Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
'The BBC are going to be skint very quickly, the way they're going.'
Reform UK candidate Orla Minihane reacts to news Thomas Skinner is planning to sue the BBC, accusing them of 'rigging' the Strictly Come Dancing to have him booted from the show
It's a complete joke. He's clearly deluded if he thinks they needed to rig the vote to get him out.
PromoVeritas, the company which verifies the show's public vote, said all the votes it receives are "validated" and "independently and comprehensively verified by two auditors".
It is understood the BBC is not aware of any legal complaint over the matter.
...
He added that there were "smaller things" that added to the feeling of "how unfair it all was", such as his welcome gift to the show being the only one that "got stolen apparently".
The BBC spokesperson said Skinner had yet to share the email with anyone from the broadcaster "despite requests for it", and so they were unable to comment.
They added that the Strictly team "categorically did not supply 'welcome gifts' to any of the cast".
Well, at least it's a bit more publicity for a 'Barely Was' z-lister. It's such a surprise that as these shows run out of actual celebrities with careers to participate and start scaping up 'personalities' they become increasingly toxic.
Well, at least it's a bit more publicity for a 'Barely Was' z-lister. It's such a surprise that as these shows run out of actual celebrities with careers to participate and start scaping up 'personalities' they become increasingly toxic.
Getting a bit off topic; I'd agree with your point in general, though I'd disagree with it as it relates specifically to Strictly. Yes, there's always the reaction when the participants are announced of "Who?" to a certain proportion of them from old fuddy-duddies, but that's because the producers bring in contestants from a wide range of spheres, who appeal to different demographics.
The BBC has revised its explanation of the term "intifada" following crackdowns by the Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police on chants of "Globalize the Intifada" after the terror attack at Bondi Beach in Australia.
The BBC has risked fresh allegations of bias after describing Palestinian uprisings in which thousands of people were killed as ālargely unarmed and popularā.
A report on the BBC website that explained the origin of the word intifada made no mention of the fact that more than 1,000 Israelis and about 5,000 Palestinians died in repeated clashes and terrorist attacks between 1987 and 2005.
Danny Cohen, the former director of BBC Television, said the original description was ādeeply offensiveā and suggested the BBC still had a problem with anti-Israel bias.
It comes after an internal memo sent to members of the BBC board by a former independent editorial adviser warned of āa desire always to believe the worst about Israelā by some of the broadcasterās staff.
On Wednesday, the BBC News website reported that the Metropolitan and Greater Manchester police forces would arrest people using the phrase āglobalise the intifadaā, which has been increasingly used by pro-Palestinian protesters since the Oct 7 terrorist attack of 2023.
Transcript
The revision alone should raise serious questions about the BBC because when police forces feel compelled to intervene over a slogan, it's no longer an abstract academic term that the BBC likes to present. It's a phrase with real consequences. And yet, even after updating its definition of "Intifada" the BBC continues to frame the concept in a way that downplays its historical reality.
If we are talking about the Second Intifada, there is no ambiguity. It was not a peaceful uprising. It was not civil resistance. It was not a spontaneous protest movement. The Second Intifada which began in 2000 was systematic terrorist attacks against civilians. It saw hundreds of terrorist attacks including approximately 144 suicide bombings from September 2000 to February 2005. During this 5-year period, Israel faced hundreds of terror attacks against its civilians. The violence resulted in approximately 1,000 Israelis being killed, 78% of those 1,000 victims were civilians.
Suicide bombings on buses, explosions in cafes and shopping centers while civilians were out enjoying themselves, attacks on families at weddings and restaurants. These were not a popular or peaceful uprising as the BBC likes to put it. The Bondi Beach massacre was the echo of those terrorist attacks and so was the attack on the Manchester synagogue. They were globalizing Intifada - civilians were the primary targets and mass casualty attacks were celebrated by the groups that carried them out. By any accepted international definition, this was and is terrorism.
Calling the Second Intifada an uprising is not a neutral description, it is clear bias by a news outlet, a government news outlet, the BBC. Yet for years the BBC has explained Intifada using softened language, terms like uprising, resistance. Bombing civilians on a bus is not resistance. It is terrorism.
The BBC wants to present terrorism as an unfortunate expression of grievance rather than a deliberate campaign of murdering innocent people - and that matters because language doesn't just describe events. It shapes how audiences understand them. It helps radicalize kids at schools and universities. The reason the UK police are now cracking down on chants like "Globalized the Intifada" is precisely 5
because they have finally understood what the Second Intifada was.
