I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
They are exceptional.
It's a sign of weakness of terrorist cells that this sort of lone attack is all they are seemingly capable of launching at the moment, such is the degree of penetration by the security services (CTU/MI5/GCHQ).
In addition to reasons already posted, surely Parliament has to be suspended because it would be totally unreasonable for any vote to take place in the Commons or Lords when many MPs and Peers would be unable to get into Parliament to participate.
Jamie RossVerified account @JamieRoss7 3m3 minutes ago
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser requests that the presiding officer suspends the session. Fabiani says "business as usual" will continue.
I would have thought that confirmation of a terrorist incident in Westminster would be enough for a security clampdown on all similar institutions in the UK.
Sounds like a lone nutter to me. We shouldn't let a lone nutter interfere with parliamentary business. I think MPs should carry on with their debate instead of standing around. They are not in any danger. It is important not to over react to attempts to terrorise. Keep calm and carry on.
How do you know they are not in any danger?
Do you think they would be in greater danger debating than standing around in central lobby?
I would like my elected representatives to have 100% focus on the subject under debate. If only for practical such reasons it's right that parliament is adjourned.
Fair enough. That's a good point. I suspect they would all be on their smartphones following the news rather than attending to the debate.
I react the way I do because I see the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise and I think the way to neutralise that is act calmly and not be terrorised. Indeed that is the advice given by the police. I'm not saying that one shouldn't be alert, or that the security forces shouldn't do their best to prevent or contain terrorist attacks.
Yes and I think the sentiment, broadly, is the right one. But there is some fallout time from this. Once the immediate threat has been neutralised (and it was and is by no means certain it has been) then we can get on with business as usual.
In a highly fluid, ongoing situation such as terrorist attacks have become, the emergency services need the space and time to confirm and go firm.
It isn't by buckling in fear following a terrorist attack that we might be defeated. It's by heightened tension leading to free speech being gradually eroded, ever greater powers handed to police, and a blind eye being turned to crimes because of cultural sensitivities.
Just recall the reactions to the Danish cartoons. No paper publishing them, a Channel 4 debate in which a phone vote wanted them shown but they weren't, and a police escort for men [some dressed as suicide bombers] carrying placards calling for death to the West and the decapitation of those who insult Islam.
Mr. Observer, I hope you're right. But it remains to be seen. The threat we face is more insidious than a foe in uniform.
Correct. Individual courage is needed, as well as collective resolve.
Seems like impressive efforts by everyone involved to limit the effectiveness of this attack. It's impossible to stop everything so we should commend our security services for what they do every day to keep us as safe as is reasonably possible.
It isn't by buckling in fear following a terrorist attack that we might be defeated. It's by heightened tension leading to free speech being gradually eroded, ever greater powers handed to police, and a blind eye being turned to crimes because of cultural sensitivities.
Just recall the reactions to the Danish cartoons. No paper publishing them, a Channel 4 debate in which a phone vote wanted them shown but they weren't, and a police escort for men [some dressed as suicide bombers] carrying placards calling for death to the West and the decapitation of those who insult Islam.
Mr. Observer, I hope you're right. But it remains to be seen. The threat we face is more insidious than a foe in uniform.
Jamie RossVerified account @JamieRoss7 3m3 minutes ago
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser requests that the presiding officer suspends the session. Fabiani says "business as usual" will continue.
I would have thought that confirmation of a terrorist incident in Westminster would be enough for a security clampdown on all similar institutions in the UK.
Sounds like a lone nutter to me. We shouldn't let a lone nutter interfere with parliamentary business. I think MPs should carry on with their debate instead of standing around. They are not in any danger. It is important not to over react to attempts to terrorise. Keep calm and carry on.
How do you know they are not in any danger?
Do you think they would be in greater danger debating than standing around in central lobby?
I would like my elected representatives to have 100% focus on the subject under debate. If only for practical such reasons it's right that parliament is adjourned.
I can see both sides of this argument but, to be honest, could you have 100% focus if you were working in Parliament right now?
