https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror

In article ,
harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.crap/2017/11/...d-jihad-terror

Is that website a branch of The Express or Mail?

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror

Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 15/11/2017 10:46, alan_m wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror


Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.


That's true, but reining in publicity for the terrorists is still possible.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.crap/2017/11/...d-jihad-terror

Is that website a branch of The Express or Mail?

On 15/11/2017 10:48, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:46, alan_m wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror


Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.


That's true, but reining in publicity for the terrorists is still possible.


If the main steam UK media don't report it than people will start
getting their reliable and truthful day to day news from Russia Today,
CNN or Al Jareera.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror

Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


+1. The fact that this awful site is opposing is good enough reason to
support the lovely Ms Dick.

On 15-Nov-17 10:46 AM, alan_m wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror


Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in the
gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the reporting -
whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to emphasise the
bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A message that the
attack was essentially a failure and that attackers will meet determined
resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat attacks.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in the
gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the reporting -
whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to emphasise the
bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A message that the
attack was essentially a failure and that attackers will meet determined
resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"? Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and
Spurs, killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56. They then drove off
before abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds. Police are appealing
for witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs
watched by 47,000. Police say they are confident of arrests in due course."

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

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.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 15/11/2017 10:57, alan_m wrote:

If the main steam UK media don't report it than people will start
getting their reliable and truthful day to day news from Russia Today,
CNN or Al Jareera.


But that's not what Cressida Dick said. She's not after a news black-out.

€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.€�"

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.€�"

Cressida? ...is that not an old jap car? .......

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 11:14:09 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 10:46 AM, alan_m wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror


Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in the
gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the reporting -
whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to emphasise the
bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A message that the
attack was essentially a failure and that attackers will meet determined
resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat attacks.


They don't care if the die or fail.

The public needs to know when the police are failing to do their jobs.
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

On 15-Nov-17 11:37 AM, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in
the gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the
reporting - whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to
emphasise the bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A
message that the attack was essentially a failure and that attackers
will meet determined resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat
attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"?Â* Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and
Spurs, killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56.Â* They then drove off
before abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds.Â* Police are appealing
for witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs
watched by 47,000.Â* Police say they are confident of arrests in due
course."

The scenario you propose is unlikely, given that the whole point of
jihadist attacks is to die as a martyr. However, both reports give
details of the method used, which is the feature most likely to spawn
copycat attacks. Simply saying that there was a terrorist attack,
without mentioning the lorry, would make it less likely that anybody
gets ideas from the report. Reports of the attackers being beaten to the
ground by the fans would be even better.

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

Specifically Jihad, probably none. However, there is considerable
evidence that newspaper reporting of suicides leads to copycat deaths
and evidence, particularly from the USA, that witholding the names of
people responsible for mass shootings also reduces the chances of
copycat killings.

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.

They will make them up anyway, as do most of the sites that Harry quotes
from.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 11:45:53 UTC, 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.€�"

Jihadwatch ALWAYS provides links to it's sources.
Unlike you.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:12:01 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 11:37 AM, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in
the gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the
reporting - whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to
emphasise the bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A
message that the attack was essentially a failure and that attackers
will meet determined resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat
attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"?Â* Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and
Spurs, killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56.Â* They then drove off
before abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds.Â* Police are appealing
for witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs
watched by 47,000.Â* Police say they are confident of arrests in due
course."

The scenario you propose is unlikely, given that the whole point of
jihadist attacks is to die as a martyr. However, both reports give
details of the method used, which is the feature most likely to spawn
copycat attacks. Simply saying that there was a terrorist attack,
without mentioning the lorry, would make it less likely that anybody
gets ideas from the report. Reports of the attackers being beaten to the
ground by the fans would be even better.

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

Specifically Jihad, probably none. However, there is considerable
evidence that newspaper reporting of suicides leads to copycat deaths
and evidence, particularly from the USA, that witholding the names of
people responsible for mass shootings also reduces the chances of
copycat killings.

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.

They will make them up anyway, as do most of the sites that Harry quotes
from.

As usual you have your head up your arse.
These people have one thing in common.
They started off at the (usually local) mosque.

And Jihadwatch always links to it's news source.

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. But please don't accuse me of
"making up" something that I presented as speculation ("I can't help but
wonder"), not as fact. 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.

