this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
127 points (97.7% liked)

UK Politics

4015 readers
98 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A BBC editorial policy representative said he thought a UN report on hospital attacks cited in our film should not be included because, he said, “the UN is not a trusted independent organisation”. The same had been repeatedly said about Amnesty International.

Later in the same meeting, we discussed another request from the BBC; that we use the testimony of two high-profile hospital directors who had been detained and allegedly tortured by Israeli forces. The use of interviews with prisoners under duress is not only a breach of the Geneva conventions, but breaks Ofcom’s code. We explained this at length in meetings and by email, citing numerous examples, and in the end we won the argument.

Script meetings were also dominated by references to what “Collier” might say – referring to David Collier, a social media activist who had discovered the omissions of the previous film. In one editorial meeting, after viewing our film for the first time, a senior BBC reporter told us we should not use certain information as this would not be acceptable to Camera, a pro-Israel media monitoring organisation.

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I always wonder what would’ve happened if the UN was given teeth, instead of what we have now.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 23 points 2 days ago

Countries would have just left the moment anything was truly imposed.

Im convinced Americans in the last 30 years are are deliberately miseducated on what the UN is from a very young age. It is by design a place of talk and strongly worded letters, and that it exists in that form is an incredible achievement.

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every government leader around the world would need to have a piece of c4 placed in their arse, with detonator being held in UN Secretary General desk.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 3 points 22 hours ago

Pretty sure that means, trump would have his dick blown off.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Shrug. I am not a post-WWII world order architect.

Spitballing: no security council for a start? Maybe countries volunteer some kind of enforcement army. That would've sounded reasonably appealing to the WWII winners back then, and maybe sucked them in enough to give that ball some inertia when decisions turn on them.