This Just In: Rolling UK News Thread

For the topical but not necessarily political - though the news prompting this is likely to get very political.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303

apparent eyewitness account:
https://twitter.com/BOYADEE

Cool

I'm uncomfortable with how quickly this has become a terrorist attack on a British soldier.

Are all politically or religiously motivated attacks terrorism?
Did they know he was a soldier, as reports say he wasn't in uniform?

I've read various reports saying that he was wearing a help for heroes t-shirt

Boris already calling this attack 'deluded' in a tweet

Witness account here: http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-woolwich-eyewitness-describes-attack-72446

(WARNING: fucking horrible listening)

fucking hell

Are all political or regious motivated attacks terrorism

?

Fair starting point imo

I kind of feel that if it's a one off and not part of an organised group or campaign and doesn't involved mass killings that it falls somewhere short of terrorism. "Murder motivated by extremist political ideals" or something idk I'm uncomfortable about how the T word is used here and in the US to drive questionable security policy.

i'd want to distinguish between wannabe terrorists and paramilitaries maybe but i've got no qualms with calling it terrorism as long as the media use that to apply to any acts of not robbery-motivated violence committed against civilians unknown to their assailants

They drove at him and knocked him over, then started beheading him, they then dragged his body into the road.
Apparently it was filmed and the men shouted "Allahu Akbar" while standing over the body. The two didn't attempt to flee, they charged police and were shot.

"They sound like theyre linked to that muslim group" being both the answer and the justification, yeah i agree i guess its probably got to be part of a sustained or organised operation

the underlying trend seems to be "mass killing apparently perpetrated by white guy = craziness not terrorism" which sucks quite a lot

citation needed

This is on the ITV page:

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/208857/image_update_fb93de818cc75f59_1369243638_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-22/woolwich-police-incident/

there was 2 guys one with a gun and one of them stopped a bus and asked people to take photos??!!

It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EROXP8JDG9M

wtf

given they seem to have wanted to be photographed, i'm not sure posting dreadful links and pictures is a net win here.

i'm assuming that's a dreadful link btw. fuck if i'm clicking it.

It's not dreadful, sorry: It is the killer saying why he did it, that he is sorry for the women who had to witness it, but that they will never stop attacking

@Caek, sorry, but visually it is not shocking footage, just posting what I saw, and it's basically the suspect explaining why he did it. That seems relevant to me.

relevant to what?

i'm not saying pretend it didn't happen, but when you're doing exactly what terrorists want you to do, you want to be sure it's worth something.

They are showing it on BBC World/News now, too.

Ok Caek, sorry to have insulted you. It's relevance is yet to be determined obviously, but if you think a video of a man saying why he did it is irrelevant, then so be it.

I don't get this "You are letting the terrrrists win!" by pointing to this video. At all.

so? television news wants viewers. doubtless a video like that does the job.

xp

But then I'm a journalist and think nearly everything related to an event like this should be broadcast.

This is the "this just in" thread tbf

Was showing the crumbling of the twin towers "letting the terrorists win" too? Ofcourse not. It is showing what is happening.

look, i'm not saying images/videos/texts like that are always valueless and not worthy of debate.

i'm saying (1) at a minimum, that debate should take place in as calm an environment as possible, not minutes after (there is no debate right now, there is just people either reporting events or pushing an agenda they had before this incident -- that's not debate), and (2) there should be a pretty high threshold to show a video whose clear intent was to create terror.

rolling news is toxic bullshit, basically.

removes bookmark.

I agree with you about the debate part, it is too soon to draw conclusions. I am highly annoyed by people calling it a "terrorist" attack, or "Islamic attack" even (wtf BBC).

I do however, if this is about shocking news coming in, the video I linked is not one to abuse to make this point over. It wasn't gorey and I didn't make it clickable.

kinda ignoring the realities of the ways in which and the rate at which we communicate nowadays. Rolling news no longer monopolises the arbitration of initial perceptions and because people have access to so much info before it can be verified/reported, it's pretty much the lesser of two evils by default. Plus I think you're underestimating the ability of people to change their minds when face with new information

i'm not ignoring realities. i'm criticising them. the lesser of two evils is still toxic bullshit that we could choose not to cooperate with/assist.

So I live 1km from this. Helicopters been around. Really dreading the next few days.

not to validate this thread too much just yet, but if the rolling news cycle is how it goes then it's important to have people involving themselves in that but noting that e.g. contrary to bbc opinion, clean-shaven afro-caribbean men wearing high street clothing can't reasonably be described as "muslim looking".

CNN affiliate ITN aired a video showing a man holding a meat cleaver and saying, "we swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/22/article-2329089-19F062A4000005DC-917_634x510.jpg

the lesser of two evils is still toxic bullshit that we could choose not to cooperate with/assist.

How true is that though? I came across the story via twitter so naturally much of what I saw initially was hyperbolic and contradictory.

In the face of that is it not important for professional news sources to stay on top of developments as they occur in order to stop misinformation from warping the record before the dust settles?

Man, this could probably be the "Woolrich Terrorist Machete Murderers thread" and not the "This Just In: Rolling UK News Thread" tbh.

classic K-awesome ilx OP too.

For the topical but not necessarily political - though the news prompting this is likely to get very political.

: D

would be curious to know how caek defines "worth something"

i don't think rolling news is inherently toxic, though it's far from perfect, and a place to be a corrective is very important as merdeyeux says

In the face of that is it not important for professional news sources to stay on top of developments as they occur in order to stop misinformation from warping the record before the dust settles?

yes, but they demonstrably fail. it's not corrective. it just says stupid shit louder than people on twitter.

rolling news is often factually wrong, often about important stuff (in the last month: the tornado, the boston bombings, etc., etc.); it doesn't run corrections; the comment and analysis they include is at best glib; and at their very best, their really really good stories can be summed up as "hey everybody, look at THESE assholes!", about some people who actually are assholes.

I'm sorry but you are severely underestimating the stupidity of people on twitter.

The absence of rolling news wouldn't stop Boya Dee from telling the world that Robocop was bussin shots.

Not to say that Boya Dee is stupid but many of the people that retweet that and add their own spin on it will be.

ok granted, the rolling news coverage on rolling news channels is more often correct than the rolling news coverage on twitter.

Channel 4 news just said EDL planning a rally in Woolwich tonight. urghhh...

The absence of rolling news wouldn't stop Boya Dee from telling the world that Robocop was bussin shots.

boya dee didn't tell the world this

rolling news coverage on twitter is not a single entity that can be correct or incorrect

boya dee didn't tell the world this

That's the point.

newsflash, people put their own dumb spin on traditional news reportage as well

traditional news reporters put their own dumb spin on it!

But nowhere near to the extent that people on twitter do.

this is why we tend to limit the people we follow on twitter to those we know or trust?

i don't really care which is worse, traditional rolling news or new media social rolling news (although thanks for the twitter explanation, lex. that was the joke.gif).

i guess what i'm saying is: you may not agree with me that rolling news actively make things worse overall. but even if you think it does good, maybe you'd also concede it has problems. and maybe you'd concede that it could do less harm than they currently do, at times like these, by not screaming "LOOK AT THESE SHOCKING ASSHOLES" and repeating things that turn out to be false.

showing that video as soon as possible:tv news editor::retweeting piers morgan:someone with a twitter account.

Yes but we don't know or trust Boya Dee. Didn't stop us from seeing his tweets. Plus the assumption that people only follow those that they know or trust is pretty charitable.

lol, boya dee is a grime mc, i knew who he was

look if you're concerned about people following any random untrustworthy news source on twitter, go and talk to them about it - i'm not talking about these hypothetical people, i'm saying why it works for me as a breaking news source (not exclusively, obviously)

OMG dorks trying to understand the new york times effect on man.

I was aware of his day job but that doesn't mean I know or trust him.

I'm not concerned about it insofar as the negative effects of it are mitigated by the presence of traditional rolling news coverage.

Where is the thread where ppl are discussing the murder?

Well what's your take on the murder Mordy?

impressed with these women filmed checking on the dead guy with the killers standing right there.

I'm at my daughters dr appt in the United States so I don't have a take yet but surely some of our uklxors have insight whatever?

The murder isn't so much the deal* as the forty days and forty nights of race hell we're steaming into. Come to South East London! It's fucken summertime!

*poor bastard, RIP

Bad thread name. Think of it as a rolling thread of news discussion rather than thread of Rolling News.

I agree with much of what caek objects to regarding how 24 hour live news cycles work, that their desperation to get a new thing on air makes them broadcast inaccuracies that often go uncorrected. I don't see any problem with people posting links to reports or videos but maybe a wee "contains footage of blood covered machete wielding murderer" warning might have been in order?

Anyway, looks like this is indeed a politically motivated attack. I get the feeling that the victim was targeted and was maybe known to be a soldier, given that no attempt was made to hurt any bystanders. Hopefully these two aren't part of a larger organisation or campaign.

tbf it's not a bad thread name. i derailed it. sorry.

Insight in terms of trying to place the guys accent or trying to work out what he means when he refers to "our land"?

Don't think we should play that game.

The whole situation is pretty surreal, the lack of fear towards the perpetrators amongst those on the scene is impressive/confusing.

