London Terror Attack

[Andyclockwise]

What sad news today, it is a shame they did not capture the terrorist alive.

Thoughts go out to all those involved

 

[DM]

Agreed. Its shocking but sadly not unexpected.

 

[jess]

Shocking and sad, i just don't understand this hate

 

[GrannyJen]

Shocking, indiscriminate hatred. My thoughts for the injured, the bereaved and those so deeply affected.

 

[Hotel California]

Our thoughts are with all vicitms and relatives...
Exact one year afther the terrorist attacks here in Brussels airport and the metro.
There has been a minute of silence in Belgium just thismorning...it can happen everywhere at any time guess we have learn to live with it...

 

[calikev]

Shocking and very sad

 

[Borris]

Very distressing news. I can only agree with what others have said already that all thoughts are with the victims and their families.

 

[Gary&Heather]

terrible news very sad.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Very distressing. Its a very poorly, angry world we live in. So sad. Thoughts and prayers for all those affected.

 

[PaulettaJo]

it's terrible to live unaware when and where the next attack will happen

 

[Hotel California]

Woke up today again to hear the news of a terror attack on the London Bridge ....all harmless people ....
What on earth can we do to stop this!
My thoughts are with everyone who sufferd terror attacks all arround the world.

 

[GrannyJen]

Again my thoughts with those so deeply affected.

 

[Joker 1299]

Sadly, while ever there are people who believe in, and look forward to, the afterlife and who want to convert the rest of us to their way of thinking, whatever their religion, the world will never be rid of this threat.

 

[Romke]

It's the world we live in and nothing's going to change. In the next few days we'll hear that the perpetrators had been on the watch list for months and nothing was done about it. Police will arrest a dozen or more associated blokes and that's the end of this episode. Give it a few weeks or months and l'histoire se répète again. This is WW3 and there will never be a peace deal.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It's the world we live in and nothing's going to change. In the next few days we'll hear that the perpetrators had been on the watch list for months and nothing was done about it. Police will arrest a dozen or more associated blokes and that's the end of this episode. Give it a few weeks or months and l'histoire se répète again. This is WW3 and there will never be a peace deal.

 

[Jonathan Duke]

Very sad, for the people on London, and the UK as a whole. London is the World's Greatest City, bar none, it is un-breakable. These attacks are futile, and senseless..... Whilst, the lives of those who they affect are often the most valuable and worthwhile. It must end.

Thoughts with all of those involved in any way, for losses no-one should be asked to suffer.
Credit and respect also, to all the Men & Women in the Emergency & Security Services.

 

[MattBW]

There have always been crazies and idiots in the world and sadly maybe always will be until we understand their minds better. The only small consolation here is that there are a few less of them today and they can't hurt anyone else.

I feel awful for those effected and it is a great crime but we have to keep perspective about how rare these things actually are. Air pollution or obesity kills more people than terrorism every year by huge amounts but we don't generally freak out about this on a daily basis. What we can do, is carry on, remind ourselves how very rare it is and that we have more chance of being killed playing golf or by a donkey than by a terrorist (and I don't play golf).

Fear is their goal, they will fail, we will carry on and of course support and mourn those effected.

 

[Borris]

In my possibly naive opinion, one of the measures that should now at least be considered is for Governments to agree to stop any coverage of terrorist incidents in the media, whether by agreement with the press or failing that by legislation, if that is actually possible. Yes, details would still be posted on social media but that too should also be discouraged by fully explaining to the general public the rationale behind the advice. Anyone witnessing or involved in an incident should be advised and encouraged to report the details to the police only and not the media or others. This would be a constructive way for everyone to play their part in reducing this curse. Obviously the news would still get out but much less effectively in the eyes of the terrorist.
Such action would obviously cause debate about the gagging of the media but something drastic and tangible has to be done now to starve the terrorist of the oxygen of publicity. The Government should carry out a review and spend more money on measures to prevent acts of terrorism and leave no stone unturned in tracking down those who commit these atrocities. However these incidents will continue to occur in high profile locations regardless, all the while the media replaces reporting day to day news with wall to wall coverage of the terrorists' sick actions. That is precisely what they want.

 

[B J G]

In my possibly naive opinion, one of the measures that should now at least be considered is for Governments to agree to stop any coverage of terrorist incidents in the media, whether by agreement with the press or failing that by legislation, if that is actually possible. Yes, details would still be posted on social media but that too should also be discouraged by fully explaining to the general public the rationale behind the advice. Anyone witnessing or involved in an incident should be advised and encouraged to report the details to the police only and not the media or others. This would be a constructive way for everyone to play their part in reducing this curse. Obviously the news would still get out but much less effectively in the eyes of the terrorist.
Such action would obviously cause debate about the gagging of the media but something drastic and tangible has to be done now to starve the terrorist of the oxygen of publicity. The Government should carry out a review and spend more money on measures to prevent acts of terrorism and leave no stone unturned in tracking down those who commit these atrocities. However these incidents will continue to occur in high profile locations regardless, all the while the media replaces reporting day to day news with wall to wall coverage of the terrorists' sick actions. That is precisely what they want.

Totally agree, terrorism needs publicity to breed.
Never can understand Media fervour as they rush to stick a microphone up peoples noses even if they are completely traumatised.

 

[T6 CFO]

In my possibly naive opinion, one of the measures that should now at least be considered is for Governments to agree to stop any coverage of terrorist incidents in the media, whether by agreement with the press or failing that by legislation, if that is actually possible. Yes, details would still be posted on social media but that too should also be discouraged by fully explaining to the general public the rationale behind the advice. Anyone witnessing or involved in an incident should be advised and encouraged to report the details to the police only and not the media or others. This would be a constructive way for everyone to play their part in reducing this curse. Obviously the news would still get out but much less effectively in the eyes of the terrorist.
Such action would obviously cause debate about the gagging of the media but something drastic and tangible has to be done now to starve the terrorist of the oxygen of publicity. The Government should carry out a review and spend more money on measures to prevent acts of terrorism and leave no stone unturned in tracking down those who commit these atrocities. However these incidents will continue to occur in high profile locations regardless, all the while the media replaces reporting day to day news with wall to wall coverage of the terrorists' sick actions. That is precisely what they want.

Nice thought but I'm afraid there is zero chance of that happening. In relation to the main stream media there are signs that this is becoming more responsible but there are massive challenges in relation to social media and if we strangle one without the other we are in great danger of ill judged and false messages being allowed to circulate without proper challenge and balance.
On a positive note I sense a change in the public mood. Yes we need to trust in and assist the security services and police but we also need to be ready to act when the opportunity presents itself as many bravely did during the last attack. Thankfully the chances of being caught up in such an incident are rare and even rarer for the circumstances to be prudent to take positive action. What we can all do though is show a complete zero