And you have quoted the Commissioner out of context. 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 ..."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Actually I heard an interview with her the other day and she said that fear
of crime is often worse than the reality of it happening to you, and so she
urged the media to stop hyping up isolated attacks of any kind acid and
knife and terrorist incidents, as in the main the UK is a very safe place to
be out.
That is what I heard a perfectly reasonable message about the reality
against the hype some news organisations seem to indulge in.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror

Makes you wonder, read my last post.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.crap/2017/11/...d-jihad-terror

Is that website a branch of The Express or Mail?

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
....
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in
the gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the
reporting - whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to
emphasise the bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A
message that the attack was essentially a failure and that attackers
will meet determined resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat
attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"?Â* Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and
Spurs, killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56.Â* They then drove off
before abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds.Â* Police are appealing
for witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs
watched by 47,000.Â* Police say they are confident of arrests in due
course."

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

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.

Cue Linda Smith, "I'd like to deprive them of the oxygen of oxygen"

On 15-Nov-17 12:17 PM, harry wrote:
....
And Jihadwatch always links to it's news source.

Which is how we know that they are making up things that are not part of
the original story.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:22:14 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Actually I heard an interview with her the other day and she said that fear
of crime is often worse than the reality of it happening to you, and so she
urged the media to stop hyping up isolated attacks of any kind acid and
knife and terrorist incidents, as in the main the UK is a very safe place to
be out.
That is what I heard a perfectly reasonable message about the reality
against the hype some news organisations seem to indulge in.

She just doesn't want her own failings publicised.
Very sensitive after the Brazilian boy.
The old Goebbles trick.
"Move along there, nothing to see".
The police just want to spend time looking on line for contra-propaganda.
The thought police.

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.

On 15/11/2017 12:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:17 PM, harry wrote:
....
And Jihadwatch always links to it's news source.

Which is how we know that they are making up things that are not part of
the original story.



The subject line has been made up. "Cressida Dick wants to suppress news
of terrorist attacks" - that's simply not what she said.

On 15/11/2017 12:43, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.


But there are lots of converts, who may look just like you, Harry.

On 15/11/2017 12:48, harry wrote:

The thought police.

Well, you're safe then, Harry!

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 13:21:00 UTC, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:43, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.


But there are lots of converts, who may look just like you, Harry.

Give us lots of names then.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 13:21:00 UTC, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:43, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.

The NAME!!!

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't
meet your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on
the tube. They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there
mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.

Have you any idea of the odds of being injured by a suicide bomber in the
UK, harry?

If you really are concerned about the safety of your fellow men, there are
thousands of things you could campaign against first. You seem to be
suffering from the Trump syndrome. The difference being he gets paid to
play on the fears of the stupid.

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 15-Nov-17 11:37 AM, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in the
gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the reporting -
whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to emphasise the
bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A message that the
attack was essentially a failure and that attackers will meet determined
resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"? Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and Spurs,
killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56. They then drove off before
abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds. Police are appealing for
witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs watched
by 47,000. Police say they are confident of arrests in due course."

The scenario you propose is unlikely, given that the whole point of
jihadist attacks is to die as a martyr. However, both reports give details
of the method used, which is the feature most likely to spawn copycat
attacks. Simply saying that there was a terrorist attack, without
mentioning the lorry, would make it less likely that anybody gets ideas
from the report.

Maybe, but is a real problem for those who
want to know what actually happened.

Reports of the attackers being beaten to the ground by the fans would be
even better.

Sure, but it isnt viable to invent that when it didnt happen.

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

Specifically Jihad, probably none. However, there is considerable evidence
that newspaper reporting of suicides leads to copycat deaths

That 'evidence' is pretty dubious.

We have a hell of a problem with suicides by young people
amongst our indigenous communitys and its got nothing
to do with the media coverage of it. Its so outrageous that
everyone knows about it when it happens, its irrelevant how
the media covers it.

and evidence, particularly from the USA, that witholding the names of
people responsible for mass shootings also reduces the chances of copycat
killings.

That 'evidence' is very dubious too given that it hardly
ever happens that the name of the individual isnt known.

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.

They will make them up anyway, as do most of the sites that Harry quotes
from.

Just as true of whatever the mainstream media does coverage wise.

And if you dont watch out, any hint of a cover up really lights
one hell of a fire under the worst of the conspiracy theorists as
we have seen with the assassination of JFK, 911 and the execution
of Oswald.

On 15/11/2017 13:13, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

snip
"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.€�"

snip

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.