Does anybody know who recorded the tirade?

But srsly, look at these fucking assholes

it seems they were actively asking bystanders to film them, to document them

and then went for suicide by cop as their way out

Doesn't seem like much planning went into this.

As these things go, this whole thing was kind of very low on ambition and hence had every chance of going entirely to plan, which it seemingly did apart from their assumed attempt at entry into martyrdom.

I guess meticulousness is part of the aesthetic we associate with people that do things like this. But I guess the randomness of it correlates with what he says in the video.

Don't know how random it was. Presumably they sat in a car outside the barracks and just waited for someone who looked like a soldier to come out?

Seeing how I am made out to be some sort of instigator of all this meta stuff, or someone who crossed a boundary: I too think there is a lot wrong with the 24/7 news cycle, with broadcasting/tweeting/showing news on the go, as it happens. It irks me to no end, how news that comes in one second is interpreted the next second already, along with faux pas classifications like "Islamic attack", "Trrrrist attack", and what have you.

But I do think I was cautious enough. I didn't link to gore, I didn't make the link clickable, and tbh, the footage in itself was visually not shocking. I merely put an unclickable link up pointing towards the suspect.

That's the last I will say about it. Hope youse (and Caek) understand. Didn't intend any derail or rushed judgement, but I honestly do not think posting the video as I did was an off-limits thing to do.

Carry on.

I didn't see a problem with posting that link tbh

ty Nick

this fucking prick

N*ck Gr*ffin MEP ‏@n*ckgr*ffinmep 2h

Grim news from #Woolwich. Terrible for family and also for Britain. Another bloody step on road to Islamic rule

Griffin has been terrible all night. You could quote ten tweets like that, all equally dire.

i thought posting the link was fine too, posting an actual document of something that happened is better than posting conjecture and speculation

the EDL scare me a bit more than griffin

ty Lex

I already dread UKIP, BNP, EDL and the likes holding hands and dancing around this tragedy for days, or maybe even weeks to come, "making a point"...

Mrs May added: "Despicable acts like these will not go unpunished."

is there a non-"us against them, yes, all of them" rhetorical import to this statement? you already shot them and presumably have them captive, so, no shit, but what else?

i think caek was raising a very valid point and i hope we can address the point without getting personal - this kind of attack is intimately tied into a media-saturated society, ought we to be careful about helping to fan that fire which seems to be what the murderers most want?

LBI I didn't really have a problem watching the video but idk what other people's level of sensitivity is. There's an debate to be had about broadcasting it rather than reporting it (I see on twitter many are criticising C4 and ITN for "giving terrorists a platform") but I don't know that it makes a difference - we're in an age where everything's filmed and available.

I can't get over the guy's demeanour in the video. Like what he just did isn't a big deal.

Well, that didn't take long

@NoodleVague, I agree and understand, I do. However, this thread was started simply because of this single event to begin with - so a video of the suspect speaking out seemed relevant, at least it did to me. The whole world and society are 'mediatized'. And we do need to be careful. I wasn't passing judgement, I wasn't linking to gore or prejudice. I merely dropped a link (not clickable) to a youtube video of the suspect speaking into a camera. If that is off limits from a 'rolling, this just in UK news' thread, then I don't know what qualifies for this.

@Onimo: Fully agree.

i don't know whether the link should be "off limits" or not LBI, and i'm certainly not castigating you for linking it. the wider moral question is very important tho i think. the world is mediatized but that saturation is the collective product of many individual decisions, isn't it?

i think this is v. relevant to this thread in much broader ways than the immediate murder that seeded it

this is the MP for Braintree, Essex

Brooks Newmark MP ‏@TweetBrooks 15m
Local mosque in Braintree attacked by man with knives + incendiary device. Man arrested. No one injured. Many thx 2 police 4 swift response.

and the EDL are in Woolwich right now

Yes, the wider moral question is very important. And it deserves to be discussed. If I blocked that or contributed to further mediatizing the world by linking to that video, then I am sorry, for that wasn't my intention.

But tbf, I thought ILX was a place where people look past quick judgements. As if I wanted to contribute hyping up this story. Nonsense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, I "linked" to a vid that was relevant at the time, seeing it was about the suspect trying to explain why he did what he did.

It's odd noticing this huge divide between rolling US and rolling UK threads on ILX, on hot news items/disasters etc. The US threads are full of 'what happened one second ago'-links, whereas in this UK one, one gets grief for posting a link to a video, being accused of not distancing myself enough, or it not being nuanced enough, or it not having proved it's "relevance" yet.

Oh well.

Yeah, I think you have to consider relative impact. Sharing that link on ilx was a tiny thing that was done to inform and in turn enable informed discussion. Deciding to show it on the news or whatever is a totally different call.

At a press conference in Paris, the Prime Minister said Britain has faced terror attacks such as the one in Woolwich before and added: "We will never buckle in the face of it."

this seems such a stupid thing to say - how would "we" "buckle"? we can argue the toss about definitions of terrorism but it's extremely unlikely that there's a coherent cause or set of demands behind a murder like this. promising not to give in to the terrorists is pretty culturally loaded if the potential terrorists are anybody, anywhere.

at its least bad, rolling news is harmless, and i don't care about most of the threads. i even participate in some of them. i think this is special because it was so clearly designed to be something that would appeal to worst of rolling news and our desire to be appalled. the combination bothers me: the usual "hey everybody, check out THESE assholes!" style of journalism, whose sole justification is, "well, we've got to talk about something" [*], PLUS the posing for photographs by these particular assholes.

LBI, sorry if you feel like i'm having a go at you in particular. not my intention.

LBI, you put relevance in scare quotes you were the one who first mentioned relevance and has continued to mention it, and i only mentioned it to say "relevant to what?", which i think the fundamental premise the debate rests on.

[*] are you sure? i think the confusion in response to mordy's asking for "takes" is telling.

xp to LBI btw

probably answering my own point in re: Cameron - decrying the EDL for responding to this is missing the point. the EDL exists to respond to this, and presumably the attack was motivated in part by a desire to make EDL types respond to it. a perfect circle of othering in the cause of furthering agendas. really this is win/win except for the poor victim and their loved ones.

@Caek, I don't feel you are having a go at me. We good. I do find it difficult to understand why you lashed out at me, questioning my morality, when I simply link to a video that was on topic.

I put "revelance" in scare quotes, because you questioned the revelancy of the link to the vid I posted. As I already expressed, the real relevance remains to be proven and seen. Posting the video does not mean I attribute relevancy to it, but it also isn't a video that is completely useless or without meaning. Seeing that it is the suspect speaking about what he did and why he did it.

"hey everybody, check out THESE assholes!" style of journalism, whose sole justification is, "well, we've got to talk about something"

^^ I wholly agree with this statement. This were a lot of people today. But it was not me.

you lashed out at me, questioning my morality

wtf?

Seriously dudes, let go.

I have seen a bloke tonight crying because his brother died in Iraq, then arguing about Shariah law leading to 14 murders in the past year in Nottingham, to bombing North Korea. Extremists of all sorts are going to ply this for all the mileage they can get.

this interview with a woman who talked to the attackers is relevant, interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10074881/Mum-talked-down-Woolwich-terrorists-who-told-her-We-want-to-start-a-war-in-London-tonight.html

Great, just had to be Nigerian.

I disagree, i think, with censorship of the depiction of an act or image just because it might be what the person responsible wanted. Yes, rolling news is often kneejerk after kneejerk but so is rolling anything. Calls for this or that not to be shown very often boils down to the politicisation of an event but just according to other tastes, moralities or agendas.

I obv see a case for not having a dude's head on the 6pm news. Linking footage of the guy responsible on a message board? No problem with that tbh.

xps ye were both overly touchy tbh lads stand down

darragh otm

eh? touchy? i'm not offended in the slightest. i didn't get the vapours at that link. i haven't questioned anyone's morality (think this might be a language issue to be honest?)

i just said rolling news is literally the worst thing in the world and those responsible for it should be shot into the centre of the sun.

i agree darragh there's no simple answer to "who decides what gets shown" but that means not just blithely accepting the simple answer that news organizations currently give. it's not as simple as censorship either, there's already a line beyond which people won't normally broadcast - incitement to commit hate crimes being part of that line i think

i'm not inclined to attribute a ton of rationality to the aggressors in a case like this but i think there has to be some difference between "if i do this my action will be broadcast to the world" and "if i do this my message will be broadcast - unmediated - to the world"

All wise thoughts tbf, i wasnt setting out a detailed manifesto or anything.

Ok caek yr not touchy. Sheesh.

yeah well like a good liberal i don't have any clear answers meself.
i'm interested in the numerous ways we might make ourselves complicit in violence.

Ya, we dont.

i think trying to limit access to video/information because you're afraid of inciting violence / upsetting ppl is a dangerous road to go down

i do know england has more repressive free speech laws than we do in the united states tho, so there's probably a cultural difference here

lol

...

the NYT refuses to print swear words in direct quotes.

i don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.

