Explosion on Hinckley Road

[lifted*fox]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Just heard from a firefighter friend what these arrests were about. Not gonna mention it as per webbo's request but if 5 people are dead over that, it's a proper unnecessary loss of life. Hope they throw the book at the cvnts. 

 

PM plzzz

[somebum]

24 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

did you even see the tweet? 

 

she made a joke on the morning of the explosion quoting the film Four Lions - implying that it was a muslim bomber that caused the explosion.

 

that's not an opinion - it's ****ed up behaviour.

No i didnt bother but i doubt its strong enough to call for her hanging but whatever floats your boat pal

[somebum]

46 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

PM plzzz

He also has some seafront property in Birmingham if you are interested?

[lifted*fox]

literally no idea what your angle is mate. 

 

you're quite strange tbh.

 

[tom27111]

Having worked in gas and electricity, I can make a guess at the circumstances 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Just heard from a firefighter friend what these arrests were about. Not gonna mention it as per webbo's request but if 5 people are dead over that, it's a proper unnecessary loss of life. Hope they throw the book at the cvnts. 

When we hear what it is we're going to wish that we hadn't, aren't we?

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

When we hear what it is we're going to wish that we hadn't, aren't we?

More than likely. 

[Sir Shep]

There’s a story about what “may” have caused it in the daily mail but again I won’t paste it in case it does breach the rules. 

 

Whatever happens lets let’s hope there’s justice for all those concerned. 

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Sir Shep said:

There’s a story about what “may” have caused it in the daily mail but again I won’t paste it in case it does breach the rules. 

 

Whatever happens lets let’s hope there’s justice for all those concerned. 

 

It's a new low even for the Daily Mail. 

 

Literally their "source" is a guy on Facebook posting a rumour. 

 

I mean it could well turn out to be true but come the **** on, at least wait until any even vaguely official source backs it up before printing that shit. 

 

Are you that ****ing desperate to be the first to break a story about an immigrant doing something illegal that you'll print Facebook rumours? 

 

Don't bother defending it, either, Webbo, given that you have literally asked foxestalkers not to do exactly the same thing and we're just a little scruffy forum, not a major national news outlet. 

[Sir Shep]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a new low even for the Daily Mail. 

 

Literally their "source" is a guy on Facebook posting a rumour. 

 

I mean it could well turn out to be true but come the **** on, at least wait until any even vaguely official source backs it up before printing that shit. 

 

Are you that ****ing desperate to be the first to break a story about an immigrant doing something illegal that you'll print Facebook rumours? 

 

Don't bother defending it, either, Webbo, given that you have literally asked foxestalkers not to do exactly the same thing and we're just a little scruffy forum, not a major national news outlet. 

Yeah I’m not sure if it’s printed else where but like I say let’s just hope that’s there’s justice once the investigation is complete. 

[Guest MattP]

Pretty sure the Mail would have its own legal team making sure they don't break the law when printing stories like this? 

 

Heard the same rumour last night, we'll find out soon enough mind.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a new low even for the Daily Mail. 

 

Literally their "source" is a guy on Facebook posting a rumour. 

 

I mean it could well turn out to be true but come the **** on, at least wait until any even vaguely official source backs it up before printing that shit. 

 

Are you that ****ing desperate to be the first to break a story about an immigrant doing something illegal that you'll print Facebook rumours? 

 

Don't bother defending it, either, Webbo, given that you have literally asked foxestalkers not to do exactly the same thing and we're just a little scruffy forum, not a major national news outlet. 

I didn't say don't post it for moral reasons but for legal reasons. The Daily Mail must have lawyers telling them what's allowed.

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's been suggested before that it's more a case of The Daily Mail devoting huge resources to its legal team in order to protect its business model and reduce the chances of it being challenged over what it prints

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I didn't say don't post it for moral reasons but for legal reasons. The Daily Mail must have lawyers telling them what's allowed.

I can't find the article BTW.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I can't find the article BTW.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html

Second article listed. I don’t want to directly link it. In case it upsets someone.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Strokes

[Nick]

The article is fine to post as a link to a suspected theory of how the fire may have started. The source would be liable certainly not the forum should it be proved to be incorrect. The only problem with that scenario is the forum looking a bit prejudice if resulting comments turn into stereotypical assumptions!

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

The article is fine to post as a link to a suspected theory of how the fire may have started. The source would be liable certainly not the forum should it be proved to be incorrect. The only problem with that scenario is the forum looking a bit prejudice if resulting comments turn into stereotypical assumptions!

