Jump to content
Daggers

What grinds my gears...

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by the fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :D

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×