Finsbury Park Incident

[MakemineVanilla]

It certainly is interesting how differently the media is managing this horrific event, as compared with recent others.

Previously, the media have been quick to reassure the public that the perpetrator is a one-off nutter and not a terrorist.

This has been reversed in this case and what looks like a one-off nutter, who had driven from Wales, has been instantly classified as a terrorist.

The interviews they are broadcasting show the same reversal, in that when after previous atrocities, they broadcast people saying 'we will not be intimidated and won't let this change our values' but after this murder they are broadcasting people saying how they are terrified.

It definitely shows how the media attempts to manage public response.

 

[omariqy]

6 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

It certainly is interesting how differently the media is managing this horrific event, as compared with recent others.

Previously, the media have been quick to reassure the public that the perpetrator is a one-off nutter and not a terrorist.

This has been reversed in this case and what looks like a one-off nutter, who had driven from Wales, has been instantly classified as a terrorist.

The interviews they are broadcasting show the same reversal, in that when after previous atrocities, they broadcast people saying 'we will not be intimidated and won't let this change our values' but after this murder they are broadcasting people saying how they are terrified.

It definitely shows how the media attempts to manage public response.

 

Erm, they have already said it appears he acted alone. A lot of the earlier media reports mentioned him being clean shaven or a white van man. Not sure what media you are reading?

[villaglint]

46 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

It certainly is interesting how differently the media is managing this horrific event, as compared with recent others.

Previously, the media have been quick to reassure the public that the perpetrator is a one-off nutter and not a terrorist.

This has been reversed in this case and what looks like a one-off nutter, who had driven from Wales, has been instantly classified as a terrorist.

The interviews they are broadcasting show the same reversal, in that when after previous atrocities, they broadcast people saying 'we will not be intimidated and won't let this change our values' but after this murder they are broadcasting people saying how they are terrified.

It definitely shows how the media attempts to manage public response.

 

Well it's pretty obvious why isn't it? 

Previously the media have sought to downplay amplifying the political message of the terrorist. So they portray him as a one off nutter rather than someone killing innocent people as a means to a political end. 

This time they want to amplify the message that this kind of revenge attack is a political attack. 

In the first case they are trying (as much as possible) to not let the terrorists win, 

In the second case they are trying to do the same. The terrorists want these kind of revenge attacks so it's important the media make clear that these perpetrators are no different.  

 

Edit - although I'd agree with Omar in that the reporting seems quite mixed as you would expect in such circumstances.

Edit - Also one reporter on Twitter is trying to make clear that they have to report this incident differently to the other because the perpetrator is alive, arrested and will be facing trial. Previously this wasn't an issue which meant it could be reported differently. Not sure that effects much of MMV first point but explains why people see differences. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by villaglint

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Blimey.

It's not that i don't want to give praise. I think it's bloody tragic that people are falling over themselves to give praise for politicians doing their jobs, and it's because of Theresa May not doing hers.

If May was doing the same thing, there wouldn't be the same level of praise for the likes of Corbyn or Javid. 

So you say its not that you don't want to give praise but you find it "tragic" people are giving credit to politicians doing their jobs

Rightttt. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

you find it "tragic" people are giving credit to politicians doing their jobs

Nope.

Just, nope.

[Demitri_C]

14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Nope.

Just, nope.

Ok great glad we cleared that up 

[BOF]

He's saying it's tragic that we are now in a situation where, because of May's complete lack of humanity, what should be normal behaviour for a politician i.e. meeting with and addressing constituents/the public, is now being lauded, and it should never have got to that point.

But it was funny reading your little exchange

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, BOF said:

He's saying it's tragic that we are now in a situation where, because of May's complete lack of humanity, what should be normal behaviour for a politician i.e. meeting with and addressing constituents/the public, is now being lauded, and it should never have got to that point.

But it was funny reading your little exchange

is it normal behaviour though  ? Did the PM at the time visit  Lakanal House ? ( genuine Question as I don't know if they did or didn't )  ... ok it was a smaller fire but at the time it was the worse ever tower block fire in the Uk as I recall  ..