"i'm not saying pretend it didn't happen, but when you're doing exactly what terrorists want you to do, you want to be sure it's worth something."

you want to censor information bc it's want the terrorists want, no?

like who gives a shit what they want or don't want. it's newsworthy, it should be available. not saying it should be on network news but it's totally fair game for an ilx thread.

i think you're confusing editorial choices with censorship

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01732/Buy_tomorrow_s_Sun_1732938a.jpg

whose editorial choice? youtubes?

ITN, BBC, Sky News

lmao The Sun

Srsly mordy tone it down, nobody here is a tube

it should be available

to be clear, i absolutely agree with this. if you want to watch this then knock yourself out. if you want to discuss it then good luck to you.

Insight in terms of trying to place the guys accent

errrr...?

looks like i've got a few Facebook peeps to unfriend

or just, like, go to bed maybe

errrr...?

Yes, he's a Londoner and English is almost definitely his first language but African 2nd gen immigrants tend to retain elements of their parents accents and being one myself I'm pretty sensitive to the differences in intonation aaaand I'm doing exactly what I said I wouldn't.

Is The Guardian worse than it used to be?

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/337316839635972096/photo/1

Occasionally I make myself stop buying The Guardian, I think that cover is worth of another hiatus.

Maybe...

The world is just getting worse

Nah, world's always been this way, iirc

guardia such a rag, they'd say anything to sell or get a few right index fingers moving.

caek otm about rolling news too, it's a form of entertainment.

Local guardia

i don't see how this is just vapid entertainment. this was an extremely violent, public political act against a soldier of the uk. how is this not super news-worthy?

otm

An event being newsworthy does not imply that rolling news coverage of the event is valuable.

It's as much an inevitability of technology and commercial news structures as it is a worthwhile thing we want/need.

is the entire uk population this incurious or is this just an ilx phenomenon?

It's like, I understand the backlash, the cynicism, for we all know that: 1) yes, the world works this way, that networks and newspapers want to sell, get clicks or rake in theh ads, and 2) "entertainment" will do that nicely.

But I cannot see this as "entertainment", however. I am a disgustingly cynical person, but calling out telly stations for being cynical because they show footage and report on this story, or call out newspapers reporting this, when all they do is portray the shock many people feel at this moment (yes, people are affected by this slaying emotionally), is of an even deeper cynisism.

xp to Mordy, it must be ilx. Or at least, one would hope...

Yeah that's probably my problem. A lack of curiosity.

I've always said, rolling news is too much information for someone as incurious as myself. Thank god we don't have the first amendment!

I didn't mean to imply that you should have some particularly prurient fascination but that this is of legitimate interest and is a notable event and I think in the United States people are very drawn to examining/understanding these events.

I wish you would stop using the word "rolling" though. News never stops "rolling". There is never a clear cut moment when the event has 'ended', or 'stopped', or declared ended so it can finally be discussed, for the news ceased to be news...

xp

Though I guess I did see some people say, for instance during the Sandy Hook shooting, that we shouldn't reward murderers with the attention that they craved. I don't know. That just seems silly to me.

I think, and I don't mean any disrespect to you Caek for I <3 you, but if "rolling", developping news isn't ypur thing, seeing you call yourself "incurious", then maybe developping news cycles/thread like these might not be for you?

I got a prurient fascination, i'd say most ppl do, what's wrong with that? It's one level of interest. Add a dash of mystery (what's going on here?), topical political/social interest, the fact that this pretty much unfolded in front of and for media/public consumption, i don't know what ~isnt~ fascinating about this. It's p much why rolling news exists, realtime drama of wide interest. If this thread is to be a discussion of the wheres and whyfores of rolling news, then the case against is far better made on a day where its a fuckin loop of idk pippas arse.

Mordy:

1. I'm demonstrably in a minority. TV news and papers don't do this kind of coverage because it hurts their profits.

2. Maybe theres some truth the idea that the equivalent liberal elite in Britain is less comfortable with prurience/vulgarity in current affairs than the US, ok, but you're kidding yourself if you think the US media is in most ways more robust and more curious than the British, or that the quality of middlebrow current affairs is worse in the UK (eg CNN vs BBC). You can make a case that the analysis in something like the nyt is deeper and more sophisticated than say the guardian, or that the deep throat expensive investigative stuff is stronger in the US, but the day to day reporting, ie just the stuff I'm complaining about here, is not lacking in the UK in amount or in popularity. Again, if you think this is due to some fundamentally docile decadent europeanness, i would point out that US newspapers won't print swear words in direct quotes.

I mean tbrr i want to discuss this particular attack with ilx- deliberate targeting of a soldier, no interest in general public except as witness, p obv intent on public suicide by cop afterwards. Is this new, what are the ramifications, is it to be preferred to eg suicide bomb attacks, should one even ask if things like this are 'to be preferred' vs each other, why not, etc

Instead its ppl grousing that the new news is rubbish and shows too much news to boot

I was calling myself incurious sarcastically LBI.

deems otfm

Caek is the meaner of the piranha bros iirc

Go ahead and discuss it. I derailed and then apologised and mordy asked for our takes but no one had any takes so I kept going. Over to you.

Heh ok, consider that shit above asked

putting aside its veracity, this guy definitely believed that islam is at war with the west - or at least with the uk

do you guys think cameron will be able to effectively exploit this to prosecute the 'war on terror'?

This has more implications for domestic policy than anything else.

At what point can the media stop saying "alleged attackers"? Using the word 'alleged' just seems absurd in this case. The attack was carried out in broad daylight in front of plenty of witnesses and they then hung around waiting for the police to come while asking everyone to film them and broadcast their message about why they had done it while they waved the weapons around and were literally red-handed.

cameron has proven unable to effectively exploit or prosecute anything thus far, so this is unlikely to be anything other than a gruesome and unedifying clusterfuck imho.

do you guys think cameron will be able to effectively exploit this to prosecute the 'war on terror'?

By doing what? I don't get the sense that he would actually want to

I don't think it diminishes the horror (or even newsworthyness) of the event to say that there's possibly not a lot to be "curious" about at the moment. We know a tiny number of people would feel justified in attacking soldiers. We know a hopefully equally tiny number of people would try to burn down a mosque on the flimsiest of pretexts. As shocking as this is, it doesn't really tell us anything new or point to an obvious future political / social shift, other than slight hardening of racist attitudes in the short term.

the unquestioning use of the word "terrorism" is so infuriating. that word has never been used about eg the EDL's acts of violence.

Also, initial reports described the assailants as 'wearing Muslim dress'. Nick Robinson passed on the info without checking, and then had to turn around and say that description came from Whitehall. Fuckers.

That's the REAL outrage here ppl

TBF Theresa May does suck Satan's cock in hell, so I'm not exactly surprised she'd be at the helm of a clusterfuck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22624100

Assuming that this turns out to be definitely an attack on a soldier, then the warning signs that it would happen can be found in the heart of al-Qaeda's violent ideology and how that has been interpreted by followers in the UK and other Western nations.

this guy blowing nult out of the water.

Ha I actually thought that was a pretty good piece by the standards of the bbc website.

yeah not a bad piece i guess, just a really awful sentence.

@edfenergy is the hot feed rn

other than slight hardening of racist attitudes in the short term

A change of direction too. Up to now most of your anti-Muslim racists thought they just hated brown South Asians - now they can widen the scope to black Africans.

I always think COBRA sounds like a cool intelligence organisation then I remember it's the name of where the meetings are held - Cabinet Office Briefing Room A.

Mum talked down Woolwich terrorists who told her: 'We want to start a war in London tonight'

Mum who is an immigrant btw

John Reid reappeared yesterday to bang on about the need for the government to increasingly monitor internet traffic, Skype, etc. Like how on earth would that prevent two nutters hacking someone to death with a machete? It's hardly a complex logistical operation.

she obviously showed bravery, or whatever it is to tell off a psychopath, but the weirdly patronising/worthy canonisation of heroes from violent or tragic events is really cloying and irritating.

xpost

Some sites are naming the killer who spoke on the video clip as a 20-year-old British Nigerian who had converted to Islam and had recently been preaching in the streets in Woolwich.

I don't think it diminishes the horror (or even newsworthyness) of the event to say that there's possibly not a lot to be "curious" about at the moment. We know a tiny number of people would feel justified in attacking soldiers. We know a hopefully equally tiny number of people would try to burn down a mosque on the flimsiest of pretexts. As shocking as this is, it doesn't really tell us anything new or point to an obvious future political / social shift, other than slight hardening of racist attitudes in the short term.

― хуто-хуторянка (ShariVari), Thursday, 23 May 2013 08:35 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a big bag of OTM

Some sites are naming the killer who spoke on the video clip as a 20-year-old British Nigerian who had converted to Islam and had recently been preaching in the streets in Woolwich.

Oh great. So, that's every street preacher on every town/city centre becoming the new attack-point, as opposed to being ignored and walked past, right?

she obviously showed bravery, or whatever it is to tell off a psychopath, but the weirdly patronising/worthy canonisation of heroes from violent or tragic events is really cloying and irritating.

xpost

― ... (LocalGarda), Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:53 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

could be worse...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/941975_435525179877046_272048128_n.jpg

I didn't mean to imply that you should have some particularly prurient fascination but that this is of legitimate interest and is a notable event and I think in the United States people are very drawn to examining/understanding these events.

