to live here.

NaME a NeWs oUTlEt

You're saying everything except answering the fucking question.

[LeBizzier69]

22 minutes ago, ApprenticeBillionaire said:

Even I'm losing the will to live here.

NaME a NeWs oUTlEt

You're saying everything except answering the fucking question.

Can you clarify what question you want answered? 

Such aggression for a Friday…at least save it for 4.53pm ish tomorrow 

I said in an earlier post that if you want balanced news you need other news outlets. They are all skewed of course, but the point is you read/watch/listen to them all and form your own opinions.

At no point have I said there’s a more balanced option.

In my opinion, if our government says Hamas is a terrorist group then so should the state broadcaster.

I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial take on things.

Edited Friday at 18:35 by LeBizzier69

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Have a seat, and let's start again shall we?

A variety of sources is any number of news outlets that one might read to form an opinion. BBC, Sky, ITV, C4 or the written media.

Now that i've written the names of other news sources, does that help you a bit?

Yeah, don't quite buy it.

You're regularly watching Sky and Channel 4 News and all the written media - lets say The Guardian and the Telegraph - but the only opinion you seem to offer up is that you don't like the BBC's description of Hamas.

Seems an incredibly niche concern for someone such as yourself consuming so much news and current affairs content from such myriad sources.

 

[LeBizzier69]

9 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Yeah, don't quite buy it.

You're regularly watching Sky and Channel 4 News and all the written media - lets say The Guardian and the Telegraph - but the only opinion you seem to offer up is that you don't like the BBC's description of Hamas.

Seems an incredibly niche concern for someone such as yourself consuming so much news and current affairs content from such myriad sources.

 

I’ll take that as a compliment thanks.

Maybe the BBC can take your lead and call Hamas a “niche terrorist organisation”.

[Football Special]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Yeah, don't quite buy it.

You're regularly watching Sky and Channel 4 News and all the written media - lets say The Guardian and the Telegraph - but the only opinion you seem to offer up is that you don't like the BBC's description of Hamas.

Seems an incredibly niche concern for someone such as yourself consuming so much news and current affairs content from such myriad sources.

 

BBC is basically the Guardian, they can't disguise their left wing bias when it comes to political shows like question time and Newsnight, absolutely loved the tears when Trump won

FAO CB Fry and the BBC 

[The Kraken]

2 minutes ago, Football Special said:

BBC is basically the Guardian, they can't disguise their left wing bias when it comes to political shows like question time and Newsnight, absolutely loved the tears when Trump won

I always laugh when I read rubbish like this. It’s the same when those of left wing persuasion accuse the BBC of having a right wing bias. Truth is they get it about correct. If anything I’d say their political shows edge more the right, given they have (had) ardent Tories in Kuennsberg and Andrew Neill, plus Robbie Gibb pulling the strings. But then you also have the likes of Nick Robinson who is a Tory through and through yet one of the most impartial presenters going.

If both sides are constantly moaning about your “bias” you’re probably doing something right.

And you don’t have to be a leftie to realise that Trump is a disaster of a man and outcome.

[CB Fry]

19 minutes ago, Football Special said:

BBC is basically the Guardian, they can't disguise their left wing bias when it comes to political shows like question time and Newsnight, absolutely loved the tears when Trump won

FAO CB Fry and the BBC 

Right you are, sweetheart.

[The Kraken]

Just realised this thread is on the main board ffs 

[Football Special]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Just realised this thread is on the main board ffs 

Ridiculous isn't it. 

Whilst it remains on here gathering more views , I recommend this site, cancel your licence and save some money 💰 

https://www.defundbbc.uk/

 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

It’s in the article yes.

By definition possibly, but the BBC won’t refer to them as a terrorist group.

That’s the issue. 
 

This is quite an interesting read on it. 
 

https://www.thearticle.com/the-bbc-and-hamas-the-perils-of-impartiality

I can't wait for you to find out that the BBC never referred to the IRA as terrorists either. It's gonna blow your mind.

[Verbal]

I thought this was a thread about Lowe, not an excuse for the usual suspects to embarrass themselves with theories about how Hamas started out in Broadcasting House.

[spyinthesky]

It costs me around  £3 per week to fund the BBC.
For me that is great value compared to other alternatives, especially as I dont have to put up with commercial adverts.

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

It costs me around  £3 per week to fund the BBC.
For me that is great value compared to other alternatives, especially as I dont have to put up with commercial adverts.

Not sure this is appropriate for the main thread but the value of it isn't really the point. The point is it's a mandatory fee. 

[badgerx16]

So Rupert Lowe is responsible for the BBC not directly referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization ?

Edited 20 hours ago by badgerx16

[The Kraken]

36 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure this is appropriate for the main thread but the value of it isn't really the point. The point is it's a mandatory fee. 

We’re not on the main bored any more.

And I agree. I think the BBC is great value for the cost of a licence fee. I also think that it should be optional and not mandatory, broadcasting has moved on a ridiculous amount since the concept of a licence fee was introduced.

Edit, sorry, misread it, yes it’s a deviation from the main thread subject.

Edited 20 hours ago by The Kraken

[Weston Super Saint]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So Rupert Lowe is responsible for the BBC not directly referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization ?

Amongst many, many other things, yes.

[aintforever]

18 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Have a seat, and let's start again shall we?

A variety of sources is any number of news outlets that one might read to form an opinion. BBC, Sky, ITV, C4 or the written media.