I dunno , I've seen it compared to Katrina and I find it a bit baffling    ..... I can understand a VIP visit might bring some comfort to the victims ,makes them know they aren't being forgotten , but seeing as Khan was heckled all it seemed to do was heighten tensions ...who knows , maybe that's what the victims need , a pressure release as such   ?  .... But ,  I'd rather an approach whereby the emergency services focused on the job in hand , the politicians work around the clock to resolve the issues  .. the PR photo opportunities to win votes can be done later once the disaster itself has been resolved 

 

[BOF]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

is it normal behaviour though  ? Did the PM at the time visit  Lakanal House ? ( genuine Question as I don't know if they did or didn't )  ... ok it was a smaller fire but at the time it was the worse ever tower block fire in the Uk as I recall  ..

I dunno , I've seen it compared to Katrina and I find it a bit baffling    ..... I can understand a VIP visit might bring some comfort to the victims ,makes them know they aren't being forgotten , but seeing as Khan was heckled all it seemed to do was heighten tensions ...who knows , maybe that's what the victims need , a pressure release as such   ?  .... But ,  I'd rather an approach whereby the emergency services focused on the job in hand , the politicians work around the clock to resolve the issues  .. the PR photo opportunities to win votes can be done later once the disaster itself has been resolved

I'd say there is a pressure release element to it yes.  But I think the leader does need to be seen to care.  Especially one who was already in a vulnerable position.  She really did play it very badly.  In fact could scarcely have played it worse.  If she'd stayed away she could have argued she was 'on the case'.  But she turned up and avoided the victims.  I mean If her worst enemy was to write her plan for her that day they could hardly have done a better job.  And I don't really agree that her being there, or any other PR opportunity, means the work required to fix whatever needs fixing is being put on hold in the meantime.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

is it normal behaviour though  ? Did the PM at the time visit  Lakanal House ? ( genuine Question as I don't know if they did or didn't )  ... ok it was a smaller fire but at the time it was the worse ever tower block fire in the Uk as I recall  ..

I dunno , I've seen it compared to Katrina and I find it a bit baffling    ..... I can understand a VIP visit might bring some comfort to the victims ,makes them know they aren't being forgotten , but seeing as Khan was heckled all it seemed to do was heighten tensions ...who knows , maybe that's what the victims need , a pressure release as such   ?  .... But ,  I'd rather an approach whereby the emergency services focused on the job in hand , the politicians work around the clock to resolve the issues  .. the PR photo opportunities to win votes can be done later once the disaster itself has been resolved 

 

I think you've made an interesting point about heightening tensions, especially for a tower fire. 

Imo she should have been there at first light helping while her guys worked on the next action. No press opportunity, just solidarity. That to me is the the leader I want even if she'd have taken a lot of flack.

However, on the flack side, Khan deserves it as much as Barwell/May and I think fair play to him for showing up to take it. Angry people need to vent somewhere and showing up calms the ongoing conversation. 

It is going to be interesting to see how politicians and the media handle this awful incident.

Edited June 19, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, BOF said:

I'd say there is a pressure release element to it yes.  But I think the leader does need to be seen to care.  Especially one who was already in a vulnerable position.  She really did play it very badly.  In fact could scarcely have played it worse.  If she'd stayed away she could have argued she was 'on the case'.  But she turned up and avoided the victims.  I mean If her worst enemy was to write her plan for her that day they could hardly have done a better job.  And I don't really agree that her being there, or any other PR opportunity, means the work required to fix whatever needs fixing is being put on hold in the meantime.

that's sort of my point though ..She'd already given a statement on the matter , it gave the impression she was upset about the incident .. then she went on site because pressure was being put on her in the media to go , so at best her attendance looked insincere .. and then as you say she made a pigs ear of it anyway ...  she'd have been better off staying away is all I'm saying ...

I wasn't suggesting the work being put on hold fwiw  ... just the timing of the PR stunts

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I can understand a VIP visit might bring some comfort to the victims ,makes them know they aren't being forgotten , but seeing as Khan was heckled all it seemed to do was heighten tensions ...who knows , maybe that's what the victims need , a pressure release as such   ?  .... But ,  I'd rather an approach whereby the emergency services focused on the job in hand , the politicians work around the clock to resolve the issues  .. the PR photo opportunities to win votes can be done later once the disaster itself has been resolved 

I think the reason she's got so much stick for what she did and didn't do (even from her own party) is because of many reasons.

She hid away from TV debates, claiming "she'd rather go out and meet real people" 

She didn't "meet real people" at the fire scene "because of security concerns". The London Major and the England Queen didn't seem to have security concerns.

