Originally Posted by Albion 69

Are the BBC right not to broadcast the appeal ?

Well no I'd like to think that charitable concerns would outweigh any fear of being called up on impartiality, but the poor old Beeb is in rather a bad way at the moment. I bet they report it from a third party point of view "today the BBC was criticised for". Perhaps that's the masterplan make a show of impartiality but in reality give the cause media attention.
Although if its been sanctioned by Douglas Alexander I can't see why the BBC would be scared.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Well no I'd like to think that charitable concerns would outweigh any fear of being called up on impartiality, but the poor old Beeb is in rather a bad way at the moment. I bet they report it from a third party point of view "today the BBC was criticised for". Perhaps that's the masterplan make a show of impartiality but in reality give the cause media attention.
Although if its been sanctioned by Douglas Alexander I can't see why the BBC would be scared.

I'm not so sure, the chances of at least some of the money and aid being siphoned off by Hamas for nefarious purposes is quite high .Aid Agencies always say they know where the money goes and can vouch for the individuals handing it out but i doubt the situation on the ground is ever that clear cut. A very difficult decision for the Beeb , on balance they have erred on the side of caution but no matter their decision they would have been accused of bias by someone.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

I'm not so sure, the chances of at least some of the money and aid being siphoned off by Hamas for nefarious purposes is quite high .Aid Agencies always say they know where the money goes and can vouch for the individuals handing it out but i doubt the situation on the ground is ever that clear cut. A very difficult decision for the Beeb , on balance they have erred on the side of caution but no matter their decision they would have been accused of bias by someone.

but the UNRWA is not pro hamas so instead of depriving those of need of aid because of an organization that we both agree that we are against it, why can't we trust the UNRWA for handling the issue.

Originally Posted by proudArab

but the UNRWA is not pro hamas so instead of depriving those of need of aid because of an organization that we both agree that we are against it, why can't we trust the UNRWA for handling the issue.

I know where you're coming from here, however in general terms the track record of most aid agencies is pretty poor in respect of being able to control exactly where aid, especially financial aid, actually ends up.

If we're talking about just medical and food aid though, I would agree that there shouldn't be too much of a problem in ensuring its proper distribution. After all, Gaza isn't that large an area and Hamas members or not, the overall suffering of the Palestinian people is the major concern. You can't just look at someone and say "Sorry, I think you're in Hamas so you're not getting any food".

The BBC are right not to display it. Impartiality and all

Originally Posted by Midas

I know where you're coming from here, however in general terms the track record of most aid agencies is pretty poor in respect of being able to control exactly where aid, especially financial aid, actually ends up.

If we're talking about just medical and food aid though, I would agree that there shouldn't be too much of a problem in ensuring its proper distribution. After all, Gaza isn't that large an area and Hamas members or not, the overall suffering of the Palestinian people is the major concern. You can't just look at someone and say "Sorry, I think you're in Hamas so you're not getting any food".

do you think that hamas is waiting for the financial aid to get the rockets? because i don't think that money is the issue for hamas, im sure there's another part who sponsers them, but who is this sponser, i can't be the judge of that, so again it's unacceptable to use hamas to justify putting people into suffer and watching them without providing any support, but as many of you implied this war was somehow a punishment for the palestinians wether they voted hamas or not.

Originally Posted by proudArab

do you think that hamas is waiting for the financial aid to get the rockets? because i don't think that money is the issue for hamas, im sure there's another part who sponsers them, but who is this sponser, i can't be the judge of that, so again it's unacceptable to use hamas to justify putting people into suffer and watching them without providing any support, but as many of you implied this war was somehow a punishment for the palestinians wether they voted hamas or not.

No, that's not my interpretation of this at all. I know that most of the aid that's been coming into Gaza, and that which will hopefully soon be pouring in, won't be as cash but will be as food, medical supplies, construction equipment and materials; the practical things that the people need right now.

I know some people seem to think that the war was a punishment for the Palestinians for supporting Hamas, however I believe the majority of people, myself included, understand that they were driven to giving their support because they were being left with no alternative by Israel.