I'm in Canary Wharf, and I'm distracted even here.
Got to say I think Anna Soubry's tweet about being taken out of the Commons Library 'at gunpoint' is a tad judgemental. I assume the guns weren't actually pointing at her.
I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
Of course Westminster should be suspended today, why is that even questioned? Holyrood, I'm not sure about. I'd guess that depends how people feel up there.
I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
Got to say I think Anna Soubry's tweet about being taken out of the Commons Library 'at gunpoint' is a tad judgemental. I assume the guns weren't actually pointing at her.
12 years since a major incident like this - a measure of the fantastic job our security services do in keeping us safe in one of the prime targets for these nutters.
I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
12 years since a major incident like this - a measure of the fantastic job our security services do in keeping us safe in one of the prime targets for these nutters.
And our best - indeed only - response is to carry on living our lives once the immediate danger has passed.
I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
Jamie RossVerified account @JamieRoss7 3m3 minutes ago
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser requests that the presiding officer suspends the session. Fabiani says "business as usual" will continue.
I would have thought that confirmation of a terrorist incident in Westminster would be enough for a security clampdown on all similar institutions in the UK.
Sounds like a lone nutter to me. We shouldn't let a lone nutter interfere with parliamentary business. I think MPs should carry on with their debate instead of standing around. They are not in any danger. It is important not to over react to attempts to terrorise. Keep calm and carry on.
How do you know they are not in any danger?
Do you think they would be in greater danger debating than standing around in central lobby?
I would like my elected representatives to have 100% focus on the subject under debate. If only for practical such reasons it's right that parliament is adjourned.
Fair enough. That's a good point. I suspect they would all be on their smartphones following the news rather than attending to the debate.
I react the way I do because I see the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise and I think the way to neutralise that is act calmly and not be terrorised. Indeed that is the advice given by the police. I'm not saying that one shouldn't be alert, or that the security forces shouldn't do their best to prevent or contain terrorist attacks.
Yes and I think the sentiment, broadly, is the right one. But there is some fallout time from this. Once the immediate threat has been neutralised (and it was and is by no means certain it has been) then we can get on with business as usual.
In a highly fluid, ongoing situation such as terrorist attacks have become, the emergency services need the space and time to confirm and go firm.
That's fair enough too. I think we are in agreement.
Am about to fly from Gatwick to Belfast. Just before getting on the Tube, I had a phone call from the NI flight booker checking I was OK following the terrorist incident in London.
12 years since a major incident like this - a measure of the fantastic job our security services do in keeping us safe in one of the prime targets for these nutters.
And our best - indeed only - response is to carry on living our lives once the immediate danger has passed.
Yep, I agree.
I also share the thoughts conveyed by Southam as well.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I disagree. The purpose of these atrocities is to generate fear and hatred. Your proposal will simply amplify them.
I am in London Bridge, a way a way from the incident, but the noise of helicopters overhead is deafening.
Our security services and police are just amazing. It's trite to say it, but we do take them for granted. Only at times like these do we realise just how heroic they are. Thoughts with them and especially to all those caught up in the violence. It's just horrific.
A plague on anyone who tries to attack this country and its democracy. You will never, ever defeat us. Never.
Echoing what everyone else has said. Well said Southam.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Jackson Carlaw MSPVerified account @Carlaw4Eastwood 6m6 minutes ago
Absolutely disgraceful conduct from @strathearnrose in response to PO suspension of @ScotParl - totally unbecoming.
What was the disgraceful conduct?
It's just stupid - when 911 happened, BT evacuated all their staff in tall buildings such as the NatWest Tower. Its just sensible.
I was working for Disney at that time - they shut down the Hammersmith offices as a major US company was thought to be a target. In the weeks following - when powders were being sent to various businesses - we all had to follow extra procedures.
That isn't giving into terrorism, it is just common sense to be aware and careful.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I disagree. The purpose of these atrocities is to generate fear and hatred. Your proposal will simply amplify them.