I'll give you the first but not the second. Which is also why I feel LBI is being disingenuous about "All news is rolling" - the this-just-in impression of rolling news (which Woolwich ironically really isn't at this stage?) gives everything the sheen of "We just heard this, it might be relevant, or it might not, who knows" and cuts off the chance to sit down and say "Here are the things we actually know and here's what we think about what we know" - in the time it takes to organise that, a competing news source may have newer fresher info from the entrails of a raven or something.

cameron has proven unable to effectively exploit or prosecute anything thus far

― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:08 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm. first time i've been glad cameron is prime minister and the govt is the present coalition.

"The bus then started to move away. They dropped us in the middle of Lewisham which really annoyed me because I had no idea how to get from there to Parliament Square."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

the this-just-in impression of rolling news (which Woolwich ironically really isn't at this stage?) gives everything the sheen of "We just heard this, it might be relevant, or it might not, who knows" and cuts off the chance to sit down and say "Here are the things we actually know and here's what we think about what we know" - in the time it takes to organise that, a competing news source may have newer fresher info from the entrails of a raven or something

hmm, i'm not sure - in my experience of being sacked out in front of BBC news 24, unable to turn it off although I know it should, it tends to spend a lot of time reiterating "here are the things we actually know". But you're right I think about the overall effect of rolling news, the sense that this-just-in imparts which is that NEW INFORMATION IS CONSTANTLY COMING IN NEW THINGS ARE HAPPENING STAY TUNED when in fact nothing new is, neither information nor analysis, so as a viewer you're hyped up and held waiting and generally in an unhealthy place.

David Cameron @David_Cameron
I will be making a statement shortly. One of the best ways to defeat terrorism is to go about our normal lives
11:28 AM - 23 May 2013

that guy does the worst tweets

some weird cameron's top tips shit in that second sentence

Shocking knowledge of South London transport there xxxxp

She wants to get a train from Lewisham to Charing Cross really, way quicker than the bus.

Shoddy treatment of our heroes nonetheless.

One of the best ways to defeat terrorism is to MAJOR PM STATEMENT ABOUT TERRORISM IMMINENT

xp-to-self

I mean, there are new forms that conspiracy theory is taking right now which are so clearly linked to the this-just-in rolling-news model: the ones that see the way news information changes as facts are ascertained as evidence that some authority figure is controlling the story.

the effect that this-just-in news has, which is to say the viewer's feeling that rolling news is a news event happening in real time, conflicts with what is actually happening on this-just-in news, which is that the news gathering is happening in real time. This-just-in news turns the process of newsgathering into the news story-- so of course people's imaginations jump on it and make this news story even more of a story by making it conspiratorial.

One of the best ways to defeat terrorism is to go about our normal lives

it's nice to know i'm defeating terrorism 24/7

Isnt that broadly correct tbh

Oh great. So, that's every street preacher on every town/city centre becoming the new attack-point, as opposed to being ignored and walked past, right?

Some worried men:
http://www.addictmusic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/manic-street-preachers.jpg

what, that working your 9-5 and eating your vegetables won't blow anything up? i reckon so yeah.

xpost

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/129730596/2630509441_944a6ee3e2_m.jpg

"One of the best ways to defeat terrorism is to go about our normal lives"

What if your normal life is being a terrorist
Makes you think

what if your normal life is defeating terrorism?

I thought that was Ira Glass, but the glasses are different.

Best way of defeating terrorism is probably like arresting terrorists or something? As I was leading my normal life and having a bath last night it seemed like the right thing to do, but on the other hand somehow not enough?

When they do that ilx goes wild too

tbh i am just posting this one bcz look at these assholes:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK8jIe8CUAAARAk.jpg

Nice that Luton Town fans have got something to do during the off-season now though

What's a ballies?

balaclava

ski mask

RIP Salman Rushdi

http://www.sophistimom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/baklava1.jpg

Bally nuances

When they do that ilx goes wild too

come off it would you, it's obv a dumb soundbyte, and nobody is "going wild".

it's a bally disgrace

even darragh's "lol you pathetic liberals support terrorism" trolling feels half-hearted and rote today

Its a minimalist approach you ass

one thing i've been wondering about is whether gruesome political violence is more objectionable than covert 'civilized' violence (like dropping drones on weddings). it was mostly regarding that syrian rebel who ate the pro-assad soldier's lung (thinking it was his heart) and taped it, but also relevant to this event. these things seem shocking + (apologies for the loaded word in advance) 'barbaric,' but maybe it's no worse than any act of violence. maybe machete'ing a soldier just makes explicit the horror inherent in every act of violence and its just my squeamishness that makes me think it's anything worse.

Yeah, that might be why they call it 'terror'... (and why it's a bad word and stuff)

if we're going to draw up a moral scale from acts of calculated murder - i don't know if that has value or not

in a pragmatic sense i am more concerned by state violence i think, to the extent that it reinforces hegemonic power, to the extent that a broader range of options ought to be open to the state in most circumstances, to the extent that it frequently appears to be counterproductive to maintaining the peace and security of citizens, to the extent that it muddies and undermines civil rights in a way that random acts of murder by individuals - however horrific - can't do. because we accept on the whole that the private resort to violence is (emotionally? intellectually?) intolerable but we often tolerate the violence of the state, through propaganda, through distance, through dishonesty

I think public mutilation with edged weapons is always going to grab the headlines above unmanned robot planes (here, at least - I'm sure there's a lot of cultural difference to take into account too) and I think these men understood that with limited resources such brutality was their best chance of making an impact.

State violence vs private violence

i don't really distinguish the Woolwich killing from any other act of murder. i believe murder is bad, but i don't believe it's very possible to police the hearts and minds of individuals who decide to commit murder. at best you can decide on the most effective or appropriate way of punishing murder and hope that that has some deterrent effect.

"authentic" terrorist violence, or state violence, is usually carried out in the name of tactics. the range of options open to dealing with organizations or states engaged in political disputes is broader - not that i'd rule out violence as an option, but there are other options which may be more effective long term, in a much different way to the problem of random acts of violence committed by individuals

which is my main bone of contention when Cameron talks about "terrorism" here. he's using the root connection of terror and terrorist to conflate two different forms of violence, and by choosing the broader, unnuanced use of the word he's effectively using it as a dog-whistle for the same kind of bigot who used to think back in the 1980s that every citizen of Irish descent was a terrorist sympathizer

I'm not sure this is even terrorism.

Wish I had taken a picture, but I saw a TV this morning tuned to FOX News covering this, with the caption:

KNIVES, MACHETES & GUNS
TERRORIST: YOUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE NEXT

On one hand, there’s a danger that calling it terrorism might elevate it, politically and culturally, above other forms of violence. On the other, applying the term to two idiots with machetes who are unlikely to have a coherent agenda or be part of an organised plot actually serves to deglamourise and demystify the "terrorist threat". Most people arrested for terrorist offenses actually are idiots, misfits, fantasists or people suffering from severe mental health issues. They aren’t globally-networked criminal masterminds.

Most people arrested for terrorist offenses actually are idiots

They certainly seem to be in the UK

I don't think it's not terrorism because I'm worried about elevating it politically about other forms of violence. The perpetrators already did that when they cited explicit political motivations for the act. I don't think it's terrorism because it wasn't an act of random violence committed against civilians but one that intentionally targeted an English soldier and specifically left civilians unharmed. In my opinion, terrorism is specifically indiscriminate violence against a civilian population.

so barracks bombings and the like don't count?

Yeah, we have a long history of using the term "terrorism" to apply to the targeting of military personnel in the UK.

Particularly off-duty personnel.

Police a popular target in NI, does that count?

I don't think so - police are domestic law enforcement. Soldiers are military targets.

I get that it could be seen as a geographically displaced version of the attacks on UK soldiers in Afghanistan etc - is that what you're getting at? An act of war?

Yes.

This piece asks some of the same questions re the use of the word terrorism. It's a really difficult word to define without incriminating your own state.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

xp

i think that's a push when the soldier is off-duty and the killers are unlikely to belong to an organization with strategic goals

and there's a problem with that in that it possibly ennobles them in certain quarters even more than calling them terrorists.

I'm not that worried about ennobling them. Anyone who approves of hacking UK soldiers a part w/ machetes in the public does not care what we call the act.

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism?

Hate to say it but Glenn is right. This is not terrorism.

i'd argue that both cases are forms of terrorism. i don't see that the difference between war and terrorism is much more than semantic tho.

Was bin laden on or off duty

"(in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone")"

!!

Rushed journalism also produces The Guardian understands that both Adebolajo and the other suspect have featured in counter-terrorism investigations over the last eight years, the Guardian understands.

Though the article is also effective at painting the two suspects as the loose cannons you would expect, and has the refreshing sight of leader of the 'banned extremist group' they were hanging around saying "No, this was bang out of order" or words to that effect.

xpost more on that here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&pagewanted=all

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.

Grr, that just reminds me of Tony Blair crowing about being tougher on Terror Suspects - motherfucker, you're a lawyer, you know what suspect means.

