What grinds my gears...

[the fox]

28 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

the event is being treated as an act of terror and that the police don't yet know the motive of the man involved.

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.^[1]

 

^{How can a person call it an act of terror if the motives of the criminal are unknown?} 

Edited 15 August 2018 by the fox

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.^[1]

 

^{How can a personal call it an act of terror if the motives of the criminal are unknown?} 

 

No one has called it an "act of terror" though? They've just stated the alleged offender has been arrested on suspicion of terror-related offences, which is true.

[Strokes]

46 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

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. 

Trouble is, under report it and you add weight to the likes of Tommy Robinson and his ilk. They would have a field day with that.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

Perhaps I'm reading the wrong sources, but we've covered this before - there seems to be much more leeway from certain media sources for someone to be labelled as "mentally disturbed" rather than a "terrorist" if they're white. I hope things are becoming more consistent in that regard, however - glad Wiki is at least showing some, one way or the other.

 

FWIW I've never understood the need to die or to kill for the sake of an ideology that only safeguards one group of people rather than merely yourself or humanity as a whole - it's stupid and ultimately self-destructive in the extreme.

 

14 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

From the official Met statement...

 

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.

 

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! 

2

If this is true (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), how can the fuzz also similarly speculate that it is an alleged act of terrorism? Is the language they're using well-worded enough to avoid similar problems there?

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, the fox said:

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.^[1]

 

^{How can a personal call it an act of terror if the motives of the criminal are unknown?} 

 

It's not being reported as an act of terror.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), how can the fuzz also similarly speculate that it is an alleged act of terrorism? Is the language they're using well-worded enough to avoid similar problems there?

Well yes, they're an official public body so the language they use is classed as "privileged information" and can be published and reproduced by the media without a risk of defamation.

 

They haven't speculated either. He's been arrested on suspicion of terror-related offences. That's a fact. There's a whole raft of legislation the CPS uses under that blanket term.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), how can the fuzz also similarly speculate that it is an alleged act of terrorism? Is the language they're using well-worded enough to avoid similar problems there?

It's called the word "suspected". 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Well yes, they're an official public body so the language they use is classed as "privileged information" and can be published and reproduced by the media without a risk of defamation.

 

They haven't speculated either. He's been arrested on suspicion of terror-related offences. That's a fact. There's a whole raft of legislation the CPS uses under that blanket term.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism

 

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It's called the word "suspected". 

Thanks. I know it's largely a semantic argument but I wanted to know if there was any difference in terms of legal standing/defamation etc between being able to state that this guy is an alleged murderer or an alleged terrorist and if so, why.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Thanks. I know it's largely a semantic argument but I wanted to know if there was any difference in terms of legal standing/defamation etc between being able to state that this guy is an alleged murderer or an alleged terrorist and if so, why.

Yep, all to do what he's actually been charged with.

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

Thanks. I know it's largely a semantic argument but I wanted to know if there was any difference in terms of legal standing/defamation etc between being able to state that this guy is an alleged murderer or an alleged terrorist and if so, why.

Nah, there isn't. He's been arrested on suspected terrorist acts, as that's based on the initial information available and explainable, considering the location and manner of incident, it points to terrorism. If the initial assessment is wrong and he's to be charged with something else, then they will rearrest him for that purpose. 

 

At least as far as I know, I'm certainly not a copper. 

 

 

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Thanks. I know it's largely a semantic argument but I wanted to know if there was any difference in terms of legal standing/defamation etc between being able to state that this guy is an alleged murderer or an alleged terrorist and if so, why.

 

One major difference between the two centre on the suspect’s rights; if you are arrested under ‘terror’ legislation, you don’t get access to a phone call and you can be held for longer without charges being brought against you. I’m not sure about rights to legal representation. 

[RonnieTodger]

On 14/08/2018 at 10:26, Finnegan said:

As a fan of most performing arts I'm starting to get really ****ed off with twitter's bizarre attempts lately of gatekeeping the world of Hollywood casting. 

 

Scarlet Johansson is cast in ghost in the shell, for example, the Internet goes nuts and calls it white washing. Nevermind the Japanese public don't give a toss, were happy with her performance and the Japanese original director of the series thought she was fantastic. Twitter has spoken. 

