During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
The situation has been snowballing for decades.
This time Hamas have gone too far and bitten off more than they could chew. They were counting on the fact Israel would be held back so there would be no major retaliation, just a few pointless airstrikes and that's that.
They were wrong.
Hamas need to be destroyed, and should be.
The situation in the region as a whole though has been going the other way, towards normalising relations with other Arab countries.
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
Given what Biden's been saying I think there's no prospect of him stopping Israel from wiping out Hamas.
I don't think any of us would be unhappy if Hamas was wiped out. I think it would be to the benefit of Israel, the world, and the Palestinian people.
It's great. But the more the Tories take photo ops on Crossrail the more it pisses off everyone north of Cricklewood or wherever it goes near. Or for that matter west of Reading, given that that electrification was messed up.
Electrification? Greenford, Henley, Marlow, and Windsor Central are all EAST of Reading!
Would have been a good idea to electrify these and to Oxford to eliminate local diesel working from Paddington
Total cost £2bn??
And then there's the Chiltern Main Line. Marylebone (main line), Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park are the only stations in Greater London not served by any electric trains or trams.
Maybe electrify Marylebone to Aylesbury both routes and onto Oxford via Islip?? Yes seems reasonable
Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.
Only an idiot thinks that surrounded by motorways is a bad thing.
And the only reason houses are identikit in our current system is the planning system resulting in an oligopoly building estates en-bloc.
Look at Japan where planning permission isn't needed to build a home (or demolish an existing one and rebuild it to your desires) and they don't have identikit homes. Or a housing shortage.
I quite like motorways (freeways), but I'm not entirely convinced I want to be surrounded by them:
It's great. But the more the Tories take photo ops on Crossrail the more it pisses off everyone north of Cricklewood or wherever it goes near. Or for that matter west of Reading, given that that electrification was messed up.
Electrification? Greenford, Henley, Marlow, and Windsor Central are all EAST of Reading!
Would have been a good idea to electrify these and to Oxford to eliminate local diesel working from Paddington
Total cost £2bn??
And then there's the Chiltern Main Line. Marylebone (main line), Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park are the only stations in Greater London not served by any electric trains or trams.
Maybe electrify Marylebone to Aylesbury both routes and onto Oxford via Islip?? Yes seems reasonable
Actually, I forgot the Greenford branch stations South Greenford, Castle Bar Park, and Drayton Green in my list of London non-electrified stations!
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
The situation has been snowballing for decades.
This time Hamas have gone too far and bitten off more than they could chew. They were counting on the fact Israel would be held back so there would be no major retaliation, just a few pointless airstrikes and that's that.
They were wrong.
Hamas need to be destroyed, and should be.
I disagree 100%.
Hamas wants to prevent Israel and the Arab world enjoying normal relations. And if it costs the lives of 100,000 Palestinians... well, they will end up with Allah anyway.
And I suspect that they will succeed in their ambition.
Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.
Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.
Only an idiot thinks that surrounded by motorways is a bad thing.
And the only reason houses are identikit in our current system is the planning system resulting in an oligopoly building estates en-bloc.
Look at Japan where planning permission isn't needed to build a home (or demolish an existing one and rebuild it to your desires) and they don't have identikit homes. Or a housing shortage.
I quite like motorways (freeways), but I'm not entirely convinced I want to be surrounded by them:
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
The situation has been snowballing for decades.
This time Hamas have gone too far and bitten off more than they could chew. They were counting on the fact Israel would be held back so there would be no major retaliation, just a few pointless airstrikes and that's that.
They were wrong.
Hamas need to be destroyed, and should be.
I disagree 100%.
Hamas wants to prevent Israel and the Arab world enjoying normal relations. And if it costs the lives of 100,000 Palestinians... well, they will end up with Allah anyway.
And I suspect that they will succeed in their ambition.
They'll succeed in the interim.
And if relations normalise with Hamas surviving and peace talks resume then Hamas would pull this stunt again.
Destroy Hamas, and then when relations normalise peace talks can occur without Hamas holding a veto.
Its very strange how the likes of Gary Lineker appear to have nothing to say on the matter, when they normally can't shut up about world affairs.
It really isn't hard, in the way you can criticise Israel actions and particular the (alleged) corruption of their PM / previous statements of some ministers in the government without being an antisemite....you can call Hamas depraved terrorists up their with ISIS, with an agenda not dissimilar to the Nazis, without being an Islamophobe or hating all of Palestine.
In fact when we have had Islamic terrorism in the West, normally the same people being totally silent are the first to say wow wow wow, and bring out the standard lines of don't blame all Muslims, religion of peace, think of the increase in hate crimes etc etc etc.
But against the Jews....tumbleweed.
The Mail has helpfully compiled a list of Lineker's controversial tweets and you'd be hard pressed to apply the label "world affairs" to any of them. Domestic politics on the other hand...
Now he can't even manage a "my heart goes out to the Jewish victims of terrorism"....and of course it isn't just him, it lots of the other usual loud mouth suspects on the tw@tters. They are obviously shit scared to appear to virtue signal support for something that their echo chamber might not be 100% onboard with.
Hang-on, you want to see people virtue signalling now?
Shades of poppy fascism, which now I think of it is just a week or two away.
The 'virtue signalling class' ... that was a new one on me.
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
Point of order.
I have driven on that road many times and I object to it being called a motorway. That implies speed.
Its very strange how the likes of Gary Lineker appear to have nothing to say on the matter, when they normally can't shut up about world affairs.
It really isn't hard, in the way you can criticise Israel actions and particular the (alleged) corruption of their PM / previous statements of some ministers in the government without being an antisemite....you can call Hamas depraved terrorists up their with ISIS, with an agenda not dissimilar to the Nazis, without being an Islamophobe or hating all of Palestine.
In fact when we have had Islamic terrorism in the West, normally the same people being totally silent are the first to say wow wow wow, and bring out the standard lines of don't blame all Muslims, religion of peace, think of the increase in hate crimes etc etc etc.
