Making an exception for one organisation, pressured by politicians, would be harmful. BBC has the following policy about neutral reporting:

We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy

Continuing the tradition of British conservative prime ministers labelling things "terrorism" when the poor get uppity.

How's Thatcher looking these days for insisting that Mandela was a terrorist?

Sounds like the BBC's explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:

John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. "British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word 'terrorist', and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it," he wrote.

"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."

He said: "It's about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we're giving them, that they don't think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful."

The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?

Can we label him as a pig-fucking PM? Oh wait, we already do.

if you describe hamas as a terrorist organisation (they are) then you also have to point out israel's role in creating and funding them.

One man's terrorist group is another man's freedom fighter. This is why many new organizations that are big on neutrality normally shy away from calling anyone terrorist groups. You could just as easily frame Israel as a terrorist group with the same justifications listed above.

Hamas are every bit as much a terrorist organisation as Isis, the IRA, FARC, Red Army faction, Al Qaeda or UDF have been.

How this dickwipe managed to get in the spotlights again after what he did I'll never understand. He's right though, they should be called terrorists because they are. And bbc while you're at it also call the genocide of remaining Palestinians a genocide.

Palestinian military defending their country

Hamas is a terrorist organization. So is the IDF. Protect the people, not the barbarian leaders they admittedly did choose. I choose to defend the people because no sane minded person would elect a leader that uses their own citizens as bait and hostages and i believe most people can be at least called sane minded.

Sorry Dave, I trust John Simpson. You're just a pink-faced ham botherer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Glad to see he's still not letting reality infringe on his fantasies. Who wants a competent foreign minister anyway?