Sorry, only just spotted this.

I may have misread it but in the quote from Harry's link the
Commissioner appeared to be giving the media orders. ("You must...")
And possibly new orders.

With the sentence which preceded it she is (paraphrasing) telling them
what they already know and try to do.

It is of course also a speechwriter's device: tell the audience they
know what's right, in terms which appear reasonable, leaving them to
argue and appear unreasonable.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 15-Nov-17 12:43 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.

I didn't say they wouldn't be Muslim. However, not every Muslim looks Asian.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 15/11/2017 17:39, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 13:13, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

snip
"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.€�"

snip

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.

Sorry, only just spotted this.

I may have misread it but in the quote from Harry's link the
Commissioner appeared to be giving the media orders.Â* ("You must...")
And possibly new orders.

Oh, I see. I didn't take it that way at all. Clearly, she's in no
position to instruct the meeja what to write. I'm sure they'd have been
up in arms if she had tried.



With the sentence which preceded it she is (paraphrasing) telling them
what they already know and try to do.

It is of course also a speechwriter's device: tell the audience they
know what's right, in terms which appear reasonable, leaving them to
argue and appear unreasonable.

On 15/11/2017 14:45, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 13:21:00 UTC, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:43, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.


But there are lots of converts, who may look just like you, Harry.

Give us lots of names then.



Sally Jones
Jojo Jones
They have both joined ISIS.

Andrew Calladine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bing-rant.html

Nicky Reilly

Plus there are a hundred thousand who don't get in the news because they
are totally law-abiding.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lim-faith.html

"GB" wrote in message
news
On 15/11/2017 12:43, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:27:59 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:11 PM, harry wrote:
...
And not to sit next to some"Asian" on the tube.

Suicide bombers can come from any ethnic group and those who don't meet
your preconceptions are going to be preferred for an attack on the tube.
They don't all have recently shaved beards and sit there mumbling
prayers.

Much better to avoid anybody who looks nervous, stares straight ahead,
licks their lips a lot, walks strangely, keeps their hands in their
pockets, takes shallow breaths etc.

Or brown with a rucksack
Name a non Mueslim UK suicide bombers.


But there are lots of converts, who may look just like you, Harry.

Not possible no one looks like Harry, fortunately.

On 15/11/2017 10:46, alan_m wrote:
On 15/11/2017 10:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:20:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/u...d-jihad-terror


Makes sense. Deprives the jihadists of the oxygen of publicity, and
deprives racists like you of the wherewith-all to stir up hate against
the Muslim community, the bulk of whom are law-abiding citizens,
thereby further encouraging the few jihadists among them to commit
their atrocities. A win-win suggestion, I'd suggest.


Someone will film it on their mobile phone and social media will
distribute it. Long gone are that days when the establishment can stop
publication of anything they don't want in the public arena.

It all needs to be reported, but maybe we don't need to have weeks of
news filled with repetetive stories of the latest atrocity, followed up
for years after with intereviews with those affected, family, friends, etc.

SteveW

GB wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:39, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 13:13, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:22, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:45, GB wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:

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

"You must inform but not glorify and provide the platform this evil
craves," she said. "You 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.""

snip

And you have quoted the Commissioner out of context. 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.

Sorry, only just spotted this.

I may have misread it but in the quote from Harry's link the
Commissioner appeared to be giving the media orders. ("You must...")
And possibly new orders.

Oh, I see. I didn't take it that way at all. Clearly, she's in no
position to instruct the meeja what to write. I'm sure they'd have been
up in arms if she had tried.
snip

I wondered why the London police chief and her political masters were
bothering to give the media lectures on the obvious; and indeed
telling them to do what they are already doing.


Then I realised that the point was to establish the *principle* that
ministers and police can instruct hte media how to report. For this
purpose it is obviously a good idea to start with facile advice that can
hardly be argued with, but next time when more contentious instruction
sare given then the preceden will have been set.





--

Roger Hayter

GB wrote:

On 15/11/2017 12:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Nov-17 12:17 PM, harry wrote:
....
And Jihadwatch always links to it's news source.

Which is how we know that they are making up things that are not part of
the original story.



The subject line has been made up. "Cressida Dick wants to suppress news
of terrorist attacks" - that's simply not what she said.

A shame that he did not write "Cressida Dick wants to control news
of terrorist attacks" because that would have been harder to deny.


--

Roger Hayter