But against the Jews....tumbleweed.
The Mail has helpfully compiled a list of Lineker's controversial tweets and you'd be hard pressed to apply the label "world affairs" to any of them. Domestic politics on the other hand...
Now he can't even manage a "my heart goes out to the Jewish victims of terrorism"....and of course it isn't just him, it lots of the other usual loud mouth suspects on the tw@tters. They are obviously shit scared to appear to virtue signal support for something that their echo chamber might not be 100% onboard with.
Hang-on, you want to see people virtue signalling now?
Shades of poppy fascism, which now I think of it is just a week or two away.
The 'virtue signalling class' ... that was a new one on me.
That damn virtue-signalling class are failing to virtue-signal again!
Time we cancelled all those cancel-culture wokists.
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
We'd never get past the planning stage if they were trying to build the first ones today, I have no doubt. Think of the precious newts who would be destroyed.
Dear John Simpson, Nelson Mandela didn't behead babies, rape women to death and then parade the bodies of innocents through then streets of South Africa. A world where the people who did these things become 'global heroes and icons' is not a world most of your viewers will want to welcome."
Clearly some support in the South for scrapping much of HS2 and Sunak will be pleased to be winning back a lead amongst core bluewall seats.
However as long as Starmer still leads in redwall and marginal seats he is heading for PM
Agreed, but I think you should add 'and if Starmer is only a little behind in bluewall seats'. Rishi will hope for a grander recovery than that. If he does, he has a chance (though a good showing in Scotland for Labour in particular means it would not be enough even then).
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
It's great. But the more the Tories take photo ops on Crossrail the more it pisses off everyone north of Cricklewood or wherever it goes near. Or for that matter west of Reading, given that that electrification was messed up.
Electrification? Greenford, Henley, Marlow, and Windsor Central are all EAST of Reading!
Would have been a good idea to electrify these and to Oxford to eliminate local diesel working from Paddington
Total cost £2bn??
And then there's the Chiltern Main Line. Marylebone (main line), Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park are the only stations in Greater London not served by any electric trains or trams.
Maybe electrify Marylebone to Aylesbury both routes and onto Oxford via Islip?? Yes seems reasonable
Actually, I forgot the Greenford branch stations South Greenford, Castle Bar Park, and Drayton Green in my list of London non-electrified stations!
Yes electrify to Greenford then through running Paddington - High Wycombe electrified??
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
Before the M25 opened people used to fly from B'ham to Gatwick because the car journey was so lengthy and awkward. Scheduled flights between those airports actually ceased altogether once the motorway opened AFAIK.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
Point of order.
I have driven on that road many times and I object to it being called a motorway. That implies speed.
Well, unless you are posting from your vehicle now you made it to your destination eventually, so stop moaning!
It might take 10 years longer than it should, cost twice as much, and be crap, but you will still get it (sort of) - that's the aspiration of Britain today.
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
We'd never get past the planning stage if they were trying to build the first ones today, I have no doubt. Think of the precious newts who would be destroyed.
Indeed. Another reason to abolish the planning system.
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
Given what Biden's been saying I think there's no prospect of him stopping Israel from wiping out Hamas.
He seemed genuinely sickened by the atrocities. And it's existential for the Israelis. The details of the Hamas attacks was the stuff of nightmares particularly if you are Jewish. It really will be no holds barred.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
Dear John Simpson, Nelson Mandela didn't behead babies, rape women to death and then parade the bodies of innocents through then streets of South Africa. A world where the people who did these things become 'global heroes and icons' is not a world most of your viewers will want to welcome."
Dear John Simpson, Nelson Mandela didn't behead babies, rape women to death and then parade the bodies of innocents through then streets of South Africa. A world where the people who did these things become 'global heroes and icons' is not a world most of your viewers will want to welcome."
Dear John Simpson, Nelson Mandela didn't behead babies, rape women to death and then parade the bodies of innocents through then streets of South Africa. A world where the people who did these things become 'global heroes and icons' is not a world most of your viewers will want to welcome."
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
Point of order.
I have driven on that road many times and I object to it being called a motorway. That implies speed.
Well, unless you are posting from your vehicle now you made it to your destination eventually, so stop moaning!
It might take 10 years longer than it should, cost twice as much, and be crap, but you will still get it (sort of) - that's the aspiration of Britain today.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
FA to announce plan for Friday tomorrow - appears unlikely it will light up the arch in Israel’s colours. More likely something to pay tribute to all of the victims of the violence.
Finished up watching the Jimmy Savile thing....found it very weird that the longer it went on, the more it diverged from the truth, to the extent it ends up with these earnest people from a hospital porter to the journalist character all pleading with him to confess his sins to the Lord before death.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
I see no reason why any country needs big money spent during elections. Especially when they don't have massive TV ad buys to purchase. £35m is admittedly small fry compared to some, if that is split across every constituency, unless that is separate to this.
A lot of memorable lines and campaigns don't cost millions, what are they even spending on? If you cannot rely on your volunteers and supporters I don't see what else should be supplemented if you've already funded leaflet rounds etc.
In any case I'd cut the limit of donations to something like a max of £1000 per person per per year or £10,000 per organisation. Can't manage on that level? Get more popular or cut down your staff and overhead.
It's not that I want to beggar them, I just don't think it is a good idea for any party to be reliant on massive donations from individuals or groups, I think it's inevitable that leads to grubbyness at best and corruption at worst.
Edit: Oh, and if you donate to a political party you are't allowed an honour or peerage for at least five years since your last donation.
No, it's not punishing them, it's to make sure there is no suggestion someone has bought influence - if they want to go after a gong they can choose not to engage in political activity, and if they want to fund political activity then they can prioritise that over getting a civic honour.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
I wonder how many of the fools who are suggesting motorways are a bad idea and we shouldn't have investment of more of them in the North reckon the M25 is pointless and should be shut down?
Point of order.
I have driven on that road many times and I object to it being called a motorway. That implies speed.
Well, unless you are posting from your vehicle now you made it to your destination eventually, so stop moaning!
