Wow! Imagine if the killer was white and the victims black. You’d soon start a thread about racist Britain killing off minorities. When GB News actually say something racist, wake me up. But when all they are doing is pointing out that the MSM is avoiding describing a murder suspect because it would be racist to do so, I think they have a very valid point. Why is it that MSM/You think that people shouldn’t know what is going on? It is not like such things haven’t happened before. What is more insidious: Being able to tell the truth, or being stopped from telling the truth for political reasons? Simply put, suppressing the news because of politics is exactly what was going on in early 20th Century Germany. It does not help the situation, it exacerbates it, allowing people with a racist agenda to point at the news and truthfully say “they don’t want you to know this”. And, incredibly and compellingly, they would be right. It is handing a moral victory to the racists. This MSM bull does more harm than it does good, and it stems as much from not being able to look at events that go against their pseudo religious ideologies as it does from any genuine attempt to quell public dismay. The media are of such pathetic predictability now that you can assume when a suspect is not described by their skin colour, that they are from a minority. And here we have a news channel being called out for reporting reality. If you can’t handle the truth, consider staying in bed each day, rather than trying to bend the world so that the rest of us don’t get to see the things you find it difficult to deal with. Mods. if you are going to delete posts, please have the courtesy to explain why. That way, if we have made a mistake, we can understand why and try to avoid doing so again. And please don’t simply delete them because a most offensive poster doesn’t like them.
The suspect in the horrific Nottingham attacks has been revealed to be a former Nottingham University student who came to the UK from Guinea Bissau when he was a young child. A lot of the ‘debate’ kicked off by the excited reporting of a ‘migrant’ has simply demonstrated how easily the word triggers people. The suspect is not a recent arrival, with a criminal past, who slipped through the net. He appears to have been mostly raised and made in the UK. There may as yet be a terrorist element to the attack, one of radicalisation and possibly failures in both mental health and surveillance services. But this is why people should be patient in the immediate aftermath, it takes time to establish the truth and the truth is important. That’s less important to those who are looking to blame ‘migrants’ per se or be offended because the Police use a stock photo. The parents of the murdered students showed incredible courage together as they gathered with students at the University. I have a university age son. I can’t fathom how they managed to do what they did, when their hearts must have been utterly broken. The loss is beyond words. For them, the family of the school caretaker and the poor soul left fighting for life. We have a right to be protected from undesirable and violent people settling here, of that there is no doubt. We have enough bad things going on. That’s not served by the assumption that the crimes of any black person must mean something about migration. There may be many factors here, but the outpouring of hate serves no one. Some people, some news outlets want to use that trigger.
So what was so difficult about that? I hope you appreciate now how being able to discuss all the facts enlightens us all. Yet because the MSM deliberately hid the known facts at the time, racists in this society have been able to show that we are being lied to as a matter of course. And race baiters were able to cash in too, by using the upset generated to point to any non-approved story, or response, no matter how rooted in truth, and say "look at racist Britain." FFS
Oh man. Amazing really. The “all lives matter” crew who claim they don’t see colour suddenly want colour to be the key point. Some honkingly mad word salad in the politics section lately. Must be so hard inhabiting a brain that must hold so many weird, conflicting ideas the whole time. At least make it make sense! But no, left is right, up is down. The oh oh so clever “I see through the liberal elite” deceit runs strong in some. But really it’s just incoherent nonsense.
People who urge restraint and patience when commenting on crimes or generalising about black people are ‘race baiters’. Racist grievances are due to folk being lied to by the MSM. That’s the level here.
Yeah. Thanks for your incoherent response. A person’s skin colour is a fact, as is their personal history. The difference between me and you is that I may use it to describe how a person looks, whereas you may use it to describe who they are. My view is colour blind in the fact that skin colour is an accidental, like clothing or hair styling. Skin colour does not colour my judgement of a person’s character. But it would be futile of me to argue that it wasn’t a physical characteristic, useful in identifying a person. I imagine it is of fair interest to many whether the recent trend of terrorist attacks on innocent people in city parks, MP’s surgery meetings, London Bridges, etc., was continuing. One might also consider that if the killer had been white British, dissemination of that information would be of equal interest. Would you have been interested to know that? Would you have considered withholding that information to be a legitimate act by the MSM?