Presumably if a car crashes into the railings outside parliament, the security services would execute full emergency evacuation and lock-down even without the stabbing or pedestrians being mowed down.
Miss Plato, papers all showed pictures of the toddler who died on the beach, but not the children murdered at Nice. Squeamish or stark are both legitimate positions for the press*, but they can't pick and choose when to show reality in all its grimness and retain credibility.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I don't agree that images like that should be seen while the situation is unclear. The casualty did have a pixellated face, but some poor soul at home might still recognise their son/brother/whatever by the clothing or the backpack. We should see those images, certainly, but not yet.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I think we are better than that. We need to keep calm and hold our nerve at times like this, however difficult it is. What you suggest is exactly what the perpetrators want us to do.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I disagree. I was working on a newsdesk when ISIS beheading videos came in. Worst thing I've ever had to see. I would have preferred that we had not shown any footage from any of them, rather than even the edited versions we did show. These people WANT their death-cult propaganda. I say f*** 'em. Put up stills as tributes to their victims but don't give them the terrorist coverage they crave.
Miss Plato, papers all showed pictures of the toddler who died on the beach, but not the children murdered at Nice. Squeamish or stark are both legitimate positions for the press*, but they can't pick and choose when to show reality in all its grimness and retain credibility.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
Showing the sad picture of the toddler on the beach didn't risk terrorising us. Different circumstance.
The issue is not about protecting adults from gruesome images. It's about what is the best response in the asymmetric war we're in with terrorists. Their aim to terrorise us in order to divide us, provoke us, weaken us. Our aim is to neutralise them.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I disagree. I was working on a newsdesk when ISIS beheading videos came in. Worst thing I've ever had to see. I would have preferred that we had not shown any footage from any of them, rather than even the edited versions we did show. These people WANT their death-cult propaganda. I say f*** 'em. Put up stills as tributes to their victims but don't give them the terrorist coverage they crave.
The oxygen of publicity, as someone once said, I forget who.
If you show footage aren't you just giving them the publicity and fear driven feelings that scumbags like this crave? Because let's face it pictures like that would drive fear into people, not everyone but a great many and that's one of their aims.
Better off starving them of as much PR oxygen as possible you would think.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
If you show footage aren't you just giving them the publicity and fear driven feelings that scumbags like this crave? Because let's face it pictures like that would drive fear into people, not everyone but a great many and that's one of their aims.
Better off starving them of as much PR oxygen as possible you would think.
Wall-to-wall coverage on the news channels? I think that ship has sailed.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
The most successful tactic would be to deny them the oxygen of publicity. Plus increase funding and support to a well-known building in Cheltenham.
The stats. show there are fewer terrorists today than in the far-off 1970s. Does anyone remember the 1972 Olympics murders, Bader Meinhof, Red Brigade, 96 innocent people blown up at Bologna station in 1980 ...?
Miss Plato, papers all showed pictures of the toddler who died on the beach, but not the children murdered at Nice. Squeamish or stark are both legitimate positions for the press*, but they can't pick and choose when to show reality in all its grimness and retain credibility.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
Well quite - I've no time for appeasers and handwringers now. Who are they protecting exactly?
Because I follow US politics very closely, I've seen the same arguments played out with a lot less nuance. The progressives seem more a lot more concerned with smothering uncomfortable truths in an attempt to keep their agenda alive.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I disagree. I was working on a newsdesk when ISIS beheading videos came in. Worst thing I've ever had to see. I would have preferred that we had not shown any footage from any of them, rather than even the edited versions we did show. These people WANT their death-cult propaganda. I say f*** 'em. Put up stills as tributes to their victims but don't give them the terrorist coverage they crave.
Pfft - there's no comparison with beheading videos and seeing run over people with pixelated faces.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show mangled bodies too, to encourage us to slow down.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show the mangled bodies of toddlers, to encourage us to slow down. If we're not seeing what speeding directly leads to - we're operating on a false premise.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show the mangled bodies of toddlers, to encourage us to slow down. If we're not seeing what speeding directly leads to - we're operating on a false premise.