It might take 10 years longer than it should, cost twice as much, and be crap, but you will still get it (sort of) - that's the aspiration of Britain today.
Britain: it’ll do.
Sort of works as our slogan actually.
"It used to do" might be more appropriate.
Fan though I am of our muddle along approach to constitution, politics, and culture, it does feel a bit creaky.
Bad news for Trump is very good news for the rest of us
The vast majority of the GOP is in Trump's corner, not sure Scalise winning out would make much difference. They still dance to his tune most of the time.
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
Given what Biden's been saying I think there's no prospect of him stopping Israel from wiping out Hamas.
He seemed genuinely sickened by the atrocities. And it's existential for the Israelis. The details of the Hamas attacks was the stuff of nightmares particularly if you are Jewish. It really will be no holds barred.
Harris looked physically ill during Biden's press event yesterday. Maybe she has seen more than one person should ever see from the intel briefings?
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
I see no reason why any country needs big money spent during elections. Especially when they don't have massive TV ad buys to purchase. £35m is admittedly small fry compared to some, if that is split across every constituency, unless that is separate to this.
A lot of memorable lines and campaigns don't cost millions, what are they even spending on? If you cannot rely on your volunteers and supporters I don't see what else should be supplemented if you've already funded leaflet rounds etc.
In any case I'd cut the limit of donations to something like a max of £1000 per person per per year or £10,000 per organisation. Can't manage on that level? Get more popular or cut down your staff and overhead.
It's not that I want to beggar them, I just don't think it is a good idea for any party to be reliant on massive donations from individuals or groups, I think it's inevitable that leads to grubbyness at best and corruption at worst.
Edit: Oh, and if you donate to a political party you are't allowed an honour or peerage for at least five years since your last donation.
No, it's not punishing them, it's to make sure there is no suggestion someone has bought influence - if they want to go after a gong they can choose not to engage in political activity, and if they want to fund political activity then they can prioritise that over getting a civic honour.
Totally agree. I do worry what Musk may or may not enable in the next British and US elections too, for the right price. And the best way to avoid going down those roads is to make that price unpayable.
During a Press Conference by the newly formed Emergency Government of Israel the Current-Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe Hamas off the Face of the Earth;” while the Former-Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz said, “Hamas is an Enemy that needs to be Exterminated by all means.”
It might all be bluster, but it seemed to be repeated by numerous different government officials, and then they look weak if they don't follow through.
Are the Americans going to talk them down? Again it might all be for show, but Sleepy Joe didn't sound like he was going to come in and say "Bibi, leave it, leave it, its not worth, lets get a kebab instead" anytime soon.
I think it should worry everybody that obviously the situation could snowball.
Given what Biden's been saying I think there's no prospect of him stopping Israel from wiping out Hamas.
He seemed genuinely sickened by the atrocities. And it's existential for the Israelis. The details of the Hamas attacks was the stuff of nightmares particularly if you are Jewish. It really will be no holds barred.
Harris looked physically ill during Biden's press event yesterday. Maybe she has seen more than one person should ever see from the intel briefings?
At these times, I am also reminded of the poor sods in the Far East who act as "moderators" for social media platforms, who have to see this stuff day in day out.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
I'm a big fan of nuance, but it's important to recognise when a situation is not nuanced as well, otherwise the regular approach has no weight.
That does not require going all "Kill 'em all" as an approach, but getting bogged down in hypotheticals, nitpicking and overcontextualising can just become a diversionary tactic.
Particularly when it is engaged in by people or factions which decry nuance and context if deployed in relation to an issue which they think to be simplistic and inarguable.
Bad news for Trump is very good news for the rest of us
The vast majority of the GOP is in Trump's corner, not sure Scalise winning out would make much difference. They still dance to his tune most of the time.
It is, the GOP caucus electing establishment Scalise over Trump's favourite Jordan is a direct rebuff to him and he will see it as a slight from the party elite in Congress, even if Scalise only narrowly won
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
I'm a big fan of nuance, but it's important to recognise when a situation is not nuanced as well, otherwise the regular approach has no weight.
That does not require going all "Kill 'em all" as an approach, but getting bogged down in hypotheticals, nitpicking and overcontextualising can just become a diversionary tactic.
Particularly when it is engaged in by people or factions which decry nuance and context if deployed in relation to an issue which they think to be simplistic and inarguable.
It's just that some people - some academics, for example - would rather be nuanced and wrong than simplistic and right. It's almost as if the argument is chosen tonally - on how sophsticated it makes the holder appear - than on petty concerns like fact.
You are right to point out the opposite disease, of course.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
There are morons on Twitter? Colour me unsurprised.
No one here has been defending or justifying such atrocities, just pointing out that counter-atrocity is not an appropriate response.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
I see no reason why any country needs big money spent during elections. Especially when they don't have massive TV ad buys to purchase. £35m is admittedly small fry compared to some, if that is split across every constituency, unless that is separate to this.
A lot of memorable lines and campaigns don't cost millions, what are they even spending on? If you cannot rely on your volunteers and supporters I don't see what else should be supplemented if you've already funded leaflet rounds etc.
In any case I'd cut the limit of donations to something like a max of £1000 per person per per year or £10,000 per organisation. Can't manage on that level? Get more popular or cut down your staff and overhead.
It's not that I want to beggar them, I just don't think it is a good idea for any party to be reliant on massive donations from individuals or groups, I think it's inevitable that leads to grubbyness at best and corruption at worst.
Edit: Oh, and if you donate to a political party you are't allowed an honour or peerage for at least five years since your last donation.
No, it's not punishing them, it's to make sure there is no suggestion someone has bought influence - if they want to go after a gong they can choose not to engage in political activity, and if they want to fund political activity then they can prioritise that over getting a civic honour.
President of United States, Joe Biden has Confirmed during a Speech tonight that Babies were Beheaded by Hamas Terrorists during their Surprise Attack into Southern Israel, with him stating, “It matters that Americans see what's happening. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see…have Confirmed Pictures of Terrorists Beheading Children.”