Originally Posted by Midas

No, that's not my interpretation of this at all. I know that most of the aid that's been coming into Gaza, and that which will hopefully soon be pouring in, won't be as cash but will be as food, medical supplies, construction equipment and materials; the practical things that the people need right now.

I know some people seem to think that the war was a punishment for the Palestinians for supporting Hamas, however I believe the majority of people, myself included, understand that they were driven to giving their support because they were being left with no alternative by Israel.

I have two theories about the Palestinians:

1. They are all disgraceful people who agree with Hamas in that Israel should be destroyed;
2. They were forced by Hamas to support them through terror tactics.

Currently, I am leaning with they were forced, however, more news reports I see with Palestinians crying makes me lean more towards the first - The crying is clearly fake for the most cases.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

Are the BBC right not to broadcast the appeal ?

Not right. Let's not forget that Mark Thompson and his wife visited Israel in 2005 and met Arael Sheron; did they pay a visit to any of the surrounding arabic states? Nope. Also once the western journos were allowed into Gaza and it could be seen the total devastation there, it went very quieton the Beeb front. I think we can wonder, at the very least, if the BBC's 'impartiality' is actually more a case of the DG being pro Israel and not wanting to be seen by them to be supporting their 'enemy'.

The decision not show the appeal was Thompson's decision. He's address on the BBC blog comes across that he's upset that the public don't support his stance. Tough. We pay, ostensibly, his wages - so get the right to disagree (even if nowt happens).

What I have to find amusing in a dark sense, is that he constantly defends the twit Ross for publically humiliating people, but yet acts as if he's protecting the public from something awful by not showing the appeal. Talk about double standards.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I have two theories about the Palestinians:

Currently, I am leaning with they were forced, however, more news reports I see with Palestinians crying makes me lean more towards the first - The crying is clearly fake for the most cases.

how about arranging a trip to Gaza and see how you will manage in such situations and don't pack any food or water or medications either, so cu in the news while your in Gaza?

If you read the DG blog....Politics Forum and Political Blog discussing and debating political and social issues. - Reply to Topic

BBC NEWS | The Editors

It could almost be argued that what he's really saying is "hey its an ongoing news story - do we want it to end yet? Hell no!"

He certainly comes across as a 'I know better than everyone else' sort; mind you he did during the J. Ross debacle as well.

However I think the point here is it can be fairly safe to assume the Charities Commission, which cleared this appeal, know a lot more about the situation in Gaza than Thompson could ever hope to.

I also think that, at age 43, I am certainly old enough and, dare I say it, intelligent enough to be able to separate the political issues in the region from what is only a call for humanitarian aid.

Perhaps if Thompson had allowed the BBC to show more of the devastation left in Gaza after the Israelis left, he would understand both the public outrage at his decision, and also the desperate need that drives the appeal.

However, I suppose a man that lives in a guilded ivory tower ike the BBC, will never really understand the real world. More's the pity.

However his attitude towards the public, which let's remember, pays his and every other Beeb person's wages means his days could soon be numbered; mainly because of the number of people who are calling for the licence tax to be scrapped. He's certainly the most condescending DG they've had so far.

Originally Posted by proudArab

how about arranging a trip to Gaza and see how you will manage in such situations and don't pack any food or water or medications either, so cu in the news while your in Gaza?

Why don't you? Oh yeah, because it is stupidity.

"Sky News has joined the BBC in declining to screen an appeal for aid on behalf of victims of the recent war in Gaza."

Sky And The BBC Decline To Show Advert For Humanitarian Aid Appeal In Gaza | UK News | Sky News

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Why don't you? Oh yeah, because it is stupidity.

why? because people are not faking at all right? ill answer that for you saying no they are not
why don't I do that? mmmmm been there, done that more than once the last time was during 2006 lebanon war but i don't expect you to know much about that, so go educate ur self

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Why don't you? Oh yeah, because it is stupidity.

This is a DEBATE site, we debate here - please stop with the winding up of people. All it does is end up in a row with personal insults flying about and no debate at all of the issues.

This is an important issue, affecting the lives of many people - its not a joke.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

"Sky News has joined the BBC in declining to screen an appeal for aid on behalf of victims of the recent war in Gaza."