That's what I believe too.

[katieakita]

Easy story to print and they use the word may have been, sadly would not be the first of this type to happen so is a possibility sadly, hits home so much harder being on your own doorstep and your heart has to go out to those affected. Sadly newspapers need bad news and scandals bad news makes money and we have a society that wants news and answers now and if the cannot get the right answer straight away print something that may be right

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

That's what I believe too.

Quite. It’s comments that’s may be made regarding individuals involved that may require moderation for legal reasons.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, katieakita said:

Easy story to print and they use the word may have been, sadly would not be the first of this type to happen so is a possibility sadly, hits home so much harder being on your own doorstep and your heart has to go out to those affected. Sadly newspapers need bad news and scandals bad news makes money and we have a society that wants news and answers now and if the cannot get the right answer straight away print something that may be right

I think the clues may lie in the plastic bag of evidence, antecedent histories, the fire report and lots of ‘I didn’t inspect the basement’ type comments...

[breadandcheese]

45 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a new low even for the Daily Mail. 

 

Literally their "source" is a guy on Facebook posting a rumour. 

 

I mean it could well turn out to be true but come the **** on, at least wait until any even vaguely official source backs it up before printing that shit. 

 

Are you that ****ing desperate to be the first to break a story about an immigrant doing something illegal that you'll print Facebook rumours? 

 

Don't bother defending it, either, Webbo, given that you have literally asked foxestalkers not to do exactly the same thing and we're just a little scruffy forum, not a major national news outlet. 

I don't want to take this too much off topic, but:

 

If the Daily Mail do have news on this, why shouldn't they print it? This is a national news story.

 

I don't believe the story is printed on the basis of one facebook rumour alone. They will have had to verify some other sources in order for the editor to give the go ahead to print. Otherwise, they're leaving themselves ridiculously open to legal challenge and hefty compensation. So if they've done this, albeit without naming or printing their sources, why shouldn't they run the story?

 

(I appreciate this is a question more about the running of the press and editorial decisions so it probably starts a whole new topic but it's a serious question)

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

The article is fine to post as a link to a suspected theory of how the fire may have started. The source would be liable certainly not the forum should it be proved to be incorrect. The only problem with that scenario is the forum looking a bit prejudice if resulting comments turn into stereotypical assumptions!

 

It is a typical Mail article, full of racist innuendo.

 

In discussing one of the victims, it adds the 'fact' that she was believed to have married in an Islamic ceremony four years ago. Why? How is that relevant to anything?

And the article ends by reminding the reader that five Lithuanian men were killed in an explosion at an illegal distillery in 2011. How is it relevant that they were Lithuanian?

 

 

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It is a typical Mail article, full of racist innuendo.

 

In discussing one of the victims, it adds the 'fact' that she was believed to have married in an Islamic ceremony four years ago. Why? How is that relevant to anything?

And the article ends by reminding the reader that five Lithuanian men were killed in an explosion at an illegal distillery in 2011. How is it relevant that they were Lithuanian?

 

 

And?

 

 I hear you but it’s no different legally from any other tripe the mail prints from a forum perspective....

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I don't want to take this too much off topic, but:

 

If the Daily Mail do have news on this, why shouldn't they print it? This is a national news story.

 

I don't believe the story is printed on the basis of one facebook rumour alone. They will have had to verify some other sources in order for the editor to give the go ahead to print. Otherwise, they're leaving themselves ridiculously open to legal challenge and hefty compensation. So if they've done this, albeit without naming or printing their sources, why shouldn't they run the story?

 

(I appreciate this is a question more about the running of the press and editorial decisions so it probably starts a whole new topic but it's a serious question)

2

 

Not so.

 

They are very careful to present it as reporting of rumour and not fact.

 

A grocery store destroyed by a blast that killed five may have been the site of an illegal distillery, it was claimed yesterday.

 

Roz Rowett, who lives in Leicester, said on Facebook: ‘I’ve heard someone was making vodka and it exploded? Don’t know how true it is though … RIP to all that have lost their lives.’

One line of inquiry police are understood to be investigating is whether vodka or other spirits were being distilled illegally at the Leicester shop.

 

 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

And?

 

 I hear you but it’s no different legally from any other tripe the mail prints from a forum perspective....

 

And I'm surprised that you would be ok having that shit posted on the forum.

 

I expected it from the usual Mail reading retards, not from you.