Pro-palestinian Twitter this morning was at pains to point out that only some of the babies were beheaded, and that to say all 40 dead babies were beheaded was inaccurate.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
I'm a big fan of nuance, but it's important to recognise when a situation is not nuanced as well, otherwise the regular approach has no weight.
That does not require going all "Kill 'em all" as an approach, but getting bogged down in hypotheticals, nitpicking and overcontextualising can just become a diversionary tactic.
Particularly when it is engaged in by people or factions which decry nuance and context if deployed in relation to an issue which they think to be simplistic and inarguable.
It's just that some people - some academics, for example - would rather be nuanced and wrong than simplistic and right. It's almost as if the argument is chosen tonally - on how sophsticated it makes the holder appear - than on petty concerns like fact.
You are right to point out the opposite disease, of course.
I think its ripe for one of those midwittery memes, where the phony sophisticate and wannabe member of the intelligentsia spews some pseudo-smart complexity about this issue, when the true situation can be pretty darn simple and straightforward.
I recognise the tactic since I engage in it myself.
Im not sure the above is actually going to be significant come election time. Its going to take a lot more evidence and a lot more improvement elsewhere for the Conservatives.
Right now and for some time I just cant see the path for them to win. The Johnson and Truss malarkey is going into the rear view but after a while voters get a bit tired and think a change is needed and thats where we are.
Im not sure the above is actually going to be significant come election time. Its going to take a lot more evidence and a lot more improvement elsewhere for the Conservatives.
Right now and for some time I just cant see the path for them to win. The Johnson and Truss malarkey is going into the rear view but after a while voters get a bit tired and think a change is needed and thats where we are.
Even CON like me recognise the game is up
Looks like LAB soon but only with an air of general reluctance
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 4h New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the @FT team at Liverpool
Oh Christ. Does any normal human actually welcome a raised spending cap? There’s doing to be no escape.
Well I do. There is no limit to the amount the media, whether mainstream or social, can spend telling lies about politicians. Politicians should be allowed to fight back.
The one comment I would make is this: If Israel gets goaded in to a disproportionate response, ie one that involves the killing and starving of civilians, then the whole thing just becomes a fog of war situation, and people will not necessarily side with Israel the way they seem to be expected to. I would also say that I think there is a lot of quiet support for the Palestinian cause. I think there is a risk this situation will ultimately backfire enormously on Israel and weaken it.
The Israelis don't care any more. Do you not understand this?
It's like asking the Brits in 1940 to pay attention to editorials in the Los Angeles Times, it's absurd
They have the manpower and the materiel, and they are entirely minded to end this, whatever the world says
They can of course do it , but they can also destroy themselves in the process - ruin their international reputation, turn public opinion against them, etc.
And of course Leon is wrong about Britain in 1940. We cared very much what US public opinion was because not only did we require their help in maintaining supplies but we wanted to get them into the war on our side. There was a huge amount of effort and time put into projecting the right image of Britain standing valiantly alone.
Edward Murrow was worth a good half dozen divisions or more to our war effort as a result of his radio broadcasts from London.
Its very strange how the likes of Gary Lineker appear to have nothing to say on the matter, when they normally can't shut up about world affairs.
It really isn't hard, in the way you can criticise Israel actions and particular the (alleged) corruption of their PM / previous statements of some ministers in the government without being an antisemite....you can call Hamas depraved terrorists up their with ISIS, with an agenda not dissimilar to the Nazis, without being an Islamophobe or hating all of Palestine.
In fact when we have had Islamic terrorism in the West, normally the same people being totally silent are the first to say wow wow wow, and bring out the standard lines of don't blame all Muslims, religion of peace, think of the increase in hate crimes etc etc etc.
But against the Jews....tumbleweed.
This is exposing the moral depravity of Gary Lineker?
This is exposing the derangement of the Daily Telegraph.
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 · 1h Latest Russian joke: -- What does mobilization have common in Russia and Israel? -- Long lines for flights to Tel Aviv.
Twitter is full of partisan fools tonight, uncriticaly chearleading on all Palesinian or Israeli actions. Tommy Robinson thinks Netanyahu is representing him against all Muslims around the world. Various muslim ideologues from different places think the Palestinian cause is their cause. The world is still quite backward, in many ways.
You'd have to say that a large part of the reason these two malfunctioning societies are stuck in such horror is what is projected onto them from outside. Western leftists, western rightwingers, simplifying and romanticising muslim fanatics, the more starry-eyed elements of the American-Jewish diaspora, Iran, Russia, India, the "anti-imperalist", or "non-aligned countries", the whole suite of useless bigoted rubbish fighting proxy cultural wars on the backs of traumatised civilians.
The one comment I would make is this: If Israel gets goaded in to a disproportionate response, ie one that involves the killing and starving of civilians, then the whole thing just becomes a fog of war situation, and people will not necessarily side with Israel the way they seem to be expected to. I would also say that I think there is a lot of quiet support for the Palestinian cause. I think there is a risk this situation will ultimately backfire enormously on Israel and weaken it.
The Israelis don't care any more. Do you not understand this?
It's like asking the Brits in 1940 to pay attention to editorials in the Los Angeles Times, it's absurd
They have the manpower and the materiel, and they are entirely minded to end this, whatever the world says
They can of course do it , but they can also destroy themselves in the process - ruin their international reputation, turn public opinion against them, etc.
And of course Leon is wrong about Britain in 1940. We cared very much what US public opinion was because not only did we require their help in maintaining supplies but we wanted to get them into the war on our side. There was a huge amount of effort and time put into projecting the right image of Britain standing valiantly alone.
Edward Murrow was worth a good half dozen divisions or more to our war effort as a result of his radio broadcasts from London.
Derrr
Of course we cared to an extent. But American indifference would not have stopped us fighting on, alone
That’s where Israel is now. They will do this: very well, alone - if needs be
Amused to see an EU-funded advert on the TV telling us how good and genuine Parmagianno Regiano is. As if the Parmesan producers aren't doing well.