Sky And The BBC Decline To Show Advert For Humanitarian Aid Appeal In Gaza | UK News | Sky News

And? Your point is....what exactly? That the tv version of 'The Sun' joins the Beeb? Not very good for the beeb is it? That a tabloid TV station is on their side. That's a bit like saying the Sunday Sport are not running the appeal in their papers.

Originally Posted by proudArab

why? because people are not faking at all right? ill answer for you saying no they are not
why don't I do that? mmmmm been there, done that more than once the last time was during 2006 lebanon war but i don't expect you to know much about that, so go educate ur self

Proud Arab, I see why you are so upset. The pictures coming out of Gaza beggar belief and of course this appeal is very important.

However LA is what is known as a 'wind up merchant' - he admits that he takes a view that can even be opposed to his own opinion just to see what people say. He is also 17.

Please don't let him drag you into an argument. This is, as I've said, an important issue and I totally understand your frustration - but debate the point, don't let him suck you into a futile argument.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

This is a DEBATE site, we debate here - please stop with the winding up of people. All it does is end up in a row with personal insults flying about and no debate at all of the issues.

This is an important issue, affecting the lives of many people - its not a joke.

He does the same to me.
Jokes eh? I dont remember telling a joke, but I can try. Though it is not really my style.

why? because people are not faking at all right? ill answer that for you saying no they are not
why don't I do that? mmmmm been there, done that more than once the last time was during 2006 lebanon war but i don't expect you to know much about that, so go educate ur self

I watch the BBC news channel daily, each time I see palestinians crying they always seem to be faking it; or in one instance, whilst talking to the cameras, using their mobile phone texting...

If you're not going to debate the issue on this thread LA, then there's no point conversing with you is there?

Originally Posted by Trouble43

If you're not going to debate the issue on this thread LA, then there's no point conversing with you is there?

I agree that there is a humanitarian crisis, and no matter how fake people look I understand they require food and medicine. I was merely stating that they appear to "pull on a sad face for the crew", the camera crew to be exact.

But equally I understand the DG of the BBC can do what he wants; within reason, and he has a reason for this. He believes it will affect the BBC's reputation for being impartial.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I agree that there is a humanitarian crisis, and no matter how fake people look I understand they require food and medicine. I was merely stating that they appear to "pull on a sad face for the crew", the camera crew to be exact.

I have to say the flattened city of Gaza can't be fake. As to the people 'pulling a sad face for the crew', I don't necessarily agree - but if that's the case I can't blame them; they're probably just grateful that someone's listening to them and so want to make everyone as aware as possible as to what they're suffering.

But equally I understand the DG of the BBC can do what he wants; within reason, and he has a reason for this. He believes it will affect the BBC's reputation for being impartial.

If the BBC wasn't so pro Israel then I'd probably agree - but it is. So I do find their 'impartiality' speech a total piece of BS.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I have to say the flattened city of Gaza can't be fake. As to the people 'pulling a sad face for the crew', I don't necessarily agree - but if that's the case I can't blame them; they're probably just grateful that someone's listening to them and so want to make everyone as aware as possible as to what they're suffering.

It is also possible they are merely trying to make Israel look worse. Personally, I believe they are trying to make Israel look worse.

If the BBC wasn't so pro Israel then I'd probably agree - but it is. So I do find their 'impartiality' speech a total piece of BS.

Firstly, do you have evidence to prove they are pro-Israel?
Secondly, the British Executive is pro Israel.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Firstly, do you have evidence to prove they are pro-Israel?
Secondly, the British Executive is pro Israel.

I fully agree with this. I personally think that they acheve balance quite well - they show the horrific goings-on in Gaza and then make an Israeli minister try to justify it, which is always good for a laugh (albeit a very sadistic one). This means that they show the effects of Israel's horrific war crimes, while allowing them the chance to defend themselves. I personally think that this makes for pretty good balance.