In the immediate aftermath of the fire, it became crystal clear that the residents hadn't been listened to, over a long period of time, Turning up and listening would have been a very good move. Hiding away not so much. It's fine to meet the various chiefs etc. in private, but don't then naff off and avoid the people whose homes and families have been burnt down - go and tell them that as PM you will do ...

If she's scared of getting heckled, or whatever, she's not fit to be PM. I don't think she's heartless or cruel, just someone above her level of ability by several layers. On things like Hillsborough and Stop and Search she made morally good choices, she's suitable for a junior minister post, probably. As both home Sec and PM she's just terrible. Can only follow a script, can't relate to people, can't answer questions or think on her feet. Jeremy Corbyn looks like a statesman in comparison, which is frankly bonkers.

There's basically no one left with any confidence in her.

[mjmooney]

This case is not dissimilar to the Jo Cox murder. Categorisation of the crime (if that matters) will depend on whether his court statement is: 

(a) Alien signals were in my brain, and the beams were coming from Finsbury Park, so I had to do it... 

or

(b) Britain for the British, defend the white race, no surrender... 

Both equally barmy, but if it helps to attach the 'correct' label... 

[mjmooney]

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think the reason she's got so much stick for what she did and didn't do (even from her own party) is because of many reasons.

She hid away from TV debates, claiming "she'd rather go out and meet real people" 

She didn't "meet real people" at the fire scene "because of security concerns". The London Major and the England Queen didn't seem to have security concerns.

In the immediate aftermath of the fire, it became crystal clear that the residents hadn't been listened to, over a long period of time, Turning up and listening would have been a very good move. Hiding away not so much. It's fine to meet the various chiefs etc. in private, but don't then naff off and avoid the people whose homes and families have been burnt down - go and tell them that as PM you will do ...

If she's scared of getting heckled, or whatever, she's not fit to be PM. I don't think she's heartless or cruel, just someone above her level of ability by several layers. On things like Hillsborough and Stop and Search she made morally good choices, she's suitable for a junior minister post, probably. As both home Sec and PM she's just terrible. Can only follow a script, can't relate to people, can't answer questions or think on her feet. Jeremy Corbyn looks like a statesman in comparison, which is frankly bonkers.

There's basically no one left with any confidence in her.

I'm with you on that one  ...

My initial point wasn't so much about May's (in) ability to do her job  , more if that is part of the PM's role (or should be) , as was suggested in the OP  ... Not suggesting the PM should be heartless and robotic <<insert May gag here >>  just it almost seems as if the debate is more around which politicians got to show everyone they cared more rather than the victims ..

 

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

A point for sure, however the other side of the argument is just as extreme. My two pence here is that the normal person wouldn't be radicalised by a religious or anti-religious message. Most of us look at an ISIS video and see idiots, just like we look at the daily express, sun and the daily mail with a huge skepticism. The skepticism is what any terrorist lacks, no matter how you twist or turn it they aren't going to listen to anything else than what they are brainwashed to think about.

EDL, ISIL, KKK, Black Lives Matter, National Action, Golden Dawn, White Aryan Resistance, Black Panthers, National Alliance +++++ are all full of the same, idiotic men and women that can't think for themselves and need some plonker to tell them what to think. Instead of killing each other these groups kill innocent, well meaning, normal people. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

There's basically no one left with any confidence in her.

And there is the problem,  she was the best they had by a long way. 

Bit of a worry but it don't matter long term,  I think they will be out sooner rather than later.  

I don't think she can do right from wrong now,  she's lost politically.  

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

OT but I love how the Express managed to get an obligatory  Diana on the front page

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

OT but I love how the Express managed to get an obligatory  Diana on the front page

If only Diana was hereeeee!

[dAVe80]

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

EDL, ISIL, KKK, Black Lives Matter, National Action, Golden Dawn, White Aryan Resistance, Black Panthers, National Alliance +++++ are all full of the same, idiotic men and women that can't think for themselves and need some plonker to tell them what to think. Instead of killing each other these groups kill innocent, well meaning, normal people. 

Sorry, but including BLM and the Black Panthers in this list is just wrong. Those are groups set up to defend the civil rights, of an oppressed people. Lumping them in with pissed off racists is an insult to their struggles.