Communities Minister Baroness Warsi has just told Sky News: "I think it's a real moment for the country to come together and to unite."

... and vote Tory

not perfect but puts it better than i did

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-echo-chamber-mass-hysteria

If two edl members had butchered a muslim in a similar manner in order to make a political point, how different would guardian/ilx sentiment be?

a fascinating question

i know we'd hear a similar argument to the one caek is making from the right-wing. we shouldn't publicize this bc it'll inspire retributive attacks against our soldiers. (at least that's what i've heard in the US)

A fascinating answer.

Played each other to a standstill there eh

i think "publicize" is the wrong word for what i'm opposed to. "present divorced from context in a lurid manner (e.g. on rolling news), especially when that's obviously precisely what they hoped to achieve", might be more accurate.

litany of dumb "if x had killed y" questions today -

they're the worst, and everyone does them all the time

*shakes head at guardian reader bias* -_-

we shouldn't publicize this bc it'll inspire retributive attacks against our soldiers.

that might be what the "right wing" you're taking about think, but "bc it'll inspire retributive attacks against our soldiers" is not my objection at all in any way.

what is your objection? aesthetic grounds?

this is from the article you linked:

In taking mundane acts of violence and setting them on a global stage, we not only politicise them, we risk validating the furies that drive them.

I know what they're trying to say but "mundane" is an odd word to use there

just yr average quotidian machete beheading

yeah it does stick out.

still his point about news acting as a megaphone rather than a filter is spot on.

i think that's mundane in the "banality of evil" sense? hitler bingo.

i doubt the author is trying to evoke arendt. i think it's an argument that this violence is no different from any criminal violence and it is only media oxygen that makes it political.

It is this echo chamber of horror, set up by the media, public figures and government, that does much of terrorism's job for it. It converts mere crimes into significant acts. It turns criminals into heroes in the eyes of their admirers. It takes violence and graces it with the terms of a political debate. The danger is that this debate is one the terrorist might sometimes win.

a. all violence is political, b. the politics of this specific violence was inherent in the original act, not tacked on later, c. if you're afraid the 'terrorist' might win the ideological debate you probably write for the guardian

yeah, idk. Like I say I get it, and sympathise to an extent. I'm forever complaining about prurient newspaper coverage of violent events. But

Intoning a response to horror is one of the rituals of modern politics

it's also part of, um, responding to horror? ijdk

my objection is that rolling-news-level, context-free, "hey look at these assholes" coverage generates no light and lots of heat that poisons the debate that follows and impairs our ability as a society to respond well.

"terrorists win" means something else to me than "putting soldiers in harm's way".

a) sounds like nonsense. b) i agree with. it's the megaphone we glady usher them towards that's the problem though. c) i hold the guardian in almost total contempt.

Simon Jenkins' schtick is calling everything from flu jabs to wind farms symptomatic of mass hysteria. I guess the point about it being "mundane" isn't that it's media oxygen making it political, it's media oxygen investing it with a political significance it doesn't necessarily deserve.

the problem i am talking about here, i mean. i'm not saying we're the guilty ones here. xp to self

If two edl members had butchered a muslim in a similar manner in order to make a political point, how different would guardian/ilx sentiment be?

― my name is louis and i'm an acoleuthic (darraghmac), Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if you think anyone on ilx is anything other than disgusted by the act of violence itself then maybe you should enroll in some remedial courses because you have a reading age of <5 years old, yeah?

and same for guardian readers etc?

Perfectly happy with my level of reading comprehension ta.

I'll scan thread later and see all those posts i must have missed first time round, my (no doubt flawed, as you say) recollection is 'how disgusting they're focusing on the aspects of this that don't suit my entrenched political views')

But that wasnt the question

I for one object to being compared to a Guardian reader

TBF that was clumsy and i'm sorry

regardless, again, if you think anyone on this thread feels anything other than repulsion regarding the action on wednesday then you're every bit the reactionary chode you get so upset about being compared after being a reactionary chode. or should we not be offended that you think we think this vile action is defensible because we're not frothing with "string the buggers up" righteousness?

ie, If two edl members had butchered a muslim in a similar manner in order to make a political point, how different would guardian/ilx sentiment be?

why don't you tell us o positor of ever so intriguing moral questions?

P sure it's choad?

Quiet news day? :P

What is a choad? - Yahoo! Answers

answers.yahoo.com › ... › Entertainment & Music › Other - Entertainment‎
Sep 28, 2006 – People are hearing this word, choad (also spelled chode), everywhere they turn, so I'm making it today's word of the day. It is not, however, for the ...

I have a choad and I'm wondering if there are any ...
What does the word "choad" or "chode" mean?

stevie, come on. darragh isn't even a good troll.

Eh i might be were i to try tbh

Ilxing on a phone doesnt fuckin help any in eitheor case

If two edl members had butchered a muslim in a similar manner in order to make a political point, how different would guardian/ilx sentiment be?
― my name is louis and i'm an acoleuthic (darraghmac), Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's been a lot of reasonably-facile argument that an attack like this one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10033881/Racist-fear-in-Birmingham-murder-of-Muslim-grandfather.html - was essentially the same, but has been by and large ignored by even the left/liberal sphere. Though of course it is missing that crucial element of public statement-making.

As a Graun reading ILXor, I give darragh's trolling 6.5/10 and Simon Jenkins' trolling 3/10, darragh for Graun columnist; fun ^

regardless, again, if you think anyone on this thread feels anything other than repulsion regarding the action on wednesday then you're every bit the reactionary chode you get so upset about being compared after being a reactionary chode. or should we not be offended that you think we think this vile action is defensible because we're not frothing with "string the buggers up" righteousness?

^ srsly, this is a nightmare to do on this device, i doubt it'll even be appreciated.

everyone is appropriately horrified and shocked, i'm sure. (no sarcasm)

secondary reaction has been "of course, the media are totally irresponsible in showing this, you know very well what that public, that public who weren't as clever as me at school or give apples to teacher like i did, you know, you have them too, you know very well they shouldn't be seeing things like this and thinking about it, because they might disagree with me then about some things which may or may not be broadly related to this incident" (ftr i don't believe that one-off nutters are to be used as indicative of anything, pre-empting yr next ad-hom)

secondary response has also had an element of 'something something tories' and jumping at rolling news using terms like 'muslim terror attack' for what could probably now (and probably pretty much straight away using the information) be fairly enough described as a terrorist (still discussing this term itt tbf) attack as a result of the assailants extremist muslim beliefs (which, again, pre-emptively, i agreearen't in any way fairly representative of broader islam any more than IRA attacks were representative of irishness)

btw i know that reactionary is yr standard term, but if i have to justify every quirk of language to avoid you jumping on it with the least favourable interpretation, couldya try to justify that one at least once? 'disagrees with me' doesn't appear to be any definition that i could find.

'chode/ad' i'm p much clear on. teacher wouldn't approve.

xp awww tks :D

xp to C#m- i think the publicity aspect of this is -important, interesting, new- i dont know if any of those things are exactly right, but it is a very bizarre and unique element to this one- has there been anything quite like it in the uk recently? i get that some itt are arguing that giving them what they want is not A Good Thing precisely based on this, but i don't think general maxims like 'just do the opposite' are going to serve any great wider purpose either

like, this wasn't actually yknow serious but fair lols at me if you repost it as evidence.

Maybe...

The world is just getting worse

― my name is louis and i'm an acoleuthic (darraghmac), 22 May 2013 23:08 (2 days ago)

I've got a different reason for not publicising this, and I think you're getting there anyway, but it's because of this:

Most people arrested for terrorist offenses actually are idiots, misfits, fantasists or people suffering from severe mental health issues. They aren’t globally-networked criminal masterminds.

― хуто-хуторянка (ShariVari), Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:35 PM (Yesterday)

So don't give them aspirational images, basically. If you're that way inclined, having been isolated and indoctrinated, then a blood-handed guy taking on the world, while apparently being articulate and courteous to women and children, is potentially a very heroic thing. As are the Tsarnaevs shutting down an entire city. You can imagine frustrated young men fantasising about being that guy.

The public face of terrorism (why are you even arguing the semantics? like anyone decides whether it's terrorism before deciding whether it's a bad thing) should be the guy who set himself on fire in the Giraffe toilets in Exeter, or the Glasgow Airport guys getting their heads stuck in railings or whatever. Not Butch Cassidy.

propaganda purposes?

i'm not sure that- start again

i take the point, yes let's try not to have shitcool terrorists, because the kind of kid who gets sucked into it does seem to be the suggestible loser

but i'm not sure that his becoming the mystery man at the centre of a whispered legend doesn't get you there in just another way?

not a fully developed response or anything

i take the point, yes let's try not to have shitcool terrorists, because the kind of kid who gets sucked into it does seem to be the suggestible loser

Kind of object to the rest of us having to be mollycoddled on account of a few suggestible losers.

good post ismael klata

But in every drama, we get spoonfed the idea that everyone involved in terrorism is either an idiot or a drooling maniac of mad genius proportions.

The idea that someone can be media savvy enough to come over like a TV chef doing a piece to camera before "ok, have to continue chopping up this soldier" or whatever...

... is too scary: You cannot tell the mad axeman purely by looking at him.