In true EU fashion, there is a title card at the end acknowledging the funding. On a TV ad.
And of course as we talked about a few days ago, Parmagianno Regiano is fake "Italian"....it comes from Wisconsin .
Two 'g's: Reggiano. And surely Parmagianno Reggiano is the true Italian hard cheese, Parmesan is made in Wisconsin?
I was being a bit facetious.
The story is that there appears to be a significant number of what we think of classical traditional Italian food items which have these protected status aren't traditional "Italian" at all. Rather immigrants took foods from regions of what is now Italy (but weren't at the time), particularly to places likes the US, where they were then evolved, which were transported back to Italy, often changed again, and then deemed "how we have always done it". Many are actually very recent inventions.
From pizza to carbonara to cheeses, what is often quoted as the "traditional" Italian method / format, isn't anything of the sort.
Parmagianno Reggiano is a bastardisation on a bastardisation.
I think those downthread who suggested that Biden's remarks today are a confession that he cant hold Israel back are part correct. The reality is that he isnt holdng them back and the administration hasnt tried too hard. The work to get a channel for civilians a safe route into Egypt is significant in that the US knows and accepts that this is full on war and indeed is using its own military might to warn others to stay out.
Meanwhile Hamas is reportedly suggesting that civilians should go to the border with Israel for a bit of a protest on Friday. Thats about as cynical as you can get on one front (hoping for massacre anyone?) but on another angle there is the suggestion that they are working on basis that the Israelis will start the drive in on Friday. Certainly it appears that a number of countries are running a deadline to get their nationals out by Thursday night so there may be somehing in it.
In terms of the build up, Israel looks to have the kit and manpower in place ok, its whether the further battlefield prep is needed , or as most people call it, more bombing and shelling. Notably whilst the pictures show the pre-planned hits on tower block buildings, the Israelis seem to have a certain level of airpower in loiter to direct against targets of opportunity. If you are Hamas, thats a real problem.
We bought a place near Tottenham Court Road station know that Crossrail was coming. It makes getting to Heathrow (direct, 35 minutes) easy, and Gatwick (change at Farringdon, 45-50 minutes) dramatically easier.
Come to mention it, it makes getting to Bedford to see OGH much easier too.
I Elizabeth Line
I always fantasised about living in Bedford Square
We bought a place near Tottenham Court Road station know that Crossrail was coming. It makes getting to Heathrow (direct, 35 minutes) easy, and Gatwick (change at Farringdon, 45-50 minutes) dramatically easier.
Come to mention it, it makes getting to Bedford to see OGH much easier too.
I Elizabeth Line
I always fantasised about living in Bedford Square
There is a Bedford Square in Belfast, cheaper and..well its cheaper.
Amused to see an EU-funded advert on the TV telling us how good and genuine Parmagianno Regiano is. As if the Parmesan producers aren't doing well.
In true EU fashion, there is a title card at the end acknowledging the funding. On a TV ad.
And of course as we talked about a few days ago, Parmagianno Regiano is fake "Italian"....it comes from Wisconsin .
Two 'g's: Reggiano. And surely Parmagianno Reggiano is the true Italian hard cheese, Parmesan is made in Wisconsin?
I was being a bit facetious.*
The story is that there appears to be a significant number of what we think of classical traditional Italian food items which have these protected status aren't traditional "Italian" at all. Rather immigrants took foods from regions of what is now Italy (but weren't at the time), particularly to places likes the US, where they were then evolved, which were transported back to Italy, often changed again, and then deemed "how we have always done it". Many are actually very recent inventions.
From pizza to carbonara to cheeses, what is often quoted as the "traditional" Italian method / format, isn't anything of the sort.
Parmagianno Reggiano is a bastardisation on a bastardisation.
* because we were all taking the piss out of how crap American cheese is a week or so ago.
We bought a place near Tottenham Court Road station know that Crossrail was coming. It makes getting to Heathrow (direct, 35 minutes) easy, and Gatwick (change at Farringdon, 45-50 minutes) dramatically easier.
Come to mention it, it makes getting to Bedford to see OGH much easier too.
I Elizabeth Line
I always fantasised about living in Bedford Square
I lived in a superb squat at 85 Gower Street for a while. Just up from Bedford Square. The entire building. Original Georgian fireplaces and everything
I'm not sure I should give Steve Scalise credit for running for Speaker, in the circumstances -- but he sure is showing courage: 'On June 14, 2017, at 7:09 am EDT, Scalise and three other people were shot and wounded by James Hodgkinson, a left-wing extremist with a record of domestic violence,[7][43] who opened fire with a rifle during a baseball practice of the Republican team for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. . . . On August 29, 2023, Scalise announced he had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma. He said the cancer was detected early and was "very treatable".[111]
We bought a place near Tottenham Court Road station know that Crossrail was coming. It makes getting to Heathrow (direct, 35 minutes) easy, and Gatwick (change at Farringdon, 45-50 minutes) dramatically easier.
Come to mention it, it makes getting to Bedford to see OGH much easier too.
I Elizabeth Line
I always fantasised about living in Bedford Square
Have you read the Strangers & Brothers series by CP Snow?
We bought a place near Tottenham Court Road station know that Crossrail was coming. It makes getting to Heathrow (direct, 35 minutes) easy, and Gatwick (change at Farringdon, 45-50 minutes) dramatically easier.
Come to mention it, it makes getting to Bedford to see OGH much easier too.
I Elizabeth Line
I always fantasised about living in Bedford Square
I lived in a superb squat at 85 Gower Street for a while. Just up from Bedford Square. The entire building. Original Georgian fireplaces and everything
I used to date a crazy, beautiful Sardinian girl called Simona.
She had friends who lived in a council flat on the ground floor of a house in Gower Street, just yards from the big bookstore.
Four of Britain’s top lawyers complain to Ofcom about BBC stance on Hamas
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
Four of Britain’s top lawyers complain to Ofcom about BBC stance on Hamas
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
I can't read the full article, but what are they actually asking Ofcom to do about this?