It hasn't seemed to discourage the smokers though.
I'm following the news today on Reuters personally.
Miss Plato, papers all showed pictures of the toddler who died on the beach, but not the children murdered at Nice. Squeamish or stark are both legitimate positions for the press*, but they can't pick and choose when to show reality in all its grimness and retain credibility.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
Well quite - I've no time for appeasers and handwringers now. Who are they protecting exactly?
Because I follow US politics very closely, I've seen the same arguments played out with a lot less nuance. The progressives seem more a lot more concerned with smothering uncomfortable truths in an attempt to keep their agenda alive.
Miss Plato, papers all showed pictures of the toddler who died on the beach, but not the children murdered at Nice. Squeamish or stark are both legitimate positions for the press*, but they can't pick and choose when to show reality in all its grimness and retain credibility.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
Showing the sad picture of the toddler on the beach didn't risk terrorising us. Different circumstance.
The issue is not about protecting adults from gruesome images. It's about what is the best response in the asymmetric war we're in with terrorists. Their aim to terrorise us in order to divide us, provoke us, weaken us. Our aim is to neutralise them.
The dead toddler was used to invoke sympathy. It was some of the most appalling propaganda - especially given the circumstances of his death. He wasn't some innocent victim of a terrorist incident.
I'm perfectly happy to have an unpopular opinion on here.
Mr. Barnesian, a media refusing to report acts of terror to the same standards as other news will erode trust in the honesty of the press. We've already seen this following David of Germany, and the magically rapid diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.
The purpose of terrorism is to alter policy, and the nation. The purpose of showing the dead toddler was to use a different emotion but achieve, through pathos, a change in policy.
I do think it's legitimate for some media organisations to take a softer approach, or a harder one, but consistency matters if trust and credibility is to be retained.
Mr. Fletcher, thanks for that post. I've accidentally (once through a search showing a row of beheaded bodies, once through reading normal replies on Twitter and some fool putting in a picture of a lunatic clutching a severed head) seen some things I would have preferred not to.
People after these images will find them anyway. And I'm not arguing for everything to be shown, only that news should not be sanitised across the board.
There is an argument that reducing media coverage or making it softer will work, but that's been tried certainly in recent years (mostly French or German attacks) and it absolutely hasn't worked.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but in that clip you posted, he says he is against a shoot to kill policy 'in general'. He does not say he is always against it no matter the circumstances. Which means you cannot infer that he would have disapproved of actions taken today by the security forces (if the suspect has actually been killed, I have not seen confirmation of that?). Pretty poor form to be party political point scoring while the situation is ongoing.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show mangled bodies too, to encourage us to slow down.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show the mangled bodies of toddlers, to encourage us to slow down. If we're not seeing what speeding directly leads to - we're operating on a false premise.
The Taiwanese did exactly that in the 90's when I lived there. Utterly gruesome images on giant display boards in the busy streets exhorting folk to drive more carefully. Randomly grab drivers without helmets and force them to watch film of injured and dead bodies. No regard for the feelings of children or squeamish passers by such as me. I feel the attitude is cultural. They would not dream of a nipple in a national newspaper.
Mr. Barnesian, a media refusing to report acts of terror to the same standards as other news will erode trust in the honesty of the press. We've already seen this following David of Germany, and the magically rapid diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.
The purpose of terrorism is to alter policy, and the nation. The purpose of showing the dead toddler was to use a different emotion but achieve, through pathos, a change in policy.
I do think it's legitimate for some media organisations to take a softer approach, or a harder one, but consistency matters if trust and credibility is to be retained.
Mr. Fletcher, thanks for that post. I've accidentally (once through a search showing a row of beheaded bodies, once through reading normal replies on Twitter and some fool putting in a picture of a lunatic clutching a severed head) seen some things I would have preferred not to.
People after these images will find them anyway. And I'm not arguing for everything to be shown, only that news should not be sanitised across the board.