It's disappointing but not surprising to see some using this dreadful event to score points for their way of thinking.
My chemistry teacher at school once told me that empty vessels make the most noise. How right he was.
Look at the front pages today and Johnson’s final humiliation barely registers for the Right wing press. You’d think a vote in Parliament to ban a former PM for lying to the House from Parliament would be a thing.
TBF to the rags the vote count wasn't announced until 21h47 - by that time the papers had already gone to press...
Last edition deadlines will be much later than that. When I worked for the nationals there were changes possible until well after midnight.
Genuine question: was that in the days of hot metal? ISTR that the Murdoch press is well known for printing early - I've frequently bought tomorrow's papers at Kings Cross around 22h00...
I last worked for national papers in the mid 2000s, well after hot metal days. First editions have always been early. They are the ones that go to far flung corners of the country. And that’s the edition you can get at the major train stations in London. But even today the last edition of most papers is late. Generally, when reporting midweek football, the copy deadline wouldn’t be till after 10 and that would make the second edition.
No. But I do frequently meet friends for dinner in Exmouth Market. It's location is ideal to use Kings X/St Pancras/Euston for us to get home easily.
Right but unless Moose has bought all of the newspapers today he was probably commenting on the front pages as shown on the BBC website. Would those be the first editions, or later ones? I suspect that the 'Titanic' story might well have dominated the headlines anyway.
Ok, I know you like a slightly contrary take, but this is daft. I am sure you understand why those who are playing it down are doing so. And when in doubt insert ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ and imagine what the headlines would have been. Presumably, if the Titanic story is the obvious front page, those not running with it and preferring the Johnson vote are simply biased against him? Yes it’s obvious that the press is venal and corrupt, but that doesn’t make it less deplorable.
The passage of time. Up until 15 odd years ago buying the early papers late at night, on the way home, was a thing. Now we have phones. I think you are simply so old now you believe this was yesterday.
Kings Cross isn’t the Kings Cross of 40 years ago. St Pancras is a nice place to meet and eat, Granary Square is hip, the British Library nice. For something seedy or saucy there are phones. Kings Cross has moved on. It’s like being trapped in a episode of Last of the Summer Wine on here sometimes.
The BBC website's 'The Papers' page was published at around 6.30am, by the looks of it. So it'll be a reflection of the final editions. The papers had plenty of time to play with if the vote was before 10pm. The bottom line is, time and publishing deadlines were not an impediment to getting the Johnson vote on the front pages. The Guardian managed it. Headline: "Tories round on Johnson as MPs vote to approve Partygate report." The Titanic story has all the elements of a front page story on an ordinary day but, it has to be acknowledged, the Johnson story is seismic and all the Tory-friendly papers took the opportunity to avoid it as much as they possibly could. It was an editorial choice.
It really isn't daft at all. Everyone already knew what was in the report: that, and Johnson's resignation, were the big stories. It was pretty obvious that the vote would go against him, it was just a question of by how many. The Titanic story was much more unexpected, and stories about peril/rescue always pull in the readers/clicks. So yes, it was an editorial choice but a perfectly understandable one IMO.
Agree for the tabloids, but the supposedly middle-market and former broadsheets took the handy opportunity to swerve it. If the news agenda was set by what was already known half the political stories we see on the front page would never make the front of the Mail / Times / Telegraph. Our newspapers have, over time, become more and more agenda-led. This was an opportunity for the papers to avoid a massive and damaging political story that harms the party they support. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Deflection, diversion, titillation and a tendency to keep undesirable news away from the eyes of their readers is a well worn editorial policy.
I agree. The fact is that a huge number of people are not interested in politics in general and even those that are become easily fatigued with repetitive stories. "Boris" is already old news for some people. There may be a political dimension to the editors decision over their reporting of yesterday's vote but I suspect the Titanic sub stories is just a better selling headline imho.
It's on the front page of the Times right at the top ('Humiliation for Johnson...'), it's just not the main story. Similarly with the Express (pro-Johnson, of course). Admittedly not so the Mail or the Telegraph (very small article at bottom of front page).
Their approach is to limit the damage to Johnson and to the Tories more widely. There is nothing more to it than that. That in itself may be ‘understandable’ because these papers are the mouthpieces of their proprietors but it’s not right. It serves democracy very poorly.