Are they saying it breaches the Broadcasting Code for the BBC not to use the word that they would use about Hamas? Even if one agrees with them that the word "terrorist" is wholly appropriate for BBC journalists to use themselves rather than merely attributing it to others (and I do broadly agree with that point) it simply isn't the role of Ofcom to set the editorial policy of broadcasters, particularly in terms of what they DON'T say. Instead, they look at content actually broadcast and whether it complies with defined rules.
It just isn't enough simply to say they'd have reported a story differently. The whole point of broadcast regulation is it gives broad editorial discretion to channels, but patrols the boundaries on taste, decency etc. Eminent lawyers should, and I'd suggest probably do, know that.
Four of Britain’s top lawyers complain to Ofcom about BBC stance on Hamas
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
I can't read the full article, but what are they actually asking Ofcom to do about this?
Are they saying it breaches the Broadcasting Code for the BBC not to use the word that they would use about Hamas? Even if one agrees with them that the word "terrorist" is wholly appropriate for BBC journalists to use themselves rather than merely attributing it to others (and I do broadly agree with that point) it simply isn't the role of Ofcom to set the editorial policy of broadcasters, particularly in terms of what they DON'T say. Instead, they look at content actually broadcast and whether it complies with defined rules.
It just isn't enough simply to say they'd have reported a story differently. The whole point of broadcast regulation is it gives broad editorial discretion to channels, but patrols the boundaries on taste, decency etc. Eminent lawyers should, and I'd suggest probably do, know that.
They are complaining that the BBC isn't upholding impartiality, because despite the claims of the likes of John Simpson they have been happy to use terrorist / terrorism numerous other times. Thus their complaint is this they are ducking their duties by not calling out this act of terrorism.
Personally I find the constant letter writing campaigns to OfCom tedious, be for GB News or this. However, IMO the BBC are getting this wrong, the "we don't do this because it would be taking sides" is nonsense. Were they taking sides when they called the Manchester bomber a terrorist / terrorist events...
This isn't a matter of Israel vs Palestine and trying to judge which side has / hasn't overstepped the mark, it is terrorists from Hamas (a proscribed terrorist organisation) carrying out acts of barbarism. And in other scenarios where such things have taken place they have described them as such.
The whole balance thing is when you have an issue where there is a dispute over the issue. We are told for instance Sky doesn't need to do "balance" for climate change programming, because it is a settled issue among political parties in the UK. The reaction to this has been across the board from all leading political figures, it is indisputably and unequivocally a terrorist attack.
Four of Britain’s top lawyers complain to Ofcom about BBC stance on Hamas
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
I can't read the full article, but what are they actually asking Ofcom to do about this?
Are they saying it breaches the Broadcasting Code for the BBC not to use the word that they would use about Hamas? Even if one agrees with them that the word "terrorist" is wholly appropriate for BBC journalists to use themselves rather than merely attributing it to others (and I do broadly agree with that point) it simply isn't the role of Ofcom to set the editorial policy of broadcasters, particularly in terms of what they DON'T say. Instead, they look at content actually broadcast and whether it complies with defined rules.
It just isn't enough simply to say they'd have reported a story differently. The whole point of broadcast regulation is it gives broad editorial discretion to channels, but patrols the boundaries on taste, decency etc. Eminent lawyers should, and I'd suggest probably do, know that.
They are complaining that the BBC isn't upholding impartiality, because despite the claims of the likes of John Simpson they have been happy to use terrorist / terrorism numerous other times. Thus their complaint is this they are ducking their duties by not calling out this act of terrorism.
Personally I find the constant letter writing campaigns to OfCom tedious, be for GB News or this. However, the BBC are getting this wrong, the "we don't do this because it would be taking sides" is nonsense. Were they taking sides when they called the Manchester bomber a terrorist / terrorist events...
This isn't a matter of Israel vs Palestine and trying to judge which side has / hasn't overstepped the mark, it is terrorists from Hamas (a terrorist organisation) carrying out acts of barbarism. And in other scenarios where such things have taken place they have described them as such.
That's pure sophistry by the KCs, I'm afraid.
The issue isn't whether the BBC has used the term "terrorist" in the past in other cases, it's about due impartiality in THIS case. And in this case, the BBC would point out that they have been more than clear about the facts of what individuals directed by Hamas have done, and that it has widely been described as terrorist action, and what the Israeli response has been and the different reactions to that.
I agree I'd not do what the BBC are doing on use of the word "terrorist" if I was Head of News at the Beeb. But it in no way means they are in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code. It means I'd have a different editorial policy. But broadcasters can and do have widely different editorial policies, and that is fine as long as they don't cross defined boundaries... which this one quite plainly doesn't.
Four of Britain’s top lawyers complain to Ofcom about BBC stance on Hamas
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
I can't read the full article, but what are they actually asking Ofcom to do about this?
Are they saying it breaches the Broadcasting Code for the BBC not to use the word that they would use about Hamas? Even if one agrees with them that the word "terrorist" is wholly appropriate for BBC journalists to use themselves rather than merely attributing it to others (and I do broadly agree with that point) it simply isn't the role of Ofcom to set the editorial policy of broadcasters, particularly in terms of what they DON'T say. Instead, they look at content actually broadcast and whether it complies with defined rules.
It just isn't enough simply to say they'd have reported a story differently. The whole point of broadcast regulation is it gives broad editorial discretion to channels, but patrols the boundaries on taste, decency etc. Eminent lawyers should, and I'd suggest probably do, know that.
They are complaining that the BBC isn't upholding impartiality, because despite the claims of the likes of John Simpson they have been happy to use terrorist / terrorism numerous other times. Thus their complaint is this they are ducking their duties by not calling out this act of terrorism.
Personally I find the constant letter writing campaigns to OfCom tedious, be for GB News or this. However, the BBC are getting this wrong, the "we don't do this because it would be taking sides" is nonsense. Were they taking sides when they called the Manchester bomber a terrorist / terrorist events...