And when it comes to trolling you guys are amateurs compared to Anjem Choudhary, dude's a pro

ah so it was spelt "choud"

ha

The idea that someone can be media savvy enough to come over like a TV chef doing a piece to camera before "ok, have to continue chopping up this soldier" or whatever...

... is too scary: You cannot tell the mad axeman purely by looking at him.

I agree with the last part, but how is that any scarier than Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Remember how shocked his friends were? He was normal, outgoing, and yet he must have had a deep detachment from his normal life to do the things he did. I have less difficulty believing someone could do something horrific without immediately reacting, but to plan it and conceal it from people you saw on a daily basis? Much scarier to me.

It Isn't.

Sorry, context:

how is that any scarier than Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

It Isn't.

i don't think it's possible or desirable to censor the availability of information to the general public - obviously governments and other organizations try to do this and sometimes they succeed, to some extent. maybe they succeed more than we realise - we wouldn't know, by definition. so, censorship is probably as close to a Kantian no-no as i'd be willing to go.

Folk Devils and Moral Panics is a really good book iirc and i should probably read it again because it definitely seems v. relevant to the age of everybody's-a-journalist.

The awful horror film (there might be more than one) about the serial killer who kills his victims per hit count on the website showing the killings is awful iirc but might have some relevant points at its heart re: public attention encouraging actions intended to gain public attention. in my opinion, because of the "censoring is bad, mmmmkay?" line i've adopted, this makes our individual degree of attention an act of personal moral responsibility, to some extent at least.

Cap'n State-the-Obvious: the "news agenda" is so far from being an objective reflection of what is happening on a moment-by-moment basis in the world of the mundane (kind of tautological but i know why i want to say it like that, can develop later) that to treat "what's on the news" as being serious business is to be unswervingly credulous or to subscribe to what can only be fairly described as propaganda imo

I think the "we can't let them think that what they're doing is as important as they want us to think it is" approach is potentially just as problematic as overexposure.

As has been said it's 2013 things are going to be visible and often in a way that's unfiltered and raw. A national media response that attempts moderation will reek of infantilisation at best (people lose trust and defer to more extreme/less ethically conscious outlets) and at worst conspiracy (lending the killers an aura of mystique that breeds even more uncertainty and fear).

I don't think withholding media and curtailing the use of imagery is as straightforward, ethical and beneficial as some of you want it to be.

if anything the hypertrophy of media shd allow you to create a more personal mediascape that reflects your own concerns and values i think

I don't think the majority of (generally older) people are savvy enough to do that to any meaningful degree.

i'm not saying everybody can do it, i'm saying that if you're interested in not passively accepting the standard newsfeed it's more of a possibility than in the past.

also some people of all ages look for comforting confirmation of their world view in media above all else

"Experts" often claim that presenting sensational events, like spree killings, dispassionately and factually would lead to fewer copycat crimes. I wonder whether that is actually tried anywhere.

it's done with suicides

unless you edit the Daily Mail iirc

secondary reaction has been "of course, the media are totally irresponsible in showing this, you know very well what that public, that public who weren't as clever as me at school or give apples to teacher like i did, you know, you have them too

ah, you were projecting wildly, based upon your prejudices, i get you now. i'll just move along, there's clearly nothing to see here.

I was hardly the first to start projecting, either itt or btwn just the two of us

I believe i did you the courtesy of replying at least in part to the substance of your posts as opposed to smug dismissal once you started your projection, but look i have no prob with my ukilx ppl go in peace you know you're right and shouldnt let the likes of me bother you xxx

Let my UKILX people go

let us remain ships that pass in the night on such matters then dmac, i shall continue to enjoy yr contributions to other threads and yr wit and try not to trouble you with the apples i gave teacher and other such unforgivable cliches crimes

It is fair to say that i dont overtrouble uk politics threads with glorious content ;_; but it's where all the posters i like do be on quiet days

UKILXP's Nigel FAPage

Just wanted to say that

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/24/us-britain-pakistan-jet-idUSBRE94N0HI20130524

deems dont pussy out now

― Pasty, British & Shit

Feeling unnerved by this parody dn

Lol i just clocked out on hols tbrr

alright valid excuse this time

i want to know what nilmar thinks about this unfortunate event

xps, fwiw something like 75% of arrests for "endangering an aircraft" relate to people smoking in the toilets and getting aggro about being told to stop". Sounds like this current incident might be something similar.

Daytrips to granada and other moorish sites planned btw

don't forget you are visiting al andalus, former home to the great works of the caliphate in the realms of astronomy, architecture and toleration and latterly reclaimed by the castillian defence league in a crudely volkish display of islamophobia

Castillian Defence League = El Sid?

― Pasty, British & Shit

Feeling unnerved by this parody dn

― Hearing moyes confirmedare we hearing m (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Friday, May 24, 2013 4:02 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's a self-zing I would hope that'd be clear

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/24/woolwich-adebowale-witnessed-murder-knife

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/pages/cases/case.asp?CID=921754505&VID=128

darkass fuckinn youtube vatican shadow hauntology shit -- ghosts of erith spectral presence of dead teenage rudeboy slaughtered in crackhouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5weGvRJTDs

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1950484.0/

that can't be right, a savage murder like that would be all over the rolling news

yeah it's a mystery why a remedial getting killed in crackhouse didn't get the same coverage as the execution of a soldier on a highstreet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHvl-hffN1Q

About to go str8 thru the crimezone on a bus

God that's a lot of flowers

took some pics. feelin' *emotional*

secondary response has also had an element of 'something something tories' and jumping at rolling news using terms like 'muslim terror attack' for what could probably now (and probably pretty much straight away using the information) be fairly enough described as a terrorist (still discussing this term itt tbf) attack as a result of the assailants extremist muslim beliefs (which, again, pre-emptively, i agreearen't in any way fairly representative of broader islam any more than IRA attacks were representative of irishness)

Right but even in the eighties there weren't headlines about 'Irish Terror Attack!' - and this was a time when it would've been more plausible to claim that the Irish Constitution encouraged and authorised it. Not to say of course that there wasn't locking people up for the wrong accent etc - how'y're there the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, hope you're toasty in hell by now)

Was the term 'muslim terror attack' actually used? Because it seems unlikely any serious paper would go there; maybe the Express letting the mask slip maybe.

Unlikely

No, the assailants were said to be in 'Muslim dress'. They weren't.

By Nick "Baldy Tory Twat" Robinson

Or as I call him, Cheshire twat.

Ah, I knew someone had used the 'T' word to describe him on this thread

Take your pick of offensive T words, of course - Tory or twat

that is such a retarded thing to get hung up about

it would be consequential if it transpired that they weren't jihadists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331202/Pictured-Man-20s-stabbed-metres-soldier-Lee-Rigby-murdered-Woolwich.html

so the murder scene now looks somewhere between kensington palace gardens in 1997 and an england football international

also totally necessary and not remotely invasive photographs of the grieving family

Got to arm the citizens, Police are next to useless with events like these.....they can only arrive AFTER the event, just like the Cavalry.....now, if just ONE of those UK citizens ere legally armed........bam.......Lee Rigby might be alive today............

- kerriskandiesinc , Coram, 26/5/2013 18:51

i need to stop clicking on DM links.

Saw about 150 flag-draped thugs marching through Soho this afternoon. Probably wouldn't have been my first choice of places to look for religious extremists, tbh.

seemingly some mish-mash skirmishes going on across EDL, anti-fascist protesters and police, quite difficult to work out the details from scattered twitter reports though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/edl-protesters-blame-islam-woolwich-attack

Flags of St George fluttered and placards with messages such as "wool which 2013: no turning back" were held aloft.

that the edl are such boneheaded idiots is giving me little comfort tbh

I thought this was an odd story - a man goes on TV to say that MI5 attempted to recruit one of the Woolwich suspects and was arrested immediately afterwards under the Terrorism Act but unrelated to his comments in the interview.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-suspect-kenya-torture

A MAN has been arrested in Welling today on suspicion of conspiracy to murder Drummer Lee Rigby.

Met Police officers arrested the 50-year-old man in Upper Wickham Lane this afternoon.

they are probably wary that there is a cell and arresting everyone tangentially related

Either that or somone at the Met checked out your London realness thread.

I thought this was an odd story - a man goes on TV to say that MI5 attempted to recruit one of the Woolwich suspects and was arrested immediately afterwards under the Terrorism Act but unrelated to his comments in the interview.

I saw that interview, I was like .. "What???" .. as in "can he say that?"

Guess not..

they almost certainly did xp

residents of creekmouth be warned

http://www.channel4.com/news/help-for-heroes-not-accepting-edl-donations

It was announced yesterday afternoon an order has been imposed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 stating the BNP march must be held between 1pm and 4pm.

Conditions also state it can only be held between Old Palace Yard and the Cenotaph in Whitehall, whereas the BNP initially planned to march between Woolwich Barracks and the Lewisham Islamic Centre.

The police have already warned anyone who flouts the order will be committing a criminal offence and could be arrested.

But taking to Twitter to address his 22,000 followers, Nick Griffin appeared to defy the police, saying: “Met Police being very obstructive.

