On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

I can't help but wonder if the thought is more that it would be
doubleplusgood to deny the oxygen of full facts to silly little
people who hold inconvenient views.

You're simply making that up. It's so far from what was said (even as
quoted by the execrable JihadiWatch).

"Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner and Britains most senior police
officer, also called for calm when covering terrorist attacks.

€œYou must inform but not glorify and provide the platform this evil
craves,€� she said. €œYou must investigate but not in a dangerous way
which disrupts the extensive efforts of the police and security
services. You must comment but not in a way that creates excessive
fear and multiplies the terror.€�"

By all means accuse me of being wrong.Â* But please don't accuse me of
"making up" something that I presented as speculation ("I can't help but
wonder"), not as fact.

Okay, fair enough!



I would however argue that it is speculation
which takes into the perfectly respectable arguments for pursuing such a
policy in order to reduce both the incidence of some certain crimes and
the public perception of the risk of other crimes, both of which are
perfectly proper objectives for the police.

But you said "deny the oxygen of full facts to silly little people who
hold inconvenient views". You shouldn't refer to Harry like that,
besides which he doesn't need facts.



And you have quoted the Commissioner out of context.Â* You omitted the
preceding sentence in which she introduces what follows as her view of
what the media already do:

"I know for you that reporting on terrorism is a fine line, a balancing
act. You must inform ..."


I honestly can't see why that is significant.