This isn't a matter of Israel vs Palestine and trying to judge which side has / hasn't overstepped the mark, it is terrorists from Hamas (a terrorist organisation) carrying out acts of barbarism. And in other scenarios where such things have taken place they have described them as such.
That's pure sophistry by the KCs, I'm afraid.
The issue isn't whether the BBC has used the term "terrorist" in the past in other cases, it's about due impartiality in THIS case. And in this case, the BBC would point out that they have been more than clear about the facts of what individuals directed by Hamas have done, and that it has widely been described as terrorist action, and what the Israeli response has been and the different reactions to that.
I agree I'd not do what the BBC are doing on use of the word "terrorist" if I was Head of News at the Beeb. But it in no way means they are in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code. It means I'd have a different editorial policy. But broadcasters can and do have widely different editorial policies, and that is fine as long as they don't cross defined boundaries... which this one quite plainly doesn't.
As I say, I am not a fan of the letter writing campaigns. Bit like the open letter to the papers nonsense we now get in every general election campaign.
However, the BBC really aren't doing themselves any favours here. Not exactly hard for somebody in management to send a memo saying in this specific case, it is absolutely undeniable what it is.
John Simpson looks a berk trying to say well "its a loaded term which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys"......"Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds".
If you can't disapprove of decapitating babies and call that terrorism, you have serious issues with your morality settings. I am reminded of the Mitchell and Webb sketch about the Nazi's, going maybe we are the bad guys....
Comments
R&Ws more recent poll has Labour up slightly, but pretty steady compared to their other regular polls, so perhaps a slight outlier.
Hamas wants to prevent Israel and the Arab world enjoying normal relations. And if it costs the lives of 100,000 Palestinians... well, they will end up with Allah anyway.
And I suspect that they will succeed in their ambition.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/evolyn-to-launch-paris-london-trains-in-competition-with-eurostar/65100.article
This seems to be a bit firmer than vapourware.
https://youtu.be/BGASvVqzOa0?si=A7LQwCVHlKuD2Bsk
1:52 mins in. Comedy genius. Still, even after all this time, the best comedian ever.
However as long as Starmer still leads in redwall and marginal seats he is heading for PM
And if relations normalise with Hamas surviving and peace talks resume then Hamas would pull this stunt again.
Destroy Hamas, and then when relations normalise peace talks can occur without Hamas holding a veto.
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways
I have driven on that road many times and I object to it being called a motorway. That implies speed.
Time we cancelled all those cancel-culture wokists.
What have Japan done to deserve this punishment.
Dear John Simpson, Nelson Mandela didn't behead babies, rape women to death and then parade the bodies of innocents through then streets of South Africa.
A world where the people who did these things become 'global heroes and icons' is not a world most of your viewers will want to welcome."
https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1712024299689693529
Perhaps you could become an MP 2029 and win it back for us 2034!
However the deficit does need to be met, so maybe more taxes on unearned wealth especially large IHT increases? 👍
@GeorgeWParker
·
4h
New - Labour hopes three mega-donors, each giving more than £5m, will help them fight the most expensive election ever, as Sunak prepares to lift the campaign spending cap to £35m. Red flaggery and millionaires - final despatch by the
@FT
team at Liverpool
It might take 10 years longer than it should, cost twice as much, and be crap, but you will still get it (sort of) - that's the aspiration of Britain today.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-seek-unite-around-new-speaker-2023-10-11/
Sort of works as our slogan actually.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1712219979796426831?s=20
FA to announce plan for Friday tomorrow - appears unlikely it will light up the arch in Israel’s colours. More likely something to pay tribute to all of the victims of the violence.
All lives matter.
I am not sure why all the fictionalisation.
A lot of memorable lines and campaigns don't cost millions, what are they even spending on? If you cannot rely on your volunteers and supporters I don't see what else should be supplemented if you've already funded leaflet rounds etc.
In any case I'd cut the limit of donations to something like a max of £1000 per person per per year or £10,000 per organisation. Can't manage on that level? Get more popular or cut down your staff and overhead.
It's not that I want to beggar them, I just don't think it is a good idea for any party to be reliant on massive donations from individuals or groups, I think it's inevitable that leads to grubbyness at best and corruption at worst.
Edit: Oh, and if you donate to a political party you are't allowed an honour or peerage for at least five years since your last donation.
No, it's not punishing them, it's to make sure there is no suggestion someone has bought influence - if they want to go after a gong they can choose not to engage in political activity, and if they want to fund political activity then they can prioritise that over getting a civic honour.
Whenever I see someone talk haughtily about context and nuance, I wonder what it is they don't want to talk about.
This aint gonna go well for Hamas.
Fan though I am of our muddle along approach to constitution, politics, and culture, it does feel a bit creaky.
https://x.com/skypoliticshub/status/1712184539018150167
Pretending Starmer is Corbyn won't work next election, but asking this question may have some impact.
That does not require going all "Kill 'em all" as an approach, but getting bogged down in hypotheticals, nitpicking and overcontextualising can just become a diversionary tactic.
Particularly when it is engaged in by people or factions which decry nuance and context if deployed in relation to an issue which they think to be simplistic and inarguable.
In true EU fashion, there is a title card at the end acknowledging the funding. On a TV ad.
You are right to point out the opposite disease, of course.
No one here has been defending or justifying such atrocities, just pointing out that counter-atrocity is not an appropriate response.
I recognise the tactic since I engage in it myself.
Right now and for some time I just cant see the path for them to win. The Johnson and Truss malarkey is going into the rear view but after a while voters get a bit tired and think a change is needed and thats where we are.
Looks like LAB soon but only with an air of general reluctance
Edward Murrow was worth a good half dozen divisions or more to our war effort as a result of his radio broadcasts from London.
@Kasparov63
·
1h
Latest Russian joke:
-- What does mobilization have common in Russia and Israel?
-- Long lines for flights to Tel Aviv.
