What grinds my gears...

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

11 hours ago, The Syrup said:

Halifax adverts

 

Been producing shit TV ads consistently for decades... that goggle-eyed cvnt Howard was around for years. Now we have Halifax Top Cat, Wizard of Oz, and Ghostbusters ads FFS.

They had a period about 6 or 7 years ago where they did adverts set in a fake radio station that were tolerable, especially cause they usually featured a blonde milf

[Finnegan]

I wish we'd stop reporting on these car rammings as terror attacks. It frankly glamorises and gives far too much credit to what's basically just a ****ing idiot murdering a couple of people. 

 

Call it what it is, murder / attempted murder perpetrated by a low intelligence twat without a plan. 

 

Any idiot can buy a piece of scrap fifth hand and steer it at a few pedestrians. Can we please stop telling these people they're sinister evil terrorists and validating their ridiculous notions that their god will be happy with them. 

 

Let's just resort to shaming them in to completely crippling embarrassment instead. I mean, we can't ever actually stop it, it's the easiest and most basic of crimes to commit. The weapon is readily available, can't be really regulated and neither can access to victims. 

 

So keep all mentions of religion, terror, fundamentalism, jihad, anything these picks will perceive as flattering or glorious out of the press and just shame the ****s until its quite frankly humiliating to be caught murdering a couple of low profile, common or garden civilians in the street by running them over like a coward. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I wish we'd stop reporting on these car rammings as terror attacks. It frankly glamorises and gives far too much credit to what's basically just a ****ing idiot murdering a couple of people. 

 

Call it what it is, murder / attempted murder perpetrated by a low intelligence twat without a plan. 

 

Any idiot can buy a piece of scrap fifth hand and steer it at a few pedestrians. Can we please stop telling these people they're sinister evil terrorists and validating their ridiculous notions that their god will be happy with them. 

 

Let's just resort to shaming them in to completely crippling embarrassment instead. I mean, we can't ever actually stop it, it's the easiest and most basic of crimes to commit. The weapon is readily available, can't be really regulated and neither can access to victims. 

 

So keep all mentions of religion, terror, fundamentalism, jihad, anything these picks will perceive as flattering or glorious out of the press and just shame the ****s until its quite frankly humiliating to be caught murdering a couple of low profile, common or garden civilians in the street by running them over like a coward. 

1

Absolutely.

 

Sadly, however, it won't stop because those same mentions of religion, terror, fundamentalism, jihad etc - as often as possible on all possible media frequencies - are exactly what is wanted to push the narrative that certain very powerful parties want.

 

The evil boogeyman serves a useful purpose.

[AKCJ]

Call a spade a spade IMO.

 

Yesterday's was reported as being "treated as a terrorist attack but the man's motive was unknown".

[Buce]

20 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Call a spade a spade IMO.

 

 

 

Racist.

[Finnegan]

17 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Call a spade a spade IMO.

 

Yesterday's was reported as being "treated as a terrorist attack but the man's motive was unknown".

 

If you're calling a spade a spade then it's all just murder. 

 

Terrorism is a concept almost entirely made up to sex up and glamorise murder. Depending on your political agenda that serves one of many purposes. 

 

There are those that will claim its done by the terrorists themselves to push their beliefs through, well, terror. Others will tell you its done by the press to sell the story and keep us all watching the news and buying their papers. Still another group of people will tell you it's an idea pushed by THE MAN in order to keep us all scared and easy to control, to sell guns, to justify invading our privacy, et all. 

 

The truth is probably a mix of all of the above. It's in many people's interests to keep up this status quo, just not the victims and potential victims - us. 

 

The truth is also that reporting on terrorism the way we do fuels further terrorism, if not largely creates it, and gives the criminals exactly what they want. 

 

Jihadis don't give a **** if Tourist #5468 dies taking pictures of Westminster, they don't want him or her dead, they want their message of fear out there and we give them what they want time after time and sure enough in a few months time there'll be another and another. It's bonkers. 

 

Salih Kater isn't an international terrorist, a warrior for his god, a martyr on a mission, he's just a ****ing murdering twat. That is calling a spade a spade, "terrorist" is the euphemism. 

 

 

[Innovindil]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely.

 

Sadly, however, it won't stop because those same mentions of religion, terror, fundamentalism, jihad etc - as often as possible on all possible media frequencies - are exactly what is wanted to push the narrative that certain very powerful parties want.

 

The evil boogeyman serves a useful purpose.

What a load of tosh. 

 

Man tries to kill people in one of the most well known spots across the country, it's gonna get reported. 