Now that i've written the names of other news sources, does that help you a bit?

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.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, spyinthesky said:

It costs me around  £3 per week to fund the BBC.
For me that is great value compared to other alternatives, especially as I dont have to put up with commercial adverts.

You still get adverts but they’re for BBC programmes and products.

[LeBizzier69]

41 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

“In which case, not just Hamas, but all other terrorist perpetrators should be exempt from being referred to as “terrorists” — including, rather remarkably, ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At least then the BBC would be able to claim consistency across the entire terrorist spectrum with a credible defence against the charge, implicit in the intervention by ministers, that the Corporation’s coverage of the conflict is not duly impartial.
Alternatively, align the reporting of Hamas with how the BBC has reported other terrorist organisations and events. Consistency matters. As it stands, the BBC’s defence of due impartiality in this instance is sufficiently flawed as to be unconvincing.”

Bias shown?? From earlier article linked above. 
Being impartial should be a given….. unless the said organisation is a proscribed terrorist group by our own government.

 

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

“In which case, not just Hamas, but all other terrorist perpetrators should be exempt from being referred to as “terrorists” — including, rather remarkably, ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At least then the BBC would be able to claim consistency across the entire terrorist spectrum with a credible defence against the charge, implicit in the intervention by ministers, that the Corporation’s coverage of the conflict is not duly impartial.
Alternatively, align the reporting of Hamas with how the BBC has reported other terrorist organisations and events. Consistency matters. As it stands, the BBC’s defence of due impartiality in this instance is sufficiently flawed as to be unconvincing.”

Bias shown?? From earlier article linked above. 
Being impartial should be a given….. unless the said organisation is a proscribed terrorist group by our own government.

 

 

 

Have you got a link to BBC articles that referred to ISIS or Al-Qaeda as terrorists?

[LeBizzier69]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you got a link to BBC articles that referred to ISIS or Al-Qaeda as terrorists?

No.

Next?

[LeBizzier69]

16 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

No.

Next?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z95y

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csvf6h

Describing the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks.

Isis as a terror group.

Does that count?

 

Edited 18 hours ago by LeBizzier69

[hypochondriac]

Quite clearly, if our government proscribes a group as a terrorist group then it's factually accurate to describe members as terrorists. 

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, LeBizzier69 said:

“In which case, not just Hamas, but all other terrorist perpetrators should be exempt from being referred to as “terrorists” — including, rather remarkably, ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At least then the BBC would be able to claim consistency across the entire terrorist spectrum with a credible defence against the charge, implicit in the intervention by ministers, that the Corporation’s coverage of the conflict is not duly impartial.
Alternatively, align the reporting of Hamas with how the BBC has reported other terrorist organisations and events. Consistency matters. As it stands, the BBC’s defence of due impartiality in this instance is sufficiently flawed as to be unconvincing.”

Bias shown?? From earlier article linked above. 
Being impartial should be a given….. unless the said organisation is a proscribed terrorist group by our own government.

 

 

 

So just to be clear, being impartial is a broadcaster saying exactly what the government tells it to?

[LeBizzier69]

25 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

So just to be clear, being impartial is a broadcaster saying exactly what the government tells it to?

Cheers my man, I’m off to the footy. I’ll let you wrestle with that conundrum.

[aintforever]

6 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z95y

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csvf6h

Describing the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks.

Isis as a terror group.

Does that count?

 

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.

Edited 12 hours ago by aintforever

[LeBizzier69]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

Hi there.

No, I was asked if there were links to the beeb calling other terror groups terrorists…..by Weston Super Saint.

So they’ve named those as terror groups (programme or not is really irrelevant if it’s the corporation stance) but not Hamas. 
 
Does that help?

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Hi there.

No, I was asked if there were links to the beeb calling other terror groups terrorists…..by Weston Super Saint.

So they’ve named those as terror groups (programme or not is really irrelevant if it’s the corporation stance) but not Hamas. 
 
Does that help?

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?

[LeBizzier69]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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?

I’m not upset about it, we all have opinions and isn’t that what this place is for?

My opinion is simply that if they’re a designated terrorist organisation in the UK then the BBC should refer to them as such.

Others feel differently. 
I think I’ll leave this here unless I have anything other to say about good old Rupert.

Edited 11 hours ago by LeBizzier69
Poor grammar

[The Kraken]

48 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

I’m not upset about it, we all have opinions and isn’t that what this place is for?

My opinion is simply that if they’re a designated terrorist organisation in the UK then the BBC should refer to refer to them as such.

They do. Here’s their director general Tim Davie saying so a couple of years ago

https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5

“He said the broadcaster would instead continue to describe the group as a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK government and others, or simply as Hamas.”

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I think Hamas leader, Rupert Lowe, should release the BBC!

 

What do you mean "You've only skimmed the thread?"

[LeBizzier69]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

They do. Here’s their director general Tim Davie saying so a couple of years ago

https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5

“He said the broadcaster would instead continue to describe the group as a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK government and others, or simply as Hamas.”

Oh good, all the news recently must be made up and the stance from 2 years ago is still in effect.

All these posts for nothing.

Cheers for clarifying.

[LeBizzier69]

56 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I think Hamas leader, Rupert Lowe, should release the BBC!

 

What do you mean "You've only skimmed the thread?"

And continue donating his salary to building the tunnels!