Israel / Palestine

[Ian H]

Calling everyone who disagrees with you an anti semite is a low ball move. What evidence does he have that she is anti semetic.

They've been weaponising accusations of antisemitism for a long time. Anti-Zionist Jewish figures have suffered from that, including Michael Rosen.

 

[secretsqirrel]

It wouldn’t be a very fair fight.
Trump is at least four stone heavier than Usyk.

So was Fury. Anyway wrong thread

 

[bobzmyunkle]

They've been weaponising accusations of antisemitism for a long time. Anti-Zionist Jewish figures have suffered from that, including Michael Rosen.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ights-and-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

The "context" you provided was from 2009, so not very relevant, is it?

24! Allegations of not being impartial of which 3 where upheld by a panel of a butcher that rates his own meat kind of style.(or the BBC investigating the BBC, we seen with Saville, Russel Brand etc. that they are not very good at that) regardless the age it shows that person is not very trustworthy.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

They've been weaponising accusations of antisemitism for a long time. Anti-Zionist Jewish figures have suffered from that, including Michael Rosen.

Just as those opposing the Hamas regime have been suffering from the UN/Nathanyahu/Iran being helped by Hamas staying in power. oh yeah and all the usefull idiots in the west thinking they help Palestinians suffering by rooting for Hamas. (You know the one that say 60k death is great as there are more ''martyrs'' being born safely from Qatar)

 

[icowden]

24! Allegations of not being impartial of which 3 where upheld by a panel of a butcher that rates his own meat kind of style.(or the BBC investigating the BBC, we seen with Saville, Russel Brand etc. that they are not very good at that) regardless the age it shows that person is not very trustworthy.

So 21 allegations were found to be untrue and 3 were upheld by a panel. They were:-

The statement that Israel was “in defiance of everyone’s interpretation of international law except its own”

It was found that this should have been more precise and not enough was done by the author to state that there were alternative views.

In an article about the 1967 Syrian War that:-

The statement that, “the Israeli generals…had been training to finish the unfinished business of Israel’s independence war of 1948 for most of their careers.”

Because it wasn't possible for a reader to know definitively that he referred to the capture of East Jersualem (although strongly inferred in the article) it breached the accuracy rule .

The reference to Zionism’s “innate instinct to push out the frontier”

This statement was unqualified and was therefore not clear and precise thus breaching the accuracy rule.

This was one long and detailed complaint by a serial complainant who had a beef with Bowen.

To compare a journalist with Jeremy Bowen's credentials, journalistic integrity, based on a single complaint about an article which was well researched and backed up in almost all but three very minor places with Jimmy Saville and Russell Brand is frankly both despicable and moronic.

Maybe you should just get your news from TikTok instead if you hate journalism that much. Maybe you could just live with Steve Bannon's spunk dreams.

 

[AndyRM]

So 21 allegations were found to be untrue and 3 were upheld by a panel. They were:-

It was found that this should have been more precise and not enough was done by the author to state that there were alternative views.

In an article about the 1967 Syrian War that:-

Because it wasn't possible for a reader to know definitively that he referred to the capture of East Jersualem (although strongly inferred in the article) it breached the accuracy rule .

This statement was unqualified and was therefore not clear and precise thus breaching the accuracy rule.

This was one long and detailed complaint by a serial complainant who had a beef with Bowen.

To compare a journalist with Jeremy Bowen's credentials, journalistic integrity, based on a single complaint about an article which was well researched and backed up in almost all but three very minor places with Jimmy Saville and Russell Brand is frankly both despicable and moronic.

Maybe you should just get your news from TikTok instead if you hate journalism that much. Maybe you could just live with Steve Bannon's spunk dreams.

Beat me to it.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

So 21 allegations were found to be untrue and 3 were upheld by a panel. They were:-

A panel paid for by the BBC investigating the BBC. context...

It was found that this should have been more precise and not enough was done by the author to state that there were alternative views.

which is indeed a mistake if you are a journalist

In an article about the 1967 Syrian War that:-

Because it wasn't possible for a reader to know definitively that he referred to the capture of East Jersualem (although strongly inferred in the article) it breached the accuracy rule .

so he wasn't as accurate as he should have been, you can't talk from a high horse about journalistic standards and then dismis a failure to meet those standard as a minor detail.

This statement was unqualified and was therefore not clear and precise thus breaching the accuracy rule.
.

so from a organisation not known to be very good in researching their own at least 3 points.

This was one long and detailed complaint by a serial complainant who had a beef with Bowen.

So still 3 not unimportant details being mis-reported.