 

If you don't want this reported, then should we ban reporting on all bad things? No more reporting on stabbings, rapes, drug smugglers, pedos etc etc. 

 

We can be just like North Korea, land of the happy news. 

[Guest MattP]

22 hours ago, AKCJ said:

Absolutely.

 

The problem is that you'd like to think with this being Disney's first openly gay character that they'd have it done with a bit of class. I can see my grandkids looking back on this sort of thing in a similar sort of way to how I look at how black people were portrayed in entertainment in my grand parent's time.

 

The whole camp/in your face/eccentric etc stereotype of gay people that is routinely portrayed in the media must surely offend a good portion of gay people?

The gay lad in our local absolutely hates the "camp gays" - he often says telling potential partners he hates pride weekend, the spice girls etc often comes across worse than telling them he's a murderer, fortunately he's with another guy now who is exactly the same as him but it must be a nightmare when a large proportion of not only society, but even your own community expect you to behave in a certain way.

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly, however, it won't stop because those same mentions of religion, terror, fundamentalism, jihad etc - as often as possible on all possible media frequencies - are exactly what is wanted to push the narrative that certain very powerful parties want.

 

The evil boogeyman serves a useful purpose.

Come on, this is conspiracy theory nonsense.

You can't not report on someone trying to murder people for potentially political/religious (the police confirmed early it was being treated as that) in the central part of the nation's parliament just because you you give "them" what they want. We are a free society and the people are entitled to know these things are going on.

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

What a load of tosh. 

 

Man tries to kill people in one of the most well known spots across the country, it's gonna get reported. 

 

If you don't want this reported, then should we ban reporting on all bad things? No more reporting on stabbings, rapes, drug smugglers, pedos etc etc. 

 

We can be just like North Korea, land of the happy news. 

 

No report on it, obviously, its news. But stop appealing to the delusions of grandeur of these morons, these people want to be called terrorists, want to be validated, want their egos stroked, want to think they have value. 

 

They don't, they're just murdering twats. Report on it in that sense. 

 

I mean, some major piece of international terrorism, 7/7, 9/11, clearly you're going to report on this as a major terrorist incident and whatever I think of the language of that I get it. Its a term people understand and it accurately describes the events (unless you're El Empty and you think Bush did it.) 

 

But this is just a petty ****ing murder perpetuated by a moron and nobody wins except him if he gets to be glamorised - which is exactly how he'll see it - by being called a terrorist. 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

If you're calling a spade a spade then it's all just murder. 

 

Terrorism is a concept almost entirely made up to sex up and glamorise murder. Depending on your political agenda that serves one of many purposes. 

 

There are those that will claim its done by the terrorists themselves to push their beliefs through, well, terror. Others will tell you its done by the press to sell the story and keep us all watching the news and buying their papers. Still another group of people will tell you it's an idea pushed by THE MAN in order to keep us all scared and easy to control, to sell guns, to justify invading our privacy, et all. 

 

The truth is probably a mix of all of the above. It's in many people's interests to keep up this status quo, just not the victims and potential victims - us. 

 

The truth is also that reporting on terrorism the way we do fuels further terrorism, if not largely creates it, and gives the criminals exactly what they want. 

 

Jihadis don't give a **** if Tourist #5468 dies taking pictures of Westminster, they don't want him or her dead, they want their message of fear out there and we give them what they want time after time and sure enough in a few months time there'll be another and another. It's bonkers. 

 

Salih Kater isn't an international terrorist, a warrior for his god, a martyr on a mission, he's just a ****ing murdering twat. That is calling a spade a spade, "terrorist" is the euphemism. 

 

 

It definitely isn't. Terrorism doesn't even mean murder. You can be a terrorist without murdering people. Yesterday everyone walked away from the car crash but if the bloke has done it for political or religious 'gain' then he is a terrorist. As it stands he's mowed a few people down. Could well be a drunk for all we know at this stage, all we do know is that the police are treating the incident as a terrorist attack.

 

Terrorism is it's own crime. If someone is a terrorist then s/he needs to be called one by the media.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What a load of tosh. 

 

Man tries to kill people in one of the most well known spots across the country, it's gonna get reported. 

 

If you don't want this reported, then should we ban reporting on all bad things? No more reporting on stabbings, rapes, drug smugglers, pedos etc etc. 

 

We can be just like North Korea, land of the happy news. 

 

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Come on, this is conspiracy theory nonsense.

You can't not report on someone trying to murder people for potentially political/religious (the police confirmed early it was being treated as that) in the central part of the nation's parliament just because you you give "them" what they want. We are a free society and the people are entitled to know these things are going on.