There is an argument that reducing media coverage or making it softer will work, but that's been tried certainly in recent years (mostly French or German attacks) and it absolutely hasn't worked.
Oh people will FIND any horrible things they want. But I would rather not be responsible for helping scumbags give their message enormous reach.
There's a fine line between informing and acting as a PR for terrorists.
To be honest, there's no definitive right answer to this.
Thread by NYT correspondent - reasons to suspect this is ISIS, and why it hasn't happened sooner..
There's no doubt that our security services have successfully thwarted a number of ISIS or ISIS-inspired attacks, and of course we do have the great advantage that firearms (especially automatic weapons) are not easy to get hold of here.
Am about to fly from Gatwick to Belfast. Just before getting on the Tube, I had a phone call from the NI flight booker checking I was OK following the terrorist incident in London.
How times change.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of what has happened today that's a cheerful note. A huge amount of progress has been made in Northern Ireland, and I hope that it continues to remain broadly peaceful, and that the politicians there get back to business as soon as possible.
Good security and politics can beat the extremists.
Am about to fly from Gatwick to Belfast. Just before getting on the Tube, I had a phone call from the NI flight booker checking I was OK following the terrorist incident in London.
How times change.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of what has happened today that's a cheerful note. A huge amount of progress has been made in Northern Ireland, and I hope that it continues to remain broadly peaceful, and that the politicians there get back to business as soon as possible.
Good security and politics can beat the extremists.
Thread by NYT correspondent - reasons to suspect this is ISIS, and why it hasn't happened sooner..
There's no doubt that our security services have successfully thwarted a number of ISIS or ISIS-inspired attacks, and of course we do have the great advantage that firearms (especially automatic weapons) are not easy to get hold of here.
What was notable about Paris was because of our history with the IRA we are much better than our continental counterparts at tracking the purchase and distribution of bomb making materials, like bleach and fertiliser. Obviously we learnt that the hard way.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show mangled bodies too, to encourage us to slow down.
Bloke on Sky says there was a body face down in the water under the bridge, and Sky unfortunately showed a picture of a casualty lying at the bottom of some steps with a lot of blood and legs at unnatural angles. Very disturbing.
I'm with Reuters here - the time for wrapping adult viewers in cotton wool has long passed. Sanitising horrors is counter-productive. If we don't see it - we can't respond to what the perpetrators have done to us.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
I totally disagree. Showing horrors is counter productive. It helps the terrorists terrorise.
Bollocks - that's like claiming attacking ISIS makes them stronger.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
Perhaps road safety campaigns should show the mangled bodies of toddlers, to encourage us to slow down. If we're not seeing what speeding directly leads to - we're operating on a false premise.
The Taiwanese did exactly that in the 90's when I lived there. Utterly gruesome images on giant display boards in the busy streets exhorting folk to drive more carefully. Randomly grab drivers without helmets and force them to watch film of injured and dead bodies. No regard for the feelings of children or squeamish passers by such as me. I feel the attitude is cultural. They would not dream of a nipple in a national newspaper.
Is there any evidence that it has helped reduce road accidents in Taiwan?
Thread by NYT correspondent - reasons to suspect this is ISIS, and why it hasn't happened sooner..
There's no doubt that our security services have successfully thwarted a number of ISIS or ISIS-inspired attacks, and of course we do have the great advantage that firearms (especially automatic weapons) are not easy to get hold of here.
What was notable about Paris was because of our history with the IRA we are much better than our continental counterparts at tracking the purchase and distribution of bomb making materials, like bleach and fertiliser. Obviously we learnt that the hard way.
To be fair, It is much easier when you can drive with no borders to eastern europe and buy huge qualities of what you want. They know most guns in Belgium all come from there.
Comments
Jackson Carlaw MSPVerified account @Carlaw4Eastwood 6m6 minutes ago
Absolutely disgraceful conduct from @strathearnrose in response to PO suspension of @ScotParl - totally unbecoming.