On the government, yes they are pro-Israel, though they seem to be getting better. Obama needs to just say 'NO' to Israel at sometime soon and make it clear that they need to stop killing people if they want US support. Then the UK will be able to follow suit. At the moment, any move by our government would just leave us isolated in terms of foriegn policy.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I fully agree with this. I personally think that they acheve balance quite well - they show the horrific goings-on in Gaza and then make an Israeli minister try to justify it, which is always good for a laugh (albeit a very sadistic one). This means that they show the effects of Israel's horrific war crimes, while allowing them the chance to defend themselves. I personally think that this makes for pretty good balance.

On the government, yes they are pro-Israel, though they seem to be getting better. Obama needs to just say 'NO' to Israel at sometime soon and make it clear that they need to stop killing people if they want US support. Then the UK will be able to follow suit. At the moment, any move by our government would just leave us isolated in terms of foriegn policy.

It will be very difficult for Obama to challenge Israel - America needs Israel in the Middle East as much as Israel needs America's finance.

Britain of course needs America and is always willing to help Israel - with finance, food *cough* Nuclear technology *cough*.

Ok, so the BBC refused to transmit the DEC's Gaza appeal, you will find that the BBC are acting fairly consistently in regards their stance on previous DEC campaigns, notably the aftermath of the 2006 Israeli - Hezbollah conflict and a DEC appeal for East Africa (the BBC saying they did not believe agencies could deliver aid).

But, there is a silver lining - by refusing to air this appeal and the subsequent media attention thus created both on TV news and that of print/internet media sources has led to widespread recognition of the appeal. This undoubtedly will reach a far wider audience than mid-week BBC viewing figures in the long term.

Originally Posted by Tete123

Ok, so the BBC refused to transmit the DEC's Gaza appeal, you will find that the BBC are acting fairly consistently in regards their stance on previous DEC campaigns, notably the aftermath of the 2006 Israeli - Hezbollah conflict and a DEC appeal for East Africa (the BBC saying they did not believe agencies could deliver aid).

They do, remember during live8 when the cameras had to keep cutting away because the BBC decided the appeals were overtly political? That's annoying because it is the assumption that we (the public) aren't able to distinguish between properganda and decide for ourselves if we want to contribute.

But, there is a silver lining - by refusing to air this appeal and the subsequent media attention thus created both on TV news and that of print/internet media sources has led to widespread recognition of the appeal. This undoubtedly will reach a far wider audience than mid-week BBC viewing figures in the long term.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone at the BBC had reasoned this. Trouble accused the BBC of being pro-Israel a few posts back, which is ironic given the BBCs world wide reputation of being unfairly pro-Palestine.
This whole fuss does amplify the endangered position the BBC finds itself in, not really able to be a-political, kicked too often by politicians and burnt badly by viewer hypocrisy when trying to be commercially competitive.

As for Sky backing the BBC decision, Rupert Murdock has never been impartial in his life!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

As for Sky backing the BBC decision, Rupert Murdock has never been impartial in his life!

But Sky do not have to be impartial. He can be as bias as he chooses

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

But Sky do not have to be impartial. He can be as bias as he chooses

Exactly (just one reason I get my news from the BBC), so why make the pretence yesterday that Sky should not show appeal either?

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

so why make the pretence yesterday that Sky should not show appeal either?

Pardon?

Damn 20 characters!

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Pardon?

Damn 20 characters!

You've got me wondering if I dreamt it now! Damn you. Sky came out yesterday and said they were backing the BBC in not airing the appeal! Didn't they?
They did!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

You've got me wondering if I dreamt it now! Damn you. Sky came out yesterday and said they were backing the BBC in not airing the appeal! Didn't they?
They did!

I watch the news religiously and haven't even seen that story yet!! I watch the Bloody BBC News channel!!! (whilst I am on the computer or whatever)...

Oh well...

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I watch the news religiously and haven't even seen that story yet!! I watch the Bloody BBC News channel!!! (whilst I am on the computer or whatever)...

Oh well...

That is why post Number 14 in this thread is so helpful

Yes Sky said they would also not be airing the Dec appeal for Gaza.

Sky And The BBC Decline To Show Advert For Humanitarian Aid Appeal In Gaza | UK News | Sky News

Okay, I have a really bad memory. I have read that article already... lol

The UN have now launched their own appeal for Gaza.

BBC NEWS | Business | Davos 2009 | UN launches $613m appeal for Gaza

I wonder if the BBC will bleat about that being 'political' too?