Did I say it shouldn't be reported on?

 

I'm saying the same as Finn, that it should be reported as it is - "not a international terrorist, a warrior for his god, a martyr on a mission, just a ****ing murdering twat."

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Did I say it shouldn't be reported on?

 

I'm saying the same as Finn, that it should be reported as it is - "not a international terrorist, a warrior for his god, a martyr on a mission, just a ****ing murdering twat."

So what would you do if/when you find the video/letter etc of them saying they are doing it for their religion/god/mission etc?

[AKCJ]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

Did I say it shouldn't be reported on?

 

I'm saying the same as Finn, that it should be reported as it is - "not a international terrorist, a warrior for his god, a martyr on a mission, just a ****ing murdering twat."

You're suggesting that the media should make up their own story though?

[Voll Blau]

I think the way the media's treated these kind of attacks in general has actually been a lot more responsible since about the Westminster Bridge one. I think that was the watershed where (most) media outlets stopped the glamourisation and days and days of background pieces on the attackers, their motives etc. which is the kind of coverage these people actually want.

 

As others have said, if an incident is being confirmed by police as terror-related, with terrorism-related charges likely to follow, then the media have to tell the truth about that? They're not going overboard with this one as far as I can see, most are sticking to the basic facts of the case.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It definitely isn't. Terrorism doesn't even mean murder. You can be a terrorist without murdering people. Yesterday everyone walked away from the car crash but if the bloke has done it for political or religious 'gain' then he is a terrorist. As it stands he's mowed a few people down. Could well be a drunk for all we know at this stage, all we do know is that the police are treating the incident as a terrorist attack.

 

Terrorism is it's own crime. If someone is a terrorist then s/he needs to be called one by the media.

 

Almost every act of terror is either murder or attempted murder and nearly always on a mass scale. 

 

There have historically been groups branded vaguely as terror groups that have attempted sabotage, arson, vandalism of empty properties or infrastructure as a means to an end but they're rarely described as terrorists in our media. 

 

Meibion Glyndwr were reasonably prominent when I was a kid, they burnt holiday homes owned by English people for the most part, they were usually described as a nationalist group, rarely as terrorists. 

 

Salih's level of competence and success is irrelevant, his intent was to murder, as were those of every other car ramming before him but if his motives were unclear then frankly that's even more reason to not report on the incident as terrorism. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

So what would you do if/when you find the video/letter etc of them saying they are doing it for their religion/god/mission etc?

Point and laugh at how deluded they are and remember them as a murderer (or an attempted one in this case) who was off the reservation. You know, the way the media treats most white supremacists that go on a killing spree.

 

Or label them all terrorists - either way, be consistent.

 

NB. I'm not entirely sure that there being powerful parties on both sides within Europe actively wanting a race war counts as a conspiracy theory tbh - that's almost a matter of record. How able they are right now to make that actually happen is a matter of debate, however.

 

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

You're suggesting that the media should make up their own story though?

The media should report the facts of a story - that a guy attempted to murder a number of people and luckily he failed and he was hauled off by police. Anything more than that is speculation, open to interpretation and should clearly be labelled as such rather than given as fact.

 

That being said, I think VB above is about right in saying the reporting on such matters is better than it once was.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Salih's level of competence and success is irrelevant, his intent was to murder, as were those of every other car ramming before him but if his motives were unclear then frankly that's even more reason to not report on the incident as terrorism. 

Sorry but this is just ridiculous, if the Metropolitan police force treat it as terrorism then the BBC has to tell us that.

 

The broadcasters have a responsibilty to report the news to us as accurately as possible, not decide what they think we should hear, we are a Western democracy not some tinpot dictatorship.

[AKCJ]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Almost every act of terror is either murder or attempted murder and nearly always on a mass scale. 

 

There have historically been groups branded vaguely as terror groups that have attempted sabotage, arson, vandalism of empty properties or infrastructure as a means to an end but they're rarely described as terrorists in our media. 

 

Meibion Glyndwr were reasonably prominent when I was a kid, they burnt holiday homes owned by English people for the most part, they were usually described as a nationalist group, rarely as terrorists. 

 

Salih's level of competence and success is irrelevant, his intent was to murder, as were those of every other car ramming before him but if his motives were unclear then frankly that's even more reason to not report on the incident as terrorism. 

But the media have to call terrorists terrorists, murderers muderers, nationalists nationalists etc.

