Explosion on Hinckley Road

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

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.

You think people should be banned from posting newspaper articles because you don't like the content or editorial line?

 

News for you, we don't live in a fascist or communist dictatorship. 

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

You think people should be banned from posting newspaper articles because you don't like the content or editorial line?

 

News for you, we don't live in a fascist or communist dictatorship. 

 

Its purpose was clearly racist and inflammatory. 

 

But I'm not at all surprised that you would rush to defend it.

[breadandcheese]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

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.

 

 

I've never known how much protection this is to the newspaper.

 

Are there any libel lawyers on here who can advise as to whether printing a rumour that casts allegations against an individual, is libel? In my eyes, it seriously undermines and paints the individual named in a bad light, so I would hope that libel laws would offer him protection.

 

Ultimately, the only way to judge this is whether the Daily Mail is printing a rumour or has a strong lead in this case.  If it's the latter, it should print the story.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

Its purpose was clearly racist and inflammatory. 

 

But I'm not at all surprised that you would rush to defend it.

You shouldn't be, I'll always defend the free press. If it's that clearly racist complain to the IPOS and they will censure them.

[Finnegan]

35 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)

 

If it turns out to be true, report the shit out of it. 

 

If you've actually got your own investigative journalistic team on the case, report the shit out of it. 

 

If you're quoting some guy's rumour off Facebook because you're desperate to get the immigrant being naughty story out first? Maybe pipe down until you've got a better source. 

 

I don't have a problem with them printing it if it's true. I have a problem with the scumbag press and their desperation to print anything that'll get attention. Left or right. 

[Nick]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

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.

 

Its out there in the world Buce. The question is not if I personally agree with the story or how it’s written, it’s source or who wrote it. The question is about whether or not the forum could get into trouble for quoting it. The answer is no and it’s acceptable to go up for discussion. If your opinion of that discussion is that it’s a pile of racist rubbish then that’s cool as is anybody else’s opinion on the story providing that the members of this forums posts are moderated if they cause blatant offence which would be a discretionary decision to protect the forums reputation or were legally liablous which would be a decision to moderate based on risk of the forum being exposed to potential legal action.

 

[Jon the Hat]

If the Mail story is true, what a ****ing waste of life.  Christ.

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the Mail story is true, what a ****ing waste of life.  Christ.

 

If? 

 

Surely it's a waste of life whatever caused it? 

 

Wouldn't want anyone to explode and die early be it a gas leak or something more shady. 

[katieakita]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the Mail story is true, what a ****ing waste of life.  Christ.

This,

 

Have not really followed this that deeply but if this is down to human greed they deserve all that is coming to them. If it is wrongdoing as suggested, bad people come in any colour, creed or religion. Would rather see it reported than not even if it is the Mail, something is very wrong when you cannot publish something because it might upset a section of the community.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

If? 

 

Surely it's a waste of life whatever caused it? 

 

Wouldn't want anyone to explode and die early be it a gas leak or something more shady. 

 

Ah, are you implying there is no scale to ‘waste of life’ what about if there are aggravating features like Lithuanianism?

 

I think though Jon likely meant it in the ‘senseless avoidable sense’ though rather than how it came across! ? 

 

 

[Finnegan]

Just now, katieakita said:

This,

 

Have not really followed this that deeply but if this is down to human greed they deserve all that is coming to them. If it is wrongdoing as suggested, bad people come in any colour, creed or religion. Would rather see it reported than not even if it is the Mail, something is very wrong when you cannot publish something because it might upset a section of the community.

 

Woah now. Who has said that? 

 

Nothing to do with political correctness or offending anyone and everything to do with just having some basic press standards. 

 

Printing a story with nothing but a Facebook rumour in it is vile, whatever the story is about. 

 

It could be a hatchet job in the Mirror about a Tory MP and my view would be the same. 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Ah, are you implying there is no scale to ‘waste of life’ what about if there are aggravating features like Lithuanianism?

 

I think though Jon likely meant it in the ‘senseless avoidable sense’ though rather than how it came across! ? 

 

 

 

Yeah, sorry Jon. I'm probably picking a fight for the sakes of it there. I'm on one this morning, I'll wind my neck in. 

 

Point about the Mail, I'll stick to somewhat passionately though. Press is the absolute pits these days, on all ends of the political spectrum. Just makes me so ****ing sad. 

 

And people are so used to gobbling up any old shit on social media that they eat this rubbish without question. 

 

If the Daily Mails legal team are so brilliant and will have checked the credibility of the source before posting it, why do they have a list of retractions (albeit in page 12 tiny print) the length of my arm? 

 

It's a shitrag tabloid acting like a shitrag tabloid. 

 

I mean the rumour could well be true. Its exactly what Innovindil said his fireman friend had told him. If its true it should come out, for sure. Just not like that. 

[Turbogre]

Turns out the chap lives 4 doors down from us, crazy. 

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Ah, are you implying there is no scale to ‘waste of life’ what about if there are aggravating features like Lithuanianism?

 

I think though Jon likely meant it in the ‘senseless avoidable sense’ though rather than how it came across! ? 

 

 

Yes indeed.  Obviously a great tragedy regardless of the cause, but for me there is something worse about cases where it is just utter utter stupidity or carelessness.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah, sorry Jon. I'm probably picking a fight for the sakes of it there. I'm on one this morning, I'll wind my neck in. 