Also in this article it appears the US has climbed down about meeting Hamas leaders to try and broker a peace. George Mitchell, the US envoy, met Mahmood Abbas - but sadly that man has little to no influence with the terrorist group Hamas.

It does make you wonder what pressures were brought to bear to bring that u turn about?

Additionally it would appear the BBC is still in the thick of public (and ministerial) displeasure as not only were there pickets outside various BBC buildings (this report mentions the one outside BBC Gaza - gosh, I bet those journos are happy to be there!); but also that, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN Nuclear Agency has cancelled interviews with the BBC Radio and World Service Television. Here's the article:

UN nuclear chief snubs BBC on Gaza appeal - Scotsman.com News

And let us not forget the reason WHY so many people are furious at the BBC:

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Gaza father finds out child survived

What is surprising is that this was a BBC news article but, as far as I know, it never made the main news........

As reported in The Times Jan 29.

A committee of the BBC Trust will review the decision not to screen the Disaster Emergency Committee's appeal for the Gaza aid effort. The ruling by Mark Thompson, the Director-General, who feared that the appeal could damage the BBC's impartiality, attracted 22,000 complaints. The group could order the BBC to screen the appeal or to review the processes by which it made its decision. It verdict is exected within two weeks.

Just an update...

Originally Posted by Tete123

As reported in The Times Jan 29.



Just an update...

Thanks for that Tete.

But you do have to wonder will they actually do anything this time? I remember them meeting to discuss the Ross/Brand/Sachs debacle and then saying they couldn't tell the BBC what to do.

Mind you it'll be interesting if this time is different.

Right so 18000 complaints over Ross/Brand farce, virtually instantaneous reaction from the BBC resulting in dismissals etc.
22000 complaints about not screening appeal and the trust will "review" the situation, well I guess we know what's important then!

Let's face it - we all know the BBC is pro-Israel and their reaction to the Dec appeal has merely proven it. I do wonder what Thompson will say about the UN appeal - whether he will hint that that too is 'political'.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Let's face it - we all know the BBC is pro-Israel and their reaction to the Dec appeal has merely proven it. I do wonder what Thompson will say about the UN appeal - whether he will hint that that too is 'political'.

Poor old Beeb , dammed if they do .. dammed if they don't , they are usually accused of Pro Palestinian bias ..... BBC Watch

Originally Posted by Albion 69

Poor old Beeb , dammed if they do .. dammed if they don't , they are usually accused of Pro Palestinian bias ..... BBC Watch

I have to say I have heard people complain BBC is biased in favour of Palestine, there's quite a nice example in The West Wing when Josh (deputy cheif of staff) has been visiting Europe and starts to defend the Palestinian pov and CJ (press secretary) says "you've been listening to too much BBC".
Usually the alternative view comes with BNP accusations along the lines of leftist, Jewish liberals etc.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

I have to say I have heard people complain BBC is biased in favour of Palestine, there's quite a nice example in The West Wing when Josh (deputy cheif of staff) has been visiting Europe and starts to defend the Palestinian pov and CJ (press secretary) says "you've been listening to too much BBC".
Usually the alternative view comes with BNP accusations along the lines of leftist, Jewish liberals etc.

I would agree with the people you have heard complain including CJ from the West Wing (fantastic show) . The Beeb have a subtle left of centre bias which is not surprising considering where they mostly advertise for job vacancies (Guardian). I view there political slant as far more dangerous than say a channel like Fox News who have an obvious Agenda. I like the Beeb in general and think the license fee is good value but the news is one area where they have an obvious blind spot.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

Poor old Beeb , dammed if they do .. dammed if they don't , they are usually accused of Pro Palestinian bias ..... BBC Watch

I've always thought the Beeb was pro Israel actually.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

I view there political slant as far more dangerous than say a channel like Fox News who have an obvious Agenda. I like the Beeb in general and think the license fee is good value but the news is one area where they have an obvious blind spot.