 

Now they're after Jack Whitehall for daring to take a role as a gay man because apparently it should go to a gay actor. What the ****? I mean nevermind the fact Jack Whitehall shouldn't be cast in anything, that's irrelevant, since when did you have to be something to act it? 

 

Were Pachino and Cazale not brilliant in Dog Day Afternoon? Was Jared Leto not sensational in Dallas Buyers Club? Equally, how many gay people find the casting of Neil Patrick Harris as Barney Stinson wildly offensive? 

 

It's stupid. If straight people can only play straight people can gay people only play gay people? Tom Cruise jokes aside, good luck passing that off to every gay aspiring actor. Way to typecast. 

 

Surely the whole brilliance of acting is being able to convey something you aren't? If everyone is only ever cast to play an extension of themselves you might as well just ditch the whole profession. 

 

Chris people on social media are dumb. 

 

Fantastic post. 

 

The problem with Twitter is that it legitimises moronic opinions en masse and any form of oppressed minority can use their buzzwords to shut down perfectly reasonable response. Hiring Jack Whitehall is absolutely not homophobic. If anything, it's the opposite and is showing how normal being gay is now.

 

Sometimes you've got to ask what these people moaning want. Equality or the upper hand?

[Max Wall]

The increasing misuse of the word literally as a sentence filler.

[Innovindil]

20 minutes ago, Max Wall said:

The increasing misuse of the word literally as a sentence filler.

This was covered a while back, it's literally not a misuse anymore. 

[Max Wall]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

This was covered a while back, it's literally not a misuse anymore. 

Allow me to change my stance after this information.

 

The increasing use of literally as a sentence filler.

[Strokes]

50 minutes ago, Max Wall said:

Allow me to change my stance after this information.

 

The increasing use of literally as a sentence filler.

I agree with you, quite literally.

Edited 15 August 2018 by Strokes

[Nalis]

How, sadly, LinkedIn is turning into Facebook.

 

Loads of shit on my feed about 'inspirational stories' and conferences people went to.

 

Having said that, one shite post did bring about a gem of a response.

 

Status: 'I interviewed a guy who overpoured his glass of water and said 'Sorry about the spillage but I always give 110%'. I hired him immediately.'

 

Response: '110% didnt happen'

[lifted*fox]

LinkedIn is the absolute worst. 

 

'Professionals' wanking each other off with referrals and jizzing out 'inspiring' life coach rubbish on their feeds.

 

Absolutely awful. I think the actual premise of having a CV online you can update and can be viewed is great and I've had plenty of people hit me up with job offers, etc.

 

BUT the social side of it is like something Mark from Peep Show would enjoy. 

 

 

[Izzy]

24 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

 

'Professionals' wanking each other off with referrals and jizzing out 'inspiring' life coach rubbish on their feeds.

 

Sorry 

[lifted*fox]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

Sorry 

 

apart from you mate, obviously. you can wank me off with a referral any time. 

[Stadt]

People making a big deal out of moving or studying abroad but their destination is somewhere like Amsterdam or Madrid where they’re going to be speaking English anyway

[Jattdogg]

2 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

 

apart from you mate, obviously. you can wank me off with a referral any time. 

Think he is busy wankin himself crazy to them latina booties in orlando.

[Guest seanfox778]

5 hours ago, Max Wall said:

The increasing misuse of the word literally as a sentence filler.

Watch the films Clueless and Mean Girls a few more times, the word will literally grow on you.

 

 

You've brought this on yourself 

[lifted*fox]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

People making a big deal out of moving or studying abroad but their destination is somewhere like Amsterdam or Madrid where they’re going to be speaking English anyway

 

Why does this bother you? 

 

Making the decision to move and work or study in a new country is a massive leap no matter what language you'll be speaking. Fair play to anyone who has the drive to up everything and make a new life somewhere else, imo. 

[Stadt]

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

Why does this bother you? 

 

Making the decision to move and work or study in a new country is a massive leap no matter what language you'll be speaking. Fair play to anyone who has the drive to up everything and make a new life somewhere else, imo. 

Grinds my gears is a stretch too far and I considered studying abroad for a while but the people I mean I’m fairly certain aren’t going to make the most of studying abroad. I don’t know for certain, obviously. I agree with you that I shouldn’t be bothered by it but making a song and dance of it when you’re there to study, get pissed and stoned is hardly a cultural odyssey.