But I guess you shouldn't expect more from the BBC. I mean, Hamas is a UK government proscribed terrorist organization. It is banned in its entirety under British law, and by the EU. And yet the BBC refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group. Instead, they like to use terms like militant organization, Islamist movement, group with a political wing. This is not legal accuracy, its an editorial bias choice paid by the TV license payers. It shows that your editorial is biased. It shows that your journalists are activists and not journalists.
When a publicly funded broadcaster cannot plainly name a proscribed terrorist organization, it's not practicing neutrality. The BBC insists that this language reflects impartiality. But look, there is nothing impartial about obscuring terrorism behind abstract phrasing. There's nothing balanced about reframing mass murder of the innocent citizens as resistance. There's nothing responsible about updating explanations only after police intervention forces the issue. A news organization that cannot clearly describe terrorism should not be surprised when its credibility erodes. It shouldn't be a surprise that so many people are no longer paying their TV licenses. Are you still paying your TV license? You really shouldn't be because journalism without moral clarity doesn't inform the public - its normalizes extremism and that is what we've been increasingly witnessing in Britain, especially in the last two years.
Are you still paying your TV license? You really shouldn't be because journalism without moral clarity doesn't inform the public - its normalizes extremism and that is what we've been increasingly witnessing in Britain, especially in the last two years.
I couldn't be bothered with "the substance of the post". Anyone aware of the BBC's news output would know that they spent years saying that Hamas was designated as a terrorist organisation.
There's even an explanation of the position on the website, which can be found via a simple Google search for those who don't want to sully themselves by browsing the BBC website.
Translation: You couldn't be bothered reading the post. I didn't think remaining wilfully ignorant of facts was your thing (others here, certainly, but I thought you were better than that).
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that the BBC refusing to call Hamas what it is was merely incidental.
And that makes it OK to play down the violence and brutality by referring to the intifadas called down by Hamas as ālargely unarmed and popularā uprisings? Seriously, you're OK with this? Perhaps you also think the wholesale slaughter of Jews during WW2 was nothing more than a few German officers trying to solve a problem.
In any reasonable time, the BBCs behaviour would shock the conscience. Personally, I find it disgusting, and I'll bet everyone here would have found it disgusting a decade ago. But times have changed, and are no longer reasonable.
Who's comparing?
I'm trying to get you to explain why you think its ok for the BBC to downplay terrorism. After all, I if I am to accept the plain meaning of your words as writ, you seem to have no problem with it.
Translation: You couldn't be bothered reading the post. I didn't think remaining wilfully ignorant of facts was your thing (others here, certainly, but I thought you were better than that).
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that the BBC refusing to call Hamas what it is was merely incidental.
And that makes it OK to play down the violence and brutality by referring to the intifadas called down by Hamas as ālargely unarmed and popularā uprisings?Seriously, you're OK with this? Perhaps you also think the wholesale slaughter of Jews during WW2 was nothing more than a few German officers trying to solve a problem.
In any reasonable time, the BBCs behaviour would shock the conscience. Personally, I find it disgusting, and I'll bet everyone here would have found it disgusting a decade ago. But times have changed, and are no longer reasonable.
Yeah, the German High Command had "explanations" for what they did too.
Explaining the unconsconable doesn't change the facts and it doesn't make it fair or reasonable either
Your ignorance indicates that your opinions are based on your prejudices not on facts.
What intifadas have been called by Hamas?
Hamas was formed as a consequence of the first intifada. You have causation reversed. Hamas originating organisation was a non-violent political / religious body. As a result of the military oppression and use of lethal force against Palestinians demonstrating, the decision was made that a non-violent response was no longer possible and Hamas was formed incorporating a military wing.
The second Intifada essentially was a spontaneous response to provocations, it was not called by Hamas. It mainly involved the West Bank where the PA was in control, not Hamas.
The Great March of Return (a non-violent protest in Gaza violently suppressed by Israel with lethal force) was not initiated by Hamas.
First and Second Intifadas. The first was marked by the founding of Hamas and consisted of deadly suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. For the the second you might have a point on a technicality, but it still consisted of more deadly suicide bombings targeting civilians. However, my point remains, not the piffling details of who started what, but instead, its with the BBC for consistently downplaying the terrorist aspect of both intifadas.
Incorrect. Hamas was formed at the same time of the First Intifada, which was certainly called down by those who went on to found it - so claiming Hamas didn't call it down is pure sophistry.
Hamas originating organisation was a non-violent political / religious body.
As a result of the military oppression and use of lethal force against Palestinians demonstrating, the decision was made that a non-violent response was no longer possible and Hamas was formed incorporating a military wing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions - it may have started out that way, but it rapidly turned into another terrorist organization, so claiming non-violence is just more sophistry.
Ya! Blame the Jews. Why not? They have been made great scapegoats for all the ills in the Middle East for the last 20 centuries so why should this century be any different.