“I am taking over negotiating with them directly.

“Ignore reports of march ban. See you there on Saturday.”

think I'll be joining one of the antifascist demonstrations, wish my skull luck.

don't you have anything better to do

a wide angle shot of a few hundred fat no surrender pleb attracting no attention would be preferable to the usual stramash

nah if I don't go I'll just sleep late instead. It matters less now that they're not allowed to directly zone in on the Lewisham mosque they were targeting, but it's fun to sometimes pretend that an actual left-wing exists in any notable way.

that sounds kind of unduly dismissive but i do think ignoring them would better reflect their marginal nature

nick griffin has 20k followers on twitter which is about what you'd expect for a big brother 5 contestant

you make it sound like there is some unspoken pact between opposing groupuscules to enhance each other's sense of reputational bigness

ha. I can appreciate ignoring the EDL cuz they're obviously just a bunch of degenerates who have no real purchase on the ~British psyche~, but I figure that along that scale towards BNP and eventually UKIP you get an extremism that, albeit marginal, begins to enter into the mainstream discourse, and even if everyone with actual power disagrees with it the mediation that occurs can be nothing but a swing in their direction. So it seems worthwhile to be actively saying and showing that what they're doing ain't on, try to cut their attempts at worming their ideologies into normality off at the root.

In 1977, Griffin went to Downing College, Cambridge, where he studied history, then law.[1] His affiliation with the National Front was revealed during a Cambridge Union debate, and his photograph was published in a student newspaper. He later founded the Young National Front Student organisation. He graduated with a second-class honours degree in law (2:2), and a boxing blue, having taken up the sport following a brawl in Lewisham with a member of an anti-fascist party.[9]

Inferring that he took up boxing after getting his arse handed to him.

tomorrow he shall smite the eternal foe and reconquer lewisham

http://www.nickryan.net/images/Nazi-Nick.gif

even his t-shirt wants to punch him in the face

it's fun to sometimes pretend that an actual left-wing exists

wistful truth bomb

well I didn't make it cuz my sleep is a disaster but I suppose that saved me from getting arrested - Met Police have extended the timeframe of the BNP march but NOT the timeframe for demonstrating against it, so cue a flurry of section 14 arrests.

http://i.imgur.com/Raw8SIC.jpg

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/473597/20130601/bnp-edl-hate-fascist-badgers.htm

Young women dressed in fake fur were seen chasing doughty nationalist supporters down London's Whitehall as a large number of security forces in iridescent jackets looked on from police lines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334483/No-10-rocked-secret-love-affair-Stunned-PM-holds-crisis-talks-fears-tryst-blow-political-agenda-water.html?ico=home^headlines

David Cameron has held crisis talks at Downing Street after being told of allegations of a sensational love affair which has potentially significant political implications for him.

This revelation is dynamite. None of us could believe it when we first heard it. Then we just thought, “What a complete mess”.’
The source added that, apart from the political implications, the revelation had caused ‘great personal distress to innocent parties’.
It is understood that the Prime Minister was told of the relationship - which does not involve anyone serving in the Cabinet - within the past few weeks.

I know it's the Mail and all, but I'm just wondering who it could be? Royals? Cable? Boris?

argh, part of that quote missing, but ya get the gist.

In unrelated news, typing in "rebekah brooks and" into google search bar breaks superinjuction, wonder who will serve a writ on the search enjin?

I'm not sure there is a superinjunction out on this one. If there were, a newspaper couldn't have printed any stories they might have.

Risk of prejudice to ongoing prosecutions is more the thing here.

All I get is Andy Coulsen, David Cameron, and her hitting Ross Kemp (which is not news, surely?)

That narrows it down. Now discount the two that she might not be having an affair with..

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/antiterror-police-probe-muswell-hill-mosque-blaze-amid-fears-firebomb-is-woolwich-revenge-8645356.html

A prominent member of the far-Right protest group English Defence League said: “Just because EDL is written on the wall, you can’t point the finger at us. It could have been anyone. The Government is not doing anything so people are taking things into their own hands. I don’t condemn this.”

So it's ok to firebomb mosques because the government isn't?

i like this EDL stance on not tarring all the members of a diverse community with the same brush

Tarring the walls of mosques with a brush is more their style

... then setting fire to it

What we need now is someone to set fire to a food bank or job centre and daub 'Labour Party' on the wall

but the guy is right - anybody could commit a criminal act and then decide to associate themselves with a well known group just to legitimate it

did the prominent member mean condone or condemn?

Is he suggesting the govt should be burning mosques?

I mean, he's clearly a moronic cunt, but what does this moronic cunt even mean?

This whole thing is bizarre:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/20/mosque-arrest-midlands-suspicion-murder

Two Ukrainian men have been arrested for a string of mosque bombings and a separate murder in the Midlands.

they clearly decided they weren't going to complete with dnipropetrovsk maniacs in terms of domestic lunacy

It's apparently strongly suspected that the Kenyan mall attack was orchestrated by Samantha Lewthwaite.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-widow-samantha-lewthwaite-dead-2296551

The Brixton slavery story is straight up fucking grim, obviously, and I hope the women can find some way of living well or happily now it's over, but I am developing the worst kind of fascination now that it's tangled up in Maoist collectives & hard-left faction history.

Intrigued to learn that Brixton in the 70s had a Mao Zedong Memorial Centre.

It just seems to be the case that this is the kind of situation where any attempt at "Communism" ends up. It also serves as a reminder of how the hard Left more often than not dovetails perfectly with the hard Right.

I hope that whatever kind of plan for an alternative society Russell Brand has in mind, it isn't this kind of "society."

Not crazy about Russell Brand but I'm pretty sure he's not a Maoist.

i am a maoist

Somewhat partial account of the closure of the Mao Zedong Memorial Centre in 1978:

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/closure.htm

The masses can clearly see that this revolutionary style of work is a decisive break from the opportunist politics that is so prevalent in the “left” in Britain, characterised by the masses as: “flashing in and flashing out with the bloody elections”, “blind leafletting”, “selling papers like selling Daz”, “loud-hailer antics” and “generally trotting around”.

The centre was the inspiration for Citizen Smith, apparently.

It's the bloody BBC again!

Hari Kunzru already found out that the Times article about the centre used to justify the claim appeared a week after the premiere of Citizen Smith so, impossible.

The name of its front organisation, the South London People's Front (like Tooting Popular Front), convinced me but they didn't stand until 1978 so that doesn't fit either.

Lots of good links on this Urban 75 thread from July.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/maoists-in-brixton.313187/

Chairman Mao was probably the closest thing to Plato’s Philosopher King that the world will ever see. He was a brilliant peasant autodidact who played up his thick Southern accent, spat, belched and scratched himself. He wrote great poetry in the classic Chinese forms, and later banned those forms. In a country he had made puritan, he was an inveterate womanizer. His enemies destroyed one another; millions died who opposed his thought.

But he was still no Harry Styles.

In time his victories could not easily be counted

Just mentioned this story on the Cornelius Cardew thread, they were both members of the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) (no doubt, with about 3 other people)

As I said on the other thread, I wonder if there are people currently in the news who could help with details regarding the as yet unsolved hit-and-run "accident" which cost CC his life back in '81.

Cardew seems such an unlikely, marginal target for state-sponsored removal and yet one can't shake the feeling that there are people within the intelligence community whose grasp on the realities is kinda tenuous

yeah I could buy it as a late flourish of the Wilson-Callaghan golden age of left/right paranoia

If AMM haven't played at the Mao Zedong Memorial Centre I'll be hugely disappointed.

kudos to the fast-thinking folks already working on their "you cost me thousands of pounds cos i couldn't use a cashpoint for 6 hours" claims

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528435/Wearing-heart-thigh-Lee-Rigbys-fiancee-giant-tattoo-dead-soldier-inked-leg-includes-face-English-rose-St-Georges-flags.html

These guys were guilty huh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2678209/Woman-dubbed-Angel-Woolwich-confronting-Lee-Rigbys-killers-detained-Mental-Health-Act-race-rant-pharmacy.html

what dyou expect she's half french

There's another end of season finale coming

Wasn't Danczuk going to name names last week?

Leon Brittain ... better not post anything in case I get arrested but hands up who is surprised?

In the interests of balance there is a veteran Labour MP whose reputation is much more of an open secret

The accusations about Brittan seem to be different to the ones he was hinting at originally.

the fact that Brittan and (other person who I maybe shouldn't name, though allegations against have been in public domain for some time, I think?) are both jewish seems to be exciting David Icke ZOG types no end

There's a third person who is Jewish too so, yes, the idiots are out in force, unfortunately I'm contributing to idiocy myself now I fear by posting what I posted on this thread

Police have only stated that inquiries are ongoing following an allegation of verbal racial abuse at the store. No one has been arrested or spoken to.
Police were called to the Bulwark Estate at around lunchtime on Monday, over concerns for the welfare of a woman - believed to be Ms Loyau-Kennet.

So, probably not her right?

A 30-metre (100ft) wide sinkhole has opened up in county Durham in the north-east of England, and it is so deep that its bottom cannot be seen.