 

The police will have their own plans for these kind of events. If a car has rammed people in what appears to be a copycat of the biggest terrorist attack we've had for donkeys years just 20 yards up the road then it's appropriate of them to deal with it as a terrorist attack. We'll see what the outcome of his time with the police is. If he's found guilty of terrorism then he'll be named a terrorist.

Edited 15 August 2018 by AKCJ

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Sorry but this is just ridiculous, if the Metropolitan police force treat it as terrorism then the BBC has to tell us that.

 

The broadcasters have a responsibilty to report the news to us as accurately as possible, not decide what they think we should hear, we are a Western democracy not some tinpot dictatorship.

 

The police shouldn't even be stating that, though, again all it serves to do is promote this guy as jihad pinup before anybody knows anything other than he drove his car at innocent people. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Point and laugh at how deluded they are and remember them as a murderer (or an attempted one in this case) who was off the reservation. You know, the way the media treats most white supremacists that go on a killing spree.

 

Or label them all terrorists - either way, be consistent.

 

NB. I'm not entirely sure that there being powerful parties on both sides within Europe actively wanting a race war counts as a conspiracy theory tbh - that's almost a matter of record. How able they are right now to make that actually happen is a matter of debate, however.

Point and laugh after someone has killed someone? I don't think I'm up for that to be honest. I have no problem whatsoever describing anyone who tries to inflict terror on people as a terrorist - the white guy who ran down the guy outside the mosque was described as one and charged with terror offences as well, members of National Action have been convicted in the last month or so. If a white supremicist goes on a killing spree with the intent of causing terror then call them that - do they not?

 

Here's the opening line of a wikipedia page - Fjotolf Hansen, born Anders Behring Breivik, also known by his pseudonym Andrew Berwick, is a Norwegian far-right terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks.

Would you extend this to everything? When the IRA were killing people should we have just pointed and laughed, called them murderers and not mentioned the history of the politics behind it? Of course you wouldn't, of course you have to report why these people say they are doing these things.

 

You have to report the facts, nothing else.

[Voll Blau]

From the official Met statement...

 

Quote

The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command is investigating an incident in Westminster during which a number of people were injured.

At 07:37 am on Tuesday 14 August, a silver Ford Fiesta collided with a number of cyclists and pedestrians, before crashing into barriers outside the Houses of Parliament.

The driver of the car, a man in his late 20s, was arrested at the scene by armed officers. He has been taken to a south London police station where he remains in police custody.

He was arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences.

What else are the media meant to do with that information. They'd potentially be in breach of the IPSO Code for reporting he'd been arrested for something else, let alone any number of legal issues which potentially could arise.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Point and laugh at how deluded they are and remember them as a murderer (or an attempted one in this case) who was off the reservation. You know, the way the media treats most white supremacists that go on a killing spree.

 

Or label them all terrorists - either way, be consistent.

 

NB. I'm not entirely sure that there being powerful parties on both sides within Europe actively wanting a race war counts as a conspiracy theory tbh - that's almost a matter of record. How able they are right now to make that actually happen is a matter of debate, however.

 

The media should report the facts of a story - that a guy attempted to murder a number of people and luckily he failed and he was hauled off by police. Anything more than that is speculation, open to interpretation and should clearly be labelled as such rather than given as fact.

 

That being said, I think VB above is about right in saying the reporting on such matters is better than it once was.

Quite the opposite. As I mention above they could be in serious legal trouble (defamation or contempt of court spring to mind) if they reported it was an alleged attempted murder, when no such charge has been mentioned yet! Ironically, you're the one who's guilty of speculating here! 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

The police shouldn't even be stating that, though, again all it serves to do is promote this guy as jihad pinup before anybody knows anything other than he drove his car at innocent people. 

So you now want the police covering up information as well as the press?

[AKCJ]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

The police shouldn't even be stating that, though, again all it serves to do is promote this guy as jihad pinup before anybody knows anything other than he drove his car at innocent people. 

I've not seen anything from the media that has made this bloke out to be a  'jihad pinup'. The word jihad hasn't popped up in any of the coverage I've seen.

 

All the news outlets I've seen have said that the event is being treated as an act of terror and that the police don't yet know the motive of the man involved.

 

That's the truth and that's all that they can report.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

The police shouldn't even be stating that, though, again all it serves to do is promote this guy as jihad pinup before anybody knows anything other than he drove his car at innocent people. 

What can the police do though? If the legislation best placed to deal with this incident is terrorism-related legislation, and that's what he's been arrested on suspicion of, then they have to state that - otherwise they'd be lying to the press and the public.