Only partially correct, but with a side of plausible deniability. Hamas was a key organization in kicking it off even if the call didn't come directly from them. Nevertheless, after they rejected the Oslo Accords, they used violence that involved a wave of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
None of this is really the point, which is that the BBC has attempted to whitewash Hamas' behaviour by attempting to play down their record of violence. They refuse to call them what they are (a terrorist) organization, and try to pretend that the intifadas they were involved in were merely unarmed resistance against Israel. History shows they were no such thing, although (as I pointed out earlier) the BBC are not very good at accurately reporting history..
What you keep conveniently leaving out is any mention of October 7, 2023. Tell me, in your view, how should Israel have responded that that?
I couldn't be bothered with "the substance of the post". Anyone aware of the BBC's news output would know that they spent years saying that Hamas was designated as a terrorist organisation.
There's even an explanation of the position on the website, which can be found via a simple Google search for those who don't want to sully themselves by browsing the BBC website.
What a remarkable lack of self-awareness by Simpson. For an organization that claims its "not their job to tell people who are the good guys and who are the bad guys" they sure have no trouble telling their public that Israel are the bad guys every chance they get. Claims against Israel are very often rushed online or to broadcast without any indepenent fact-checking (HINT: Agencies controlled by Hamas are not independent)
- Blaming the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion on an Israeli air strike, when the actual cause was misfired Palestinian rocket. They claim they didn't know that at the time, and fair enough - so why not say that? No, instead, they leap in and blame the Israelis.
- The sharply divergent reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on thir Arabic service when compared with the BBCās English language website
- BBC Arabicās use of biased journalists in Gaza. These include Samer Elzaenen, who was shown to have posted anti-Semitic comments, including that Jews should be burned āas Hitler didā. Another is Ahmed Qannan, who called a gunman who killed four civilians and an Israeli police officer a āheroā. A third was Ahmed Alagha, who described Israelis as less than human and Jews as ādevilsā.
Yeah, "not our job to tell people who are the good guys and who are the bad guys", right?
- Misreporting on mass graves in Gaza as Israeli war crimes and hiding their shoddy sources "information". The BBC reported that Israeli forces had buried hundreds of bodies at both sites (al-Shifa Hospital and Nasser Hospital) prior to withdrawing from the area, when the truth is the most likely explanation was the graves at both hospitals were dug by Palestinians and the people buried there had died or been killed prior to the arrival of Israel ground forces. The fact that the BBC's source for this bull-āāāā was the Hamas-controlled Gaza Civil Defence Agency was mentioned nowhere in the coverage.
And these are just a few. There are many more examples of the BBC's pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel bias.
None of this is really the point, which is that the BBC has attempted to whitewash Hamas' behaviour by attempting to play down their record of violence. They refuse to call them what they are (a terrorist) organization, and try to pretend that the intifadas they were involved in were merely unarmed resistance against Israel. History shows they were no such thing, although (as I pointed out earlier) the BBC are not very good at accurately reporting history..
Hamas is an armed Palestinian group and political movement in the Gaza Strip.
On 7 October 2023 it attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. This triggered a massive Israeli military offensive in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Hamas, which the US, UK, Israel and many other nations have designated as a terrorist organisation, has been severely weakened during the conflict.
Thats all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that their actual reporting is biased.
I have quoted multiple examples of bias. All of those examples are verifiable. Having a page that tells something close to the truth does not make any of those examples go away or rectify he lies they tell.
Following on from teh gubbmint's climbdown on IHT for farmers, I've just heard the most soft soap interview of a farmer by Evan Davies on PM: wouldn't pin the bod down on exactly how much, if at all, the family would be affected; wouldn't pin them down on why they have not already taken the obvious steps; let the bod trot out all the "guardians of the countryside" BS, even though the farm's land is mostly within a town; let the bod imply they were long-standing "forever farmers", even though the bod's parents bought the farm as a lifestyle choice in the '80s, i.e. around the time Thatcher's mob abolished IHT on farm land.
FFS, it was straight out of the NFU play book, rather than any attempt at a balanced, factual interview.
Following on from teh gubbmint's climbdown on IHT for farmers, I've just heard the most soft soap interview of a farmer by Evan Davies on PM: wouldn't pin the bod down on exactly how much, if at all, the family would be affected; wouldn't pin them down on why they have not already taken the obvious steps; let the bod trot out all the "guardians of the countryside" BS, even though the farm's land is mostly within a town; let the bod imply they were long-standing "forever farmers", even though the bod's parents bought the farm as a lifestyle choice in the '80s, i.e. around the time Thatcher's mob imposed IHT on farm land.
FFS, it was straight out of the NFU play book, rather than any attempt at a balanced, factual interview.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
