Well that’s it settled then. I’m gunna find this hill to sell binoculars and twix’s. Should be a millionaire by new year. Still not the same as joining in a terrorist attack and booting corpses about, btw.
Simple rule - anybody committing a war crime under the rules that cover such things should face the consequences in a court with the authority to prosecute such - there should be no exceptions ...
It wasn’t the best analogy so I’m not gonna double down on it. But the mentality of those who gleefully cheer for the death of their neighbours isn’t a million miles apart. Anyway, the serious construction will be starting soon, so forget your £5 twix and get on board with my water park plan dude. I hear Trump wants to be the first one down the flume.
If I was a betting man and I had my last dollar and the bet proposed tome was: These people who are paying to watch kids and women get blown up in the distance whilst enjoying their double cream whipped latte would if they could happily boot some corpses about too Its like depicted in the Purge movies during the daytime they be swapping homemade pumpkin pie then Purge kicks in and they be killing the same people. Human nature the dark side of it For me both sets of people the same they just not as ballsy as the other but as ballsy as they can be whilst getting away with coming across as civilised humans
I get alerts from many varied sources - but tend to use links that easily summarise the story, which the BBC does ... in contrast you are getting a daily fisting by like minded rabbit hole dwellers ...
There was indeed a serious rule breach and it has been rightly exposed / highlighted ... but the most interesting part of the article is arguably the last 3 paragraphs, or so ...
The 'serious breach' was that the kid in the doc was the son of a deputy agricultural minister. A bloke who was probably responsible for managing olive growing permits and issuing licences for wholesale of dates etc. The inference that the BBC was 'lying' about the content of the documentary or that it didn't accurately represent life in Gaza as a result, is for the birds As the report outlined: The review also said it had seen no evidence "to support the suggestion that the narrator's father or family influenced the content of the programme in any way". "We are pleased that the ruling was in line with Peter Johnston's review, which found that there was no inappropriate influence on the content by any third party, it was impartial, fairly edited and all payments were legitimate." The documentary "remains a vital account" of the Gaza conflict, and the contributors "deserve to have their voices heard", the statement added.
Possibly serious question Is this just an Ali G (or impersonator) piss take albeit in very bad taste, just a sick joke or do the audience betray something the Jewish community (who have been here for centuries) should be concerned about https://x.com/DovForman/status/1979092750906573184?s=19
