Rupert Lowe

[hypochondriac]

2 hours 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?

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists? 

[The Kraken]

39 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

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.

No problem. Here’s another one. From 2 months ago.

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

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

But yeah, let’s stick with it. Why don’t the BBC say terrorist? It’s truly a mystery.

[aintforever]

55 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists? 

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.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

OK just so it's clear that in this particular situation it's a fact that Hamas are terrorists. 

[aintforever]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

OK just so it's clear that in this particular situation it's a fact that Hamas are terrorists. 

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

[egg]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists

 

How about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's? The US and Canada, amongst others, brand them as terrorists. We don't, which seems sensible to me as they're part of the military of a sovereign nation. By the rationale of this thread, any employee of that group must be terrorist in the eyes of an American.

Edited 23 hours ago by egg

[badgerx16]

Has anybody yet definitively concluded whether Reform are a terrorist organisation ?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Has anybody yet definitively concluded whether Reform are a terrorist organisation ?

We asked Rupert Lowe. But, then had to wait for an actor to deliver the response. And when Gerry Adams turned up, having taken some acting lessons, it got really confusing.

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, egg said:

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists

 

How about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's? The US and Canada, amongst others, brand them as terrorists. We don't, which seems sensible to me as they're part of the military of a sovereign nation. By the rationale of this thread, any employee of that group must be terrorist in the eyes of an American.

Npr or the TV equivalent in America woild probably refer to them as such. Not sure what the relevance is to the BBC referring to Hamas as terrorists though. It's not like anyone would shy away from referring to Isis by that description because there's no dispute. 

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, aintforever said:

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

They are terrorists by the definition of the word and are described as such by our government. It's not a matter of opinion. 

[Tamesaint]

Does anyone have any views on Rupert Lowe??? 

 

 

[tdmickey3]

22 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Does anyone have any views on Rupert Lowe??? 

 

 

Yep, he’s a cretin

[egg]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Npr or the TV equivalent in America woild probably refer to them as such. Not sure what the relevance is to the BBC referring to Hamas as terrorists though. It's not like anyone would shy away from referring to Isis by that description because there's no dispute. 

The point is that nobody is bound by another's definition, and that it is does not necessarily follow that a person affiliated with an organisation deemed by some as a terrorist group, is a terrorist.

The IRG are a terrorist organisation according to the US government, but not ours. A low level member of that organisation, who does not have any involvement with acts of violence or aggression, or it's planning or facilitation, probably would not be deemed a terrorist by anyone in the US, and certainly shouldn't be over here. 

The BBC referring to Hamas as a proscribed terrorist group is accurate because it is. Referring to all people associated with it or supporting it as terrorists isn't accurate.  

[aintforever]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

They are terrorists by the definition of the word and are described as such by our government. It's not a matter of opinion. 

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. 

[hypochondriac]

13 hours ago, egg said:

The point is that nobody is bound by another's definition, and that it is does not necessarily follow that a person affiliated with an organisation deemed by some as a terrorist group, is a terrorist.

The IRG are a terrorist organisation according to the US government, but not ours. A low level member of that organisation, who does not have any involvement with acts of violence or aggression, or it's planning or facilitation, probably would not be deemed a terrorist by anyone in the US, and certainly shouldn't be over here. 

The BBC referring to Hamas as a proscribed terrorist group is accurate because it is. Referring to all people associated with it or supporting it as terrorists isn't accurate.  

Now you've lost me. If you're a member of a terrorist group then you're a terrorist. There's really no dispute. Hamas are a terrorist group and if you're a member of Hamas then you're a terrorist.