You'd have to say that a large part of the reason these two malfunctioning societies are stuck in such horror is what is projected onto them from outside. Western leftists, western rightwingers, simplifying and romanticising muslim fanatics, the more starry-eyed elements of the American-Jewish diaspora, Iran, Russia, India, the "anti-imperalist", or "non-aligned countries", the whole suite of useless bigoted rubbish fighting proxy cultural wars on the backs of traumatised civilians.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/10/11/lord-ashcroft-my-latest-polls-and-focus-groups-all-point-to-a-trump-biden-rematch-next-year/
OSINTtechnical
@Osinttechnical
No other way to describe this, Biden is furious.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1712229613936460083
Of course we cared to an extent. But American indifference would not have stopped us fighting on, alone
That’s where Israel is now. They will do this: very well, alone - if needs be
We need to adjust to that
The story is that there appears to be a significant number of what we think of classical traditional Italian food items which have these protected status aren't traditional "Italian" at all. Rather immigrants took foods from regions of what is now Italy (but weren't at the time), particularly to places likes the US, where they were then evolved, which were transported back to Italy, often changed again, and then deemed "how we have always done it". Many are actually very recent inventions.
From pizza to carbonara to cheeses, what is often quoted as the "traditional" Italian method / format, isn't anything of the sort.
Parmagianno Reggiano is a bastardisation on a bastardisation.
Meanwhile Hamas is reportedly suggesting that civilians should go to the border with Israel for a bit of a protest on Friday. Thats about as cynical as you can get on one front (hoping for massacre anyone?) but on another angle there is the suggestion that they are working on basis that the Israelis will start the drive in on Friday. Certainly it appears that a number of countries are running a deadline to get their nationals out by Thursday night so there may be somehing in it.
In terms of the build up, Israel looks to have the kit and manpower in place ok, its whether the further battlefield prep is needed , or as most people call it, more bombing and shelling. Notably whilst the pictures show the pre-planned hits on tower block buildings, the Israelis seem to have a certain level of airpower in loiter to direct against targets of opportunity. If you are Hamas, thats a real problem.
Some people have all the luck!
'On June 14, 2017, at 7:09 am EDT, Scalise and three other people were shot and wounded by James Hodgkinson, a left-wing extremist with a record of domestic violence,[7][43] who opened fire with a rifle during a baseball practice of the Republican team for the annual Congressional Baseball Game.
. . .
On August 29, 2023, Scalise announced he had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma. He said the cancer was detected early and was "very treatable".[111]
On September 14, Scalise returned to work, having begun chemotherapy, and reported that his treatment was “going well."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
I hope his recovery is prompt, and complete.
(Hodgkinson actually volunteered for Bernie Sanders. After the shooting, Sanders denounced the shooting and offered his sympathy to Scalise.)
She had friends who lived in a council flat on the ground floor of a house in Gower Street, just yards from the big bookstore.
In a letter to Ofcom, Lord Wolfson KC, Lord Pannick KC, Lord Grabiner KC and Jeremy Brier KC urged the regulator to investigate the corporation.
The letter pointed out that the BBC referred to the Manchester Arena bombing as a “terror attack”. The BBC Bitesize GCSE guide refers to both Al Qaeda and the IRA as “terrorist” groups.
“The use of the word ‘terrorism’ is neither confusing nor imprecise. It is a very accurate statement within the natural use of the English language as to what Hamas is engaged in,” the authors said.
“If the BBC is only declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ in the context of Israel then this is further evidence of partiality (by discriminating in this case only).”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/
Are they saying it breaches the Broadcasting Code for the BBC not to use the word that they would use about Hamas? Even if one agrees with them that the word "terrorist" is wholly appropriate for BBC journalists to use themselves rather than merely attributing it to others (and I do broadly agree with that point) it simply isn't the role of Ofcom to set the editorial policy of broadcasters, particularly in terms of what they DON'T say. Instead, they look at content actually broadcast and whether it complies with defined rules.
It just isn't enough simply to say they'd have reported a story differently. The whole point of broadcast regulation is it gives broad editorial discretion to channels, but patrols the boundaries on taste, decency etc. Eminent lawyers should, and I'd suggest probably do, know that.
Personally I find the constant letter writing campaigns to OfCom tedious, be for GB News or this. However, IMO the BBC are getting this wrong, the "we don't do this because it would be taking sides" is nonsense. Were they taking sides when they called the Manchester bomber a terrorist / terrorist events...
This isn't a matter of Israel vs Palestine and trying to judge which side has / hasn't overstepped the mark, it is terrorists from Hamas (a proscribed terrorist organisation) carrying out acts of barbarism. And in other scenarios where such things have taken place they have described them as such.
The whole balance thing is when you have an issue where there is a dispute over the issue. We are told for instance Sky doesn't need to do "balance" for climate change programming, because it is a settled issue among political parties in the UK. The reaction to this has been across the board from all leading political figures, it is indisputably and unequivocally a terrorist attack.
The issue isn't whether the BBC has used the term "terrorist" in the past in other cases, it's about due impartiality in THIS case. And in this case, the BBC would point out that they have been more than clear about the facts of what individuals directed by Hamas have done, and that it has widely been described as terrorist action, and what the Israeli response has been and the different reactions to that.
I agree I'd not do what the BBC are doing on use of the word "terrorist" if I was Head of News at the Beeb. But it in no way means they are in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code. It means I'd have a different editorial policy. But broadcasters can and do have widely different editorial policies, and that is fine as long as they don't cross defined boundaries... which this one quite plainly doesn't.
However, the BBC really aren't doing themselves any favours here. Not exactly hard for somebody in management to send a memo saying in this specific case, it is absolutely undeniable what it is.
John Simpson looks a berk trying to say well "its a loaded term which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys"......"Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds".
If you can't disapprove of decapitating babies and call that terrorism, you have serious issues with your morality settings. I am reminded of the Mitchell and Webb sketch about the Nazi's, going maybe we are the bad guys....