To compare a journalist with Jeremy Bowen's credentials, journalistic integrity, based on a single complaint about an article which was well researched and backed up in almost all but three very minor places

minor for whom? who are you to decide it's minor? it was enough for the panel not to dismis them instead of the are 21.

with Jimmy Saville and Russell Brand is frankly both despicable and moronic.

My point still it that a panel from the BBC, paid by the BBC which is the sme BBC who ignored compliants about both Saville and Brand (and quite a few others as well) aren't the most reliable researching there own. Yes the type of allegations are totally different i also not comparing Bowen with those two that what you make of it i just said that a organisation who is so off with these most serious allegations isn't the most reliable source and they still fund something. No wonder, because if you go to the little ''corrections'' area of their side you see it's far from the first time they fell for lies.

Maybe you should just get your news from TikTok instead if you hate journalism that much. Maybe you could just live with Steve Bannon's spunk dreams.

Maybe you shouldn't try and think for me or others, i don't hate journalism at all, think you more obsessed with Steve whoever considering you bring him up, i could have ended my day happily without that name.

 

[CXRAndy]

Lost at sea


View: https://x.com/amuse/status/1931848019026366923?t=rmmdQ8_5vne0WyTzWpGdEA&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

Just as Greta arrives to take her crown as the new leader of her Pals

The old leader is declared dead


View: https://x.com/TzviJoffre/status/1931759012103454958?t=SMG5IV7ZzuQwt0s18kjkWg&s=19

 

[Ian H]

Just as those opposing the Hamas regime have been suffering from the UN/Nathanyahu/Iran being helped by Hamas staying in power. oh yeah and all the usefull idiots in the west thinking they help Palestinians suffering by rooting for Hamas. (You know the one that say 60k death is great as there are more ''martyrs'' being born safely from Qatar)

It was Netanyahu who kept Hamas in power, in order to keep Palestine divided so he could claim there was no overall Palestinian government to negotiate with.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

So are you saying there's no genocide in Gaza? No war crimes committed by Israel?

So, @dutch, can you now answer the above question please?

 

[AndyRM]

So, @dutch, can you now answer the above question please?

Of course there isn't you fool, it's a myth created by the pro Hamas woke lefties at the Beeb.

Or maybe you'd prefer the Magalyte's take that it isn't happening because it's just a war, whilst remaining blissfully unaware of the full definition of what constitutes a genocide.

 

[icowden]

which is indeed a mistake if you are a journalist
so he wasn't as accurate as he should have been, you can't talk from a high horse about journalistic standards and then dismis a failure to meet those standard as a minor detail.

No, he was entirely accurate in his reporting. There was a citation missing from one point, and a reluctant admission that stupid people might not have had sufficient information.

So still 3 not unimportant details being mis-reported.

There was no mis-reporting. Stop making things up that aren't true. We have enough of that already.

minor for whom? who are you to decide it's minor? it was enough for the panel not to dismis them instead of the are 21.

By reading them. They were minor. The sense of the article was not incorrect. The historicity of the article was not incorrect. The article was not factually incorrect.

My point still it that a panel from the BBC, paid by the BBC which is the sme BBC who ignored compliants about both Saville and Brand (and quite a few others as well) aren't the most reliable researching there own.

Supporting evidence? I would contend that once an issue is known about the BBC are very good at researching it. They even produce political or documentary programmes about an issue while it is being investigated and report it on their own channel. You wouldn't see that in a Murdoch owned outlet.

Yes the type of allegations are totally different i also not comparing Bowen with those two that what you make of it i just said that a organisation who is so off with these most serious allegations isn't the most reliable source and they still fund something.

They weren't off. You can't investigate a thing until you know it's a thing. Also both Brand and Saville's offending were very historical and the BBC has learned a lot of lessons.

No wonder, because if you go to the little ''corrections'' area of their side you see it's far from the first time they fell for lies.

But they did correct them, didn't they? Isn't that the point?

Maybe you shouldn't try and think for me or others, i don't hate journalism at all, think you more obsessed with Steve whoever considering you bring him up, i could have ended my day happily without that name.

And yet you are the one nitpicking about an article because the same journalist wrote something 15 years ago which had some minor flaws exposed due to a raving lunatic complaining about it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Well worth a read:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r1xl5wgnko

So are you saying there's no genocide in Gaza? No war crimes committed by Israel?

Of course there isn't you fool, it's a myth created by the pro Hamas woke lefties at the Beeb

No, it was created by hamas and their quite clever filming.

War is never kind, hamas started a major escalation with murdering of over 1100 people on October the 7th. What came after is repercussions and will continue until hamas are annihilated. Anyone who gets in the way will part of the conflict too. Hiding under hospitals, in schools, camps makes the targets legitimate