BBC faces fresh fury after news chief accused of ‘ignorant and dangerous' portrayal of Hamas
Deborah Turness said the group's politicians were separate to its military wing — despite the government insisting it was a single terrorist organisation.
She came under renewed criticism following the scandal engulfing the broadcaster over its Gaza documentary that breached accuracy rules.
The programme How To Survive A Warzone, made by an independent production company, failed to declare the child narrator Abdullah was the son of a senior Hamas official.
Ms Turness, the CEO of BBC News, apologised publicly on Monday after an investigation held the corporation partly responsible for the oversight.
Addressing the row in an all-staff call, the executive said: 'It's really important that we are clear that Abdullah's father was the deputy agricultural minister, and therefore was a member of the Hamas-run government, which is different to being part of the military wing of Hamas.
'Externally, it's often simplified that he was in Hamas and it's an important point of detail we need to continually remind people of the difference.'
But, while previously differentiated, the UK government now says that 'Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation'.
Tory Shadow Culture Secretary Stuart Andrew said Ms Turness's comment 'undermines any apologies made by the corporation'.
Former head of BBC Television Danny Cohen said: 'This is staggering. It is both ignorant and dangerous and is further evidence of why so many British Jews do not feel they can trust the BBC.'
Labour peer Lord Austin said: 'Deborah Turness presided over this mess and still tries to defend the BBC's colossal mistakes. Surely her position is untenable.'
The BBC said: 'Deborah Turness was answering a question about how we described the father of the narrator in our Warzone film. She did not imply that Hamas are not a single terrorist organisation.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock
The wheels of British justice are appallingly slow. Back in 2016, I wrote that the conviction of Tom Hayes, the bank trader jailed for conspiring to manipulate the Libor interest rate, was unsafe. Today, finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to quash his conviction. The case of Carlo Palombo, the other trader who had his conviction quashed today, was not linked to Hayes. Palombo received four years in 2019. When ex-Citi and UBS banker Hayes was found guilty in 2015, he was sentenced to 14 years, an astonishing long term for a white-collar criminal in this country. That was reduced to 11 years on appeal, but as I remarked at the time, you get less for killing someone. There is no doubt he was being made an example of. There was considerable public anger at the way bankers had walked scot-free from the financial crisis – still is – and Hayes was seen as discouraging others. He was portrayed as being at the centre of a web, setting the benchmark rate used for millions of personal loans; he was therefore the worst of the worst, an arch-villain who profited from ordinary folks; he, everyone seemed to agree, deserved every moment spent inside. But in his case, there literally were no others. A year later, in a blow to the Serious Fraud Office, which brought the prosecutions, six brokers were acquitted of conspiring with him to fix the interbank rate. On their acquittals, in his cell at HMP Lowdham Grange, Hayes could be forgiven for raging against the iniquity of a system that saw his life ruined. Particularly, as in the professional hierarchy, Hayes was a junior. We were supposed to believe that others never condoned what he did. It simply never rang true that he was able to act without anyone above him at the bank knowing and agreeing. That unease only increased with details emerging about his personality. He was a bit of a geek, as many are in his area of work. He learned by heart the Highway Code from cover to cover when he was learning to drive. It was one of the traits that earned him his nicknames of 'Rain Man' and 'Kid Asperger's'. But, as he explained, it also meant he was ideally suited to futures trading. 'The success of getting it right, the success of finding market inefficiencies, the success of identifying opportunities and then when you get it right, it's like solving that equation,' Hayes said in court. 