 

Point about the Mail, I'll stick to somewhat passionately though. Press is the absolute pits these days, on all ends of the political spectrum. Just makes me so ****ing sad. 

 

And people are so used to gobbling up any old shit on social media that they eat this rubbish without question. 

 

If the Daily Mails legal team are so brilliant and will have checked the credibility of the source before posting it, why do they have a list of retractions (albeit in page 12 tiny print) the length of my arm? 

 

It's a shitrag tabloid acting like a shitrag tabloid. 

 

I mean the rumour could well be true. Its exactly what Innovindil said his fireman friend had told him. If its true it should come out, for sure. Just not like that. 

No problem mate.  The tabloid media IMO has reacted in the worst possible way to the rise of online bullshit fake news nonsense.  Rather than rise above it and have faith that people will pay for journalism, they have lowered their already pretty ropey status to the lowest common denominator of print any rumour they can find, or frankly just utter nonsense,  Desperate times.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Jon the Hat

[RowlattsFox]

How can they name a guy, with a picture without any evidence of truth?

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, RowlattsFox said:

How can they name a guy, with a picture without any evidence of truth?

Sadly, selling advertising by clicks is more than lucrative enough to fund out of court settlements against people who cannot afford decent lawyers if it turns out to be bollocks.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, RowlattsFox said:

How can they name a guy, with a picture without any evidence of truth?

They named him as a person who lived or rented somewhere not as having done anything. Nothing a small print apology won’t sort out on page 17 in a week or two’s time if they actually receive enough complaints!

 

 

[Voll Blau]

Police may have given the Mail an off the record steer as to whether it's true. That said, deciding to use some nobber off Facebook as your only on the record source is ironically going to detract credibility from your story even if that is the case.

 

Instinct says if a smaller outlet like the Merc, which doesn't have the same legal budget or carefree attitude to ethical reporting, isn't prepared to entertain it, it might be a dodgy thing to report.

[Finnegan]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No problem mate.  The tabloid media IMO has reacted in the worst possible way to the rise of online bullshit fake news nonsense.  Rather than rise above it and have faith that people will pay for journalism, they have lowered their already pretty ropey status to the lowest common denominator of print any rumour they can find, or frankly just utter nonsense,  Desperate times.

 

It's just about profit more than integrity, that's what annoys me. 

 

Print whatever sells the most print at all costs. 

 

Don't pay for journalists, don't investigate anything, just get some temp graduate to reword some PA or Reuters copy, print social media rumours, or just simply make a story about a twitter post. 

 

The amount of times now I read the news and I'm just yelling "this isn't ****ing news."

 

It's not even unique to tabloids. Kylie ****ing Jenner and how pregnant she is being front page on the BBC. Ffs. 

 

Just get the story that's cheapest to produce and mass produce it. There's no such thing as actual journalism anymore. It's what I wanted to do as a kid, tragic right. I wanted to be an investigative journalist. 

 

Bit like wanting to be a medieval Knight or a renaissance explorer now. 

Edited 2 March 2018 by Finnegan

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Police may have given the Mail an off the record steer as to whether it's true. That said, deciding to use some nobber off Facebook as your only on the record source is ironically going to detract credibility from your story even if that is the case.

 

Instinct says if a smaller outlet like the Merc, which doesn't have the same legal budget or carefree attitude to ethical reporting, isn't prepared to entertain it, it might be a dodgy thing to report.

 

Isn't the "smaller outlet" Merc actually owned by the Daily Mail? 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Isn't the "smaller outlet" Merc actually owned by the Daily Mail? 

Nope. Trinity Mirror.

[katieakita]

Sadly bad news sells papers and the truth never gets in the way of a "good story" look at the Mail online and see what tripe is published, they have their slant like all papers and their own agendas. This accident is such a terrible waste of life and time will tell the reasons behind it. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's just about profit more than integrity, that's what annoys me. 

 

Print whatever sells the most print at all costs. 

 

Don't pay for journalists, don't investigate anything, just get some temp graduate to reword some PA or Reuters copy, print social media rumours, or just simply make a story about a twitter post. 

 

The amount of times now I read the news and I'm just yelling "this isn't ****ing news."

 

It's not even unique to tabloids. Kylie ****ing Jenner and how pregnant she is being front page on the BBC. Ffs. 

 

Just get the story that's cheapest to produce and mass produce it. There's no such thing as actual journalism anymore. It's what I wanted to do as a kid, tragic right. I wanted to be an investigative journalist. 

 

Bit like wanting to be a medieval Knight or a renaissance explorer now. 

Agree with the vast majority of this post, but think that's an unfair statement to make. Good journalists in cut-to-the-bone newsrooms are still carrying out good journalism and investigative work, but their work just seems more and more lost in the quagmire of what their bosses believe to be important.

 

More outlets need to look at how the Manchester Evening News covered the Arena suicide bombing - a supreme example of how major incident reporting should be done.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Voll Blau

[CosbehFox]

Easy to dismiss 'no more actual journalism' - look at Daniel Taylor and the Barry Bentall case or The Times and the Child sex rings they investigated. 

 

Just to add - you wouldn't associate it but the American city daily papers are still excellent at it sourcing great journalism stories. 

Edited 2 March 2018 by Cardiff_Fox