The gaping void, thought to be the result of mine workings, was discovered on Thursday by Sam Hillyard, a Durham University academic, at Cowshill, in the rural area of Weardale – and it has since grown three times as big.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/01/rotherham-child-sex-abuse-difficult-questions

ffs

here we go

don't bother looking at the details slavoj, i know you're busy.

"Comments will close here shortly and reopen in the morning (GMT). Thank you for your contributions so far."

lol

fuck i just got trolled by Žižek. I should know better

Looking forward to The Pervert's Guide to Television abt Jim'll Fix It

"rhymes", aye alright slavoj

don't bother looking at the details slavoj, i know you're busy.

― woof, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 09:55 (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these details being?

everything in the report basically - it's a really horrible messy story ft. terrible abuse, misogyny, class contempt, racial/cultural anxiety, a combo of managerialism & cuts screwing over decent projects, and the occasional suggestion of active corruption on the part of the police or council. idk, big-theory pontificating feels a poor response to it.

(it's here - about a hundred pages less appendices, manageable.)

this isn't a 'response,' it is merely zizek using this story to illustrate his general critique of liberalism via communitarianism, rotherham alongside the vatican, ciudad juarez, british columbia etc etc

the criticisms that he gets facts wrong or lacks inductive rigour are mostly overstated like the ludicrous plagiarism scandal of the other week

since as pontiff he naturally lacks perfect knowledge of all of his many domains (usa, france, uk, slovenia, germany.....) there will always be a degree of crudity or error

unless he is demonstrably and materially incorrect in his facts it is not especially relevant that he is not going into any detail (nevermind that it is an op-ed piece anyway)

zizek would surely categorise the liberal injunction to 'respond' to be as vapid and self-serving as the purely rhetorical denials of the prelate, the particularist response to isolated, predictable failures of a general program, made without reference to that program

He isn't wrong much; it doesn't matter if he's wrong on details he's a big-picture guy; it was an op-ed piece; particularism is vapid. Borrowed kettles!

I am a particularist. I don't mind big broad join-the-dots opinions/pontificating sometimes (though here I am not persuaded – the institutional unconscious talk does seem divorced from detail - but I don't generally get on with psych/lacan angles tbh), accept that isolating this as just a local or practical failure is an institutional defensive strategy & think 'universal struggle' is a good ideal, but it didn't seem well-connected to what I've read on rotherham. So it didn't seem very good.

I'd hope the pontiff would make sure he'd talked to local ecclesiastics before he said his bit. make sure the cathedra isn't a bit wobbly.

'response' was lazy of me, yeah.

isolated, predictable failures of a general program

which program do you mean here?

so what are the important details he is missing

the program is communitarianism

Bystanders have claimed a man was seen 'walking down the road cutting the head off a cat' before the incident took place.

Rickie Benson, a builder working up the road from the horror scene, said: "I heard there was a man walking up the road cutting the head off a cat.

xp
sorry, slow replies, no time lately - I just don't think his article tallies with the report, or with what people who've picked through it & have some experience have been saying, eg:
https://storify.com/God_loves_women/wise-thoughts-on-rotherham

Has there been any discussion on the new internet obscenity laws which have been effective since the 1st? The law makes video on demand depictions of certain legal sexual acts illegal. The law seems pretty arbitrary in deciding which acts should be banned.

This gives an overview of the law changes: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/ Link is definitely NSFW and is biased.

I don't live in the UK and I have no personal interest in this sort of pornography, so this law does not affect me. However, I am a big fan of free speech and I worry about internet freedom in the future.

These laws have been in force for many years in relation to DVDs. What the new regulations do is extend that policy to 'TV-like' video on demand services. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what that means in practice but various websites have already been excluded from that bracket. There is no bar on watching such material unless it conflicts with pre-existing laws on sexual violence and the like. It looks like it might put UK porn producers at a competitive disadvantage vs their US rivals depending on what delivery platform they use but it's nowhere near as restrictive as the law in Australia, for example. It doesn't seem likely to change a great deal.

Judging from Twitter, it seems to be more of interest to people outside the UK than inside.

i know twitter is a vile ocean of hatred etc but with gerry mccann trending this morning, i clicked his blue hyperlinked name to see why, and apparently there's like a huge rolling gang of people who think he killed his daughter? is this a thing in general in this country? i know there was the media storm about it and he and his wife were declared as suspects by the portuguese police, but i've never met anyone irl who actually holds the view that they were responsible.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Gerry%20McCann%22&src=tren

I think a lot of edgy turds on the internet think he did? Or get a kick out of saying that he did, like it means they're Frankie Boyle or something.

it seems to be like wall to wall - maybe it's a kind of troll community.

It's a really big thing on an awful lot of forums imo, it seems to come up when they do another new round of publicity tours. Search "grief whore" in other places and you might well find what I mean.

This wave seems to have been triggered by Gerry's tweet saying that he was touting for exclusives of the 10th anniversary "My Hell" stories, and the commencement of the tv tour to drive up interest.

Presumably they're doing all of that to keep their daughter's disappearance in the news, maybe pay for investigations etc? I guess they could feasibly have made some money out of it all though.

is this a thing in general in this country?

It was at the time, there were plenty of jokes about it. It was his wife though who seemed to have offended a lot of idiots by not appearing to be sufficiently distraught.

It is a staple of the Web detective community, which is huge. Lots of people have gone over the published evidence and decided they did it, without any actual info on other theories the police might be working.

a similar community emerged with the Amanda Knox case IIRC, truly the dregs of the web

I think most of the suspicion comes from the obsession they have with Goncalo Amaral, even to the point when they made petitions to the court in his divorce settlement, and the amount of money they spent on the injunction against his book.

yeah it feels like a really grim army

yeah it feels like a really grim army

That's it in a nutshell. I dislike the kind of people who get obsessed with this topic. On the other hand I don't personally dismiss the idea that there may be something fishy about the case. That's as far as I'll go. I just don't know either way so generally keep my mouth shut.

Just to check, the 'they' in aldo's comment is the McCanns though? Not that there's any right way to go wrong after something like this* happens to you.

*both the kid's disappearance and the media circus.

Yeah, the 'they' is the McCanns. Various figures were thrown around at the time about how much they spent on the injunction, but people like Carter-Ruck don't come cheap.

I only read Amaral's book to see what was so exposing in it that they fought so hard (especially, as his defence team stated, they hadn't pursued other books before or after even if the titles were more provocative against the McCanns) and mainly because it's a very short read. The biggest thing which stood out to me, and in no way implies guilt, is how unco-operative the McCanns were with the police at the time; cancelling a witness interview because you didn't want to reschedule a tennis pro session is one detail that I remember.

I think you have two groups - ones that are fixated on the McCann's specifically who, for whatever reason, are obsessed with 'bringing them to justice' and a broader element of web sleuths who don't really care that much but think it's a jolly good mystery to be pored over and solved. As ever, the neatest theory implicates the parents. People have always done this, though - the only real difference is you couldn't @ Charles Lindburgh or John Ramsey.

Obviously nothing should be surprising any more but every paper in the land splashing the photo of a nurse over their front pages with allegations she’s a serial killer of children, interviewing her neighbours, trying to speak to her parents, etc, etc prior to her being charged with anything seems like an extraordinary abuse.

some scummy stuff on Newsnight yesterday: trawling one of the novichok victim's private social media comments, and just generally not allowing her any privacy/dignity because she has addiction problems and was living in a halfway house, then obv you can run roughshod over her seems to be the rules.

I thought trial by press undermined any further trial. Meant yo weren't going to get an objective jury etc.
Or that any jury would already be swayed & hope that does still mean something.

There are certain restrictions on what can be said in relation to active police cases but, by and large, it's not against the rules to identify people who have been arrested. This wouldn't be the case in other countries, necessarily, where you can only call a suspect by their first name and the initial of their surname, not their full details, address, etc.

This case is different in some respects to most murder investigations, in that it's not entirely clear at this stage whether any crime has actually been committed. The investigation covers both whether there have been any murders and, if so, who might be responsible for them.

Additionally, the nature of the allegations - that someone is suspected of killing 10+ children, should probably mean there's a moral case for not identifying anyone until there's enough evidence to charge them. In this one, the suspect has been released on bail and hasn't been charged with anything. It seems enormously dangerous to put her details out there.

yeah , I remember stories of confusion about the prefix paed causing people to be attacked so something as directed as that sounds does sound dangerous. & deeply irresponsible.

you'd have thought things would've changed since this guy

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/03/26/20/pg-35-jefferies-2-pa.jpg

Interesting legal stuff happening today:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/gangsters-who-drove-billy-kid-fatal-gun-fight-convicted-murder/

Seems to be the first case of its kind in England - three men convicted of murder after a fourth who was with them was shot by (unidentified) men they were shooting at. Almost guaranteed to end up in the Supreme Court, not sure it’ll hold up. Some of the news reports have mentioned ‘transferred malice’, which would normally be the case if you shot someone and hit someone else accidentally, not when you shoot someone and they shoot back, hitting someone else. It’ll potentially be a very significant precedent if it is upheld.

Separately, the first tv broadcast of a murder sentencing has taken place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/27/old-bailey-trial-televised-first-time-ever-judge-sentences-man/