'It's make money, lose money, and it's just so pure.' Symptomatic of an underlying condition, he was also open and personable, not sophisticated at keeping something secret. Indeed, that was his defence, that what he did was common; he was encouraged to do what he did and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly. It would have been more reassuring if his bank bosses had joined him in the dock. But they never did. Nevertheless, the promise of the subsequent trial of his alleged co-conspirators did provide some comfort. Then they were acquitted. Hayes said he was delighted with the outcome. He was 'thrilled that the brokers can return to their families and their lives' but was 'bewildered' that he was left 'in a situation where he [was] convicted of conspiring with nobody'. Originally, there were 22 names on the draft indictment, including the six found innocent. At Hayes' trial, most of the evidence presented against him was in relation to those six – hence the Serious Fraud Office's decision to pursue only them. Most of the other names were thought to be peripheral. Hayes said he had never met or even spoken to them; there were some he'd been in touch with via email or other messaging, but just a few times. Ahead of Hayes' trial, the judge, Mr Justice Cooke, decided to separate his hearing from that of the brokers and his alleged co-conspirators. Their statements were not allowed to be submitted in Hayes' trial. Presumably, if they had been, given the jury's conclusion in their trial, this may have assisted his defence. Critically, his jury was unaware of evidence relating to whether or not an agreement between the co-defendants was ever reached. After their acquittals, David Green, then head of the SFO, said: 'The key issue in this trial was whether these defendants were party to a dishonest agreement with Tom Hayes. By their verdicts, the jury have said that they could not be sure that this was the case.' It was an odd use of words from Green. He was trying to justify the prosecution by saying that in the end, the jury could not be certain, so therefore they acquitted. Where, though, does the jury say that? Equally, the jury could surely have been certain there was no agreement – Green simply did not know. In Hayes' earlier trial, however, without the evidence from his alleged co-conspirators, the jury was certain there was a conspiracy. Later, with those not guilty verdicts, that did not seem right or fair. During his closing speech to the jury at Hayes' trial, Mukul Chawla QC for the prosecution was keen to point out that Hayes was the first but would not be the last. Again this was a reference to the six. But look what happened. In light of their acquittals and the non-submission of their statements in his trial, Hayes deserved a fair hearing. Shamefully, it took nine further years for that day to arrive.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's golfing weekend in Scotland is an even bigger headache than his state visit
Donald Trump's golfing trip to Scotland this weekend has started to look like a few days of welcome relief for the US president. From Downing Street's perspective, however, it may all look a bit different. At home, Trump is embroiled in linked controversies that seem to have come out of the blue. Having seen off most of the legal challenges to the orders he issued in his first days back in office, he now faces a quasi-rebellion from his hitherto loyal and largely unquestioning base over a case that has little obvious bearing on high politics at all. These die-hard Trumpists were disappointed by official findings that the accused child-trafficker and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, did indeed die by suicide in prison and that there is, and was, no secret client list. They had shared a conspiracy theory that Epstein was part of a shadowy elite, that he had been killed to keep him quiet, and that after Trump came to power, the truth would emerge. Now, Trump is himself being accused of an establishment cover-up, and is confronting a social media storm that even this master of the medium is struggling to control. Trump has also launched lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, and two journalists, denying a report of links between Trump and Epstein, including a bawdy birthday greeting allegedly sent by Trump. The prospect of a court confrontation between the two titans is tantalising. Trump has also ordered files relating to the Epstein case to be published, and both his attorney general and Congress want to question Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with the case so far. It may be surmised that they hope to tempt Maxwell with a reduction in her 20-year sentence and persuade her to offer some 'helpful' evidence. With only a year until the start of the midterm congressional election campaign, Trump needs to keep his base intact. No wonder four days in the wilds of Scotland – the homeland of his late mother and two Trump-owned golf courses, including a new resort on the Menie Estate, outside Aberdeen – might look like a welcome distraction. His foes on this side of the Atlantic are already tuning up – wags have put up a spoof sign at his golf course near Aberdeen that says 'twinned with Epstein Island' – and elaborate police and security operations are in train. When Trump last visited his Scottish businesses two years ago, he was not president. Now, even on a private visit, he requires presidential-level security, at least some of which must be supplied and paid for by the host country. The timing of this trip, less than one month before Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK, adds risk. Any infelicities, real or perceived, on either side now are in danger of negatively colouring the later visit, the invitation for which was conveyed by Keir Starmer during his trip to the White House soon after Trump's inauguration. Since then, content, timing and tone have all been in contention. The recent state visit by France's President Macron, with its especially high pageantry, address to parliament, and prominent deployment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, seemed top-of-the-line. Like the Macrons, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle, but this occasion has been timed to exclude the possibility of a parliamentary address and the visit to Balmoral that Trump angled for. Nor, the Palace has made clear, will the King be meeting Trump during his golfing weekend. The private and state visits are wisely being kept distinct. At government level, in contrast, a different choice has been made. The prime minister is expected to hold talks with Trump, potentially on every current issue, from trade tariffs to Ukraine, in or near Aberdeen, and possibly at Trump's golf course. There will also be a meeting with Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, who has decided that it is his duty 'to engage, to protect and to promote the interests of the people of Scotland', despite vocal opposition from other groups. Now, it could be said that Starmer, in particular, was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Given that the decision has been taken, however, the aim must be to limit any damage. Anything that smacks of paying tribute must be avoided, and that includes meeting Trump at his golf course and any announcement about awarding the 2028 British Open to the now Trump-owned Turnberry, as the president would reportedly like. By meeting Trump in Scotland, Starmer risks not only becoming the focus of protests himself but also party to the negative blowback from British public opinion. As much can go wrong as go right. The prime minister should have followed the Palace and left all official encounters for the main event, where the protocol is clear and risks of all kinds are minimised. After all, there are fewer than four weeks to wait.
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
India resists EU's oversight proposal on capital flows citing sovereignty concerns, sources say
July 24 (Reuters) - India has pushed back against a proposal by the European Union as part of free trade agreement talks which would give the 27-nation bloc a say in decisions related to capital flows, two Indian government sources said. The proposal, unusual in most free trade agreements, has raised concerns in New Delhi over limiting its ability to act unilaterally during crises, as both sides aim to conclude the deal by the end of 2025. India has in the past imposed restrictions on outflows, including during a currency crisis in 2013. In its proposal to India, the EU has suggested an oversight committee on trade in services and investment policies which would review policy actions, including those taken during financial or balance of payments crises. "India fears such oversight could allow the committee to question or reverse crisis-time policy measures taken by it, which compromises a sovereign's decision-making powers," one of the sources said. India, which trades $190 billion in goods annually with the EU, has also sought clarity on whether decisions taken during emergencies, such as restrictions on capital flows, could be overturned if the committee finds them inappropriate. While trying to limit India's control over capital account decisions, the EU proposes it would have the right to impose temporary restrictions on capital outflows during serious economic difficulties. India argues this creates an imbalance in safeguard powers and deviates from the EU's own practice in FTAs with Vietnam, Singapore, and South Korea, where both sides can apply such measures in exceptional circumstances, the source said. Both sources declined to be identified as they are not authorised to the media. Emails sent to the Reserve Bank of India, Ministries of Finance and Commerce and to the Prime Minister's Office requesting comment did not receive a response. India's opposition to the EU's proposal comes as it negotiates deals with other trading partners including the U.S. and Australia. Accepting oversight or unequal safeguards could limit India's powers on domestic policies and may weaken its push for balanced trade pacts in the future, the sources said. "India has not had an agreement on the FTA so far because of issues such as every country in the bloc wants their point of view or interest to be included," a source from the Ministry of External Affairs said. The European Commission, in its report, opens new tab following the July round of negotiations in Brussels, said "good progress" had been made on capital movements, payments, and transfers, with discussions focused on remaining areas of divergence. India-EU trade talks have faced hurdles over the EU's push to cut import taxes on cars and dairy while seeking stricter climate and labour rules. India wants to protect local farmers, avoid rigid green rules, and keep control over legal disputes.