No surprise I disagree with you there, I don't know why but people in "the business" do tend to be more "liberal" rather than left-wing I would say. I also think license fee is value for money but I prefer their coverage of the news, I think they tend to present it as "here's the facts" and whenever anything big happens (Berlin wall, 9/11, Saddam Hussein captured, Whale up the Thames etc.) it's the BBC I switch on.
Somehow we've forgotten that the BBC is staffed by people not robots and therefore some personal bias is bound to creep in, as long as the other side has a right to reply (as a radio 5 listener I can testify they do - if you've ever listened after a shooting in the states the NRA tie up the lines) then I think that's balanced enough for your average adult able to distinguish between facts and editorial.
The fact that every government regardless of Party complains the BBC is biased in favour of the other is testament to the fact that it works to a greater extent.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

No surprise I disagree with you there, I don't know why but people in "the business" do tend to be more "liberal" rather than left-wing I would say. I also think license fee is value for money but I prefer their coverage of the news, I think they tend to present it as "here's the facts" and whenever anything big happens (Berlin wall, 9/11, Saddam Hussein captured, Whale up the Thames etc.) it's the BBC I switch on.
Somehow we've forgotten that the BBC is staffed by people not robots and therefore some personal bias is bound to creep in, as long as the other side has a right to reply (as a radio 5 listener I can testify they do - if you've ever listened after a shooting in the states the NRA tie up the lines) then I think that's balanced enough for your average adult able to distinguish between facts and editorial.
The fact that every government regardless of Party complains the BBC is biased in favour of the other is testament to the fact that it works to a greater extent.

More Liberal may be a better term although this normally equates to left of centre political opinions in my experience. We are not talking your die hard old fashioned Lefty but the shiny New Left ... Equality, Rights ,Quotas ,Social Engineering ,we know what's best types.
I too mainly watch BBC News, the style and standard of coverage is better than all of it's rivals but that subtle slant is a constant annoyance. An obvious example , Greg Dykes (the then DG) " Hideously White " comments gave an insight into the thinking of the upper echelons of management of the BBC . I have no doubt there is an overriding view that pervades all levels of BBC Editorial Staff ... Immigration is a good thing / Multiculturalism is Good . Even questioning this orthodoxy causes an outbreak of knowing looks (he/she must be a racist). There have been plenty of BBC programmes about the impact of Polish immigration (i wonder why) but where were the programmes about other immigrant groups who made up the vast majority of immigrants and the impact both good and bad they have had on this country ? Why after 7/7 did the BBC go out of it's way to always have a Moderate Muslim representative on most of it's programmes. Sadiq Khan (Labour MP/Moderate Muslim) whole career has taken off since the attacks .. he must have a room at the Beeb This subtle directing not reporting of the news agenda is a clear sign of bias imo.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

More Liberal may be a better term although this normally equates to left of centre political opinions in my experience. We are not talking your die hard old fashioned Lefty but the shiny New Left ... Equality, Rights ,Quotas ,Social Engineering ,we know what's best types.
I too mainly watch BBC News, the style and standard of coverage is better than all of it's rivals but that subtle slant is a constant annoyance. An obvious example , Greg Dykes (the then DG) " Hideously White " comments gave an insight into the thinking of the upper echelons of management of the BBC . I have no doubt there is an overriding view that pervades all levels of BBC Editorial Staff ... Immigration is a good thing / Multiculturalism is Good . Even questioning this orthodoxy causes an outbreak of knowing looks (he/she must be a racist). There have been plenty of BBC programmes about the impact of Polish immigration (i wonder why) but where were the programmes about other immigrant groups who made up the vast majority of immigrants and the impact both good and bad they have had on this country ? Why after 7/7 did the BBC go out of it's way to always have a Moderate Muslim representative on most of it's programmes. Sadiq Khan (Labour MP/Moderate Muslim) whole career has taken off since the attacks .. he must have a room at the Beeb This subtle directing not reporting of of the news agenda is a clear sign of bias imo.

Can't argue against that really, except to bring us full circle; the BBC omitting certain views (anti-immigration etc.) a sign of bias in itself adds credance to the idea that the BBC was being pro-Israel in not screening the appeal.
The reason Sadiq Khan was so visual? Well I guess extremists made their point with the bombings, the government made it's point with the reaction (anti-terror laws etc.) whose opinion was left?