It's a sign of weakness of terrorist cells that this sort of lone attack is all they are seemingly capable of launching at the moment, such is the degree of penetration by the security services (CTU/MI5/GCHQ).
In a highly fluid, ongoing situation such as terrorist attacks have become, the emergency services need the space and time to confirm and go firm.
Monica LennonVerified account @MonicaLennon7 31m31 minutes ago
Monica Lennon Retweeted Jamie Ross
Disappointed to hear groans coming from the SNP benches in response to a request for business being suspended.
I'm in Canary Wharf, and I'm distracted even here.
How times change.
I also share the thoughts conveyed by Southam as well.
I consider it appeasement to do so. Pixel out faces - but everything else should be shown.
That isn't giving into terrorism, it is just common sense to be aware and careful.
*There's an approach with books, I think it's called clean-reads, which involves no/very little swearing, sex or violence. That sounds utterly tedious to me, but I do think it's a good idea as it helps match readers so inclined with softer authors.
I've zero time for weasel words and apologists.
The issue is not about protecting adults from gruesome images. It's about what is the best response in the asymmetric war we're in with terrorists. Their aim to terrorise us in order to divide us, provoke us, weaken us. Our aim is to neutralise them.
If we aren't seeing what they've done - we're operating on a false premise. Next someone will claim fighting back will cause Islamophobia. FFS.
I have zero time for shitstirrers and rabble rousers personally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/armed-anti-terror-police-terrifyingly-realistic-thames-pleasure/
Better off starving them of as much PR oxygen as possible you would think.
Bournemouth MP @Tobias_Ellwood helped injured policeman in Parliament - gave mouth-to-mouth. His brother was killed in Bali terrorist attack
+1 for Southam's post below as well.
https://youtu.be/V-PQfbtbSyA
Plus increase funding and support to a well-known building in Cheltenham.
The stats. show there are fewer terrorists today than in the far-off 1970s. Does anyone remember the 1972 Olympics murders, Bader Meinhof, Red Brigade, 96 innocent people blown up at Bologna station in 1980 ...?
Because I follow US politics very closely, I've seen the same arguments played out with a lot less nuance. The progressives seem more a lot more concerned with smothering uncomfortable truths in an attempt to keep their agenda alive.
The word 'hero' is bandied about too freely some of the time - but actions like that sound pretty heroic to me. As well as deeply human.
I'm following the news today on Reuters personally.
I'm perfectly happy to have an unpopular opinion on here.
The purpose of terrorism is to alter policy, and the nation. The purpose of showing the dead toddler was to use a different emotion but achieve, through pathos, a change in policy.
I do think it's legitimate for some media organisations to take a softer approach, or a harder one, but consistency matters if trust and credibility is to be retained.
Mr. Fletcher, thanks for that post. I've accidentally (once through a search showing a row of beheaded bodies, once through reading normal replies on Twitter and some fool putting in a picture of a lunatic clutching a severed head) seen some things I would have preferred not to.
People after these images will find them anyway. And I'm not arguing for everything to be shown, only that news should not be sanitised across the board.
There is an argument that reducing media coverage or making it softer will work, but that's been tried certainly in recent years (mostly French or German attacks) and it absolutely hasn't worked.
https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/844585800352223232
I know there are differing opinions, but hopefully we can keep things civil.
Jake Warren @TheJakeWarren
Tommy Robinson is literally walking around Westminster saying "I told you so"... #Westminister
There's a fine line between informing and acting as a PR for terrorists.
To be honest, there's no definitive right answer to this.
Good security and politics can beat the extremists.
The Met now on the TV.
ISIS's November 2016 issue of Rumiyah Magazine also promoted vehicular/knife attacks: https://t.co/sfg7OJKDSj
Mow people down until car is stopped, then stab/shoot until you are stopped. Same MO as Nice, Berlin, and numerous attacks in Israel.
The second issue of AQAP's Inspire Magazine in 2010 featured an article calling for vehicular attacks: https://t.co/bImgqi9Cqb