Attack at Parliament...

[Long Jon]

Originally Posted by blue

As someone who has, and will again travel to London, I need to know. Anyone who lives there needs to know.

I don't go to bad neighborhoods here at home. And if attacks like this continue to be an issue in Europe, avoiding large concentrations of people in front of "attractions", markets, etc. might be a good idea. You can still go anywhere, just maybe not stand around in front like a cow looking at a new fence, as my rancher Uncle used to say...

Westminster is not generally considered a bad area. Walking across a bridge, which thousands of Londoners do each day, is not standing around, although that's usually considered quite normal too

Sadly, You cannot really protect anyone from these random suicidal attacks.

My thought are with the families of the victims

[sled]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

A senior police office is making an official statement right now ..."we will not comment on the identity of the attacker ..." Later he admitted that he knows who the attacker was...but "investigations are ongoing".
Threat level is staying as set in 2014, and not being raised.

.

Uh huh.... like I said in the other thread, it's not just what they tell you, it's also what they don't tell you....

[fazool]

The sensationalism breeds this mis-perception of danger (see my prior thread responses on safety in America).

It also lets the terrorists "win" - they use terrorism to sow terror. Being terrified is them winning.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by fazool

The sensationalism breeds this mis-perception of danger (see my prior thread responses on safety in America)....

That's certainly true. I imagine the chances of the average person ending up the victim of a terrorist attack, even in these troubled times, are infinitesimally small as compared with their chances of being involved in a fatal road accident on the way to work. Probably more chance of being struck by lightning, too.

[Long Jon]

Originally Posted by fazool

The sensationalism breeds this mis-perception of danger (see my prior thread responses on safety in America).

It also lets the terrorists "win" - they use terrorism to sow terror. Being terrified is them winning.

I understand your reasoning on this topic, don't give them what Margaret Thatcher called "the oxygen of publicity" ; but unless you have total censorship of all news media , I don't see how it can possibly work.
Have to shut down the internet too as there were hundreds of people in that area at that time, most of them already holding their cam-phones.
Do you think 911 should/could have been "hushed up" ?

[blue]

Originally Posted by ewalling

That's certainly true. I imagine the chances of the average person ending up the victim of a terrorist attack, even in these troubled times, are infinitesimally small as compared with their chances of being involved in a fatal road accident on the way to work. Probably more chance of being struck by lightning, too.

You want to be safe? Avoid your bathroom, and if your home has them, the stairs...

But you want to see real anger and "anti-whatever" sentiment? Lie to the public, which is what not reporting this stuff would be, a lie.

[Mischief]

Whomever thinks not reporting these things will somehow; dissolve the situation, take away terrorist power, foul or slow their plans. Please consider....

If terrorists and jihadists are doing what they are doing for the power the media provides them; then please explain how before modern media;

If terrorists and jihadists were doing this for media power then; why is there so much of it in areas that do not report on it like areas in the Middle East where this is a daily occurrence?

Perhaps the motive is not just about generating fear through media after all...

[Xray]

Originally Posted by fazool

I'd like to amend my prior statement.

There is somebody who depends upon this exchange of information.

Terrorism is, by definition, the creation and use of fear often to incite change and disrupt/attack/combat an society or idealogy.

Terrorists need to promote fear - they perform acts of terror and need the world to be witness to them. They depend upon this "news" to create their terror.

In the USA we don't report on suicides in any news organization. That is because of the belief that copycats and sympathetic suicides follow. It is the "norm" that suicide never gets mentioned in the news.

We never mention the name/identity of a child or a sex-crime victim.

We have the capability to self-censor when it serves a greater good to not report things. No one needs to know those things and it only makes things worse.

The terrorists WANT the reporting. If they continued their attacks but there was zero reporting of them, there would be zero terror and their efforts would be impotent.

Stop supporting the terrorists. They are the ONLY ones who benefit from this reporting.

Taking it to extremes there, completely ignores reality too.
[Comparing a terrorist attack to a sex crime against a child is ludicrous and not even worthy of a response].

A homicidal zealot mows down people at random in the heart of a famous city, and you propose .. A news blackout ? Should we have done the same on 9/11, just shut up about it and go about our business ?
Besides the fact that that is obviously not going to happen in any free society, I seriously doubt if the homicidal, religiously motivated zealots are going to be tamed by ignoring them !

News, so long as accurate, should be propagated - And in this fashion, the public can form an opinion on what measures can be taken to protect themselves from foreign lunatics ,,,

[tbeltrans]

.........................

Comments removed by me so as not to cause the thread to be locked.

Tony

[guitargoat]

What a tragedy. It would be great if we could all live in peace but jerks like this murderer still exist. 2017 and we still have to deal with this "problem". It's getting old....again.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by Xray

Taking it to extremes there, completely ignores reality too.
[Comparing a terrorist attack to a sex crime against a child is ludicrous and not even worthy of a response].
...

"not worthy of a response" ?

Before you can successfully give such an indignant retort, you need to know what you are trying to rebut.

I never once ever compared a terrorist attack to a sex crime against a child.

What I said was that the NEWS reporting of a crime can, in fact be censored. The examples I gave of precedent already existing were suicides and sex crimes against children.

And the only "reality" that is being ignored is that we, society, are the willing victims by perpetuating their fear-mongering.

[Don Lampson]

Originally Posted by fazool

"not worthy of a response" ?

Before you can successfully give such an indignant retort, you need to know what you are trying to rebut.

I never once ever compared a terrorist attack to a sex crime against a child.

What I said (read more slowly and carefully) was that the NEWS reporting of a crime can, in fact be censored. The examples I gave of precedent already existing were suicides and sex crimes against children.

And the only "reality" that is being ignored is that we, society, are the willing victims by perpetuating their fear-mongering.

Sex crime victims are very rarely named. Alledged ex criminal are always named

[Don Lampson]

Originally Posted by fazool

"not worthy of a response" ?

Before you can successfully give such an indignant retort, you need to know what you are trying to rebut.

I never once ever compared a terrorist attack to a sex crime against a child.

What I said (read more slowly and carefully) was that the NEWS reporting of a crime can, in fact be censored. The examples I gave of precedent already existing were suicides and sex crimes against children.

And the only "reality" that is being ignored is that we, society, are the willing victims by perpetuating their fear-mongering.

Sex crime victims are not identified due to privacy . "Alleged" sex criminals are named almost always. All subjects in murder / suicide cases are named. Neither have anything to do with reporting terrorist attacks, where only the integrity of an investigation must be maintained........

Who do you think should decide what news to keep hidden from the public?

Don

[LSemmens]

Personally - we need to know that an "incident has occurred. However, we need not know how, who, or why. This only gives ammunition to the terrorist groups. If no publicity is given to these groups they would soon die a natural death.

FWIW any person who has been arrested on any charge should not be named until he/she has been found guilty of a crime.

[Silly Moustache]

I first heard of the attack on radio at 4.p.m.
Listened to more details at 6.p.m. and watched the BBC News at Ten which was almost all about the attack and lots of interviews with people who were there/involved.

The deputy police commissioner made a very well worded statement - would not name the attacker or discuss his rationale.

Last night I (thought) I'd posted a later experience.

This morning, Londoners will cross the bridge, visit the Houses of Parliament - which are once again in session. and tourists will wander around safely.