BBC paid our licence money to Hamas.

[RubyTuesday48]

No words. See BBC news for announcement and apology for 'serious flaws' over Gaza documentary.
Perhaps the 500 luvvies who lobbied for the documentary to be reinstated will also apologise for their stupidity.

The useful idiots will double down.

The BBC giving money to terrorist families and helping push the terrorist propaganda. There's a surprise, they even fudge around whether to call Hamas terrorists.

450 signatories to the letter supporting that doc just showed their asses.

Curious how quiet everyone is about it on here.

Wonder if Lineker will have anything to say.

Like apologise? Pigs might fly 🙄

Honestly this whole story drives me crazy because it is so utterly disrespectful of the Palestinian people. Stories from Gaza deserve to be told and heard, and a film crew who used Palestinian suffering for whatever their own artistic or political agenda was rather than applying the professional standards that they would in any other situation (not only for doing due diligence but also for checking the accuracy of the translation presented) has now wasted the emotional labour of the kids they used, and has squandered the funding for a film that could have been very widely seen, and could have been discussed for its content not for its unprofessionalism. Both Palestinians and the audiences who are interested in hearing their stories deserve better.

This and their cover up of Saville is why I refuse to pay a tv licence!

I just cancelled my license. The bbc's institutional antisemitism - as born out by what it considered to be acceptable in the funding and editorial choices made for this film - is beyond acceptable.

I bloody hate that self absorbed wanker

Maybe this will finally get them scrapped. In no other country do they force people to pay a licence to one institution like this. Its bonkers.

As for all the staff they chauffeured eternally offices who didn't want to move to the new offices - but still want their bumper salaries? Disgusting

Is this not money laundering (with tax payers money)? I’ve done money laundering training as part of my work politically exposed people are a big rag flag and you have to jump through all kind of hoops to get it signed off if at all

Not my money, I cancelled my licence last year for exactly reasons like this, and the protecting of sexual predators.

Haven't missed it at all.

I don’t understand this. On the one hand, we are told that everyone in Palestine supports or at least sympathises with Hamas, as a reason to justify indiscriminate bombing. On the other hand, the BBC were wrong to interview someone that was connected to the Hamas government. Ultimately, if the documentary gave truthful accounts of the experiences of those living in Gaza, what does it matter who this child’s dad is.
Hamas are a terrorist government. If what we are told is true, anyone living in Palestine either has to toe the political line or will likely be harmed. I would suspect that most people are connected to the Hamas government by virtue. By that notion of the BBC statement, everything coming out of Gaza could be called terrorist propaganda. So should we have no information then?

There is nothing I’ve seen that says what was reported in the documentary is untrue, instead it seems the voice is being silenced because it is this voice. If the justification for the attacks on Gaza still stand then way make this documentary in the first place, why ask for journalists to be given access to the country? Are people satisfied with only hearing one sides ‘facts’?

Btw, I don’t support the BBC and agree that having to pay a licence fee for news which ‘unbiased’ is clearly wrong

It's not money laundering. It's funding of terrorism.

And this^ is actually true, the damage was done.

All these people who demanded BBC to reinstate the video…. I want to know their names as it’s helpful to know whose judgement you can’t trust.

I cancelled my TV licence about 4 years ago because I thought that the BBC had lost its independence and impartiality by then and I refused to contribute to the salary of 'client journalists'.

The TV licensing system is ridiculous and should be abolished.

LessonsinChemistryandLove Have you not read about the deliberate mistranslation? You won't read this i the Guardian (surprise, surprise) but it is mentioned elsewhere.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/25/bbc-whitewashed-anti-semitism-gaza-documentary/

All these people who demanded BBC to reinstate the video…. I want to know their names as it’s helpful to know whose judgement you can’t trust.

There are 450+ of them (luvvies, ex footballers etc.) who wrote to the BBC, you may find them all in a report by the Guardian earlier this week.

@LessonsinChemistryandLove the identity of the narrator's dad matters for several reasons.

Firstly, out of all the children in Gaza whose stories could be told, the production company chose to use, as the narrator, the son of a government minister. This wasn't someone who would have 'had to toe the line' in the same way as someone paid by the state but working in street maintenance or in a low level clerical job filing paperwork. This was a decision-maker in government. What does that mean for the intent of the production company? What does that mean for the level of control the boy's parents had over what was filmed and said? Why did they pick him? Now, he may be an intelligent young boy who's good in front of a camera, and we shouldn't engage in adultification of him or hold him accountable for any of this - he's a child, and one who is vulnerable in a number of ways (including a risk of lifelong radicalisation) - but if a documentary is meant to represent the children of Gaza, surely anyone with any understanding of what has happened in this conflict should have appreciated that using a first-degree relative of a minister in Hamas's government would discredit the whole thing. So, why did they do it? It impacts upon the credibility of the documentary, the production company (and their previous work) and the BBC.

Secondly, money exchanged hands. Licence fee payers' money went to the BBC, then to the production company, and then into a bank account belonging to the immediate family of a Hamas government minister. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in UK law. It's illegal to fund or support them. Just as I hate the thought of money I pay in taxes contributing to arms involved in killing innocent people (in Palestine and elsewhere), I would hate the thought of my money, paid in good faith to the BBC, contributing to the personal assets of a minister in Hamas's government (fortunately for me, I don't pay for a TV licence, but other people do and their money should not have been used in this way).

I can’t read this as it’s behind a pay wall. Are there other references to mistranslation?

It is a scandal. The thought that innocently paid licence fees has been paid to a Hamas member, it’s appalling. it calls further into question the nearly compulsory nature of the license fee.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bbc-gaza-documentary-translates-jihad-to-resistance-jews-to-israeli-army/

THis is the relevant information:
The BBC has been accused of “whitewashing” the views of participants in its controversial Gaza documentary after repeatedly mistranslating references to “the Jews” and omitting praise of “jihad”.
The Telegraph can reveal that on at least five occasions the words Yahud or Yahudy – Arabic for “Jew” or “Jews” – were changed to “Israel” or “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the subtitles altogether.
An interviewee praising Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, for “jihad against the Jews” was also mistranslated as saying he was fighting “Israeli forces”.

I can see your second point. But to me, that goes to the wider issue of a publicly funded media outlet which gets to decide what programmes it can or can’t fund. There are lots of programmes that the bbc fund that I have concerns about. I am one of those people that believe the documentary should still be available on iPlayer, for this very reason. Anything I perceive as negative could arguably be propaganda but ultimately, the need for information to be shared should override most arguments, imo.

Your first point though, I remain unconvinced. The nature of the situation in Gaza means that the majority of people that are still alive are likely to connected directly or indirectly to government. We have been told this all along and imo logically that is probably true. However, that should not diminish their plight or the need for their story to be shared. We don’t know why this particular boy was chosen but I think we can logically assume that 1. There are probably very few children alive who would have such an opportunity and 2. They would want to use a child who can safely share their experiences without risk of retaliation from either side.

For me it goes back to looking at this in the context of the actual situation. We should have been told that this child had a connection to Hamas government but we should also be able to believe that this is an accurate enough explanation of what the children in Gaza are facing. Highlighting what is happening in Gaza, given that we have so little verified information coming out of there, is the most important bit.

LessonsinChemistryandLove Both of @Scirocco's points are valid and correct. She is one of the few posters on CITME I respect. I do agree with you that we have so little verified information coming out of there, is the most important bit but this particular documentary is not fulfilling that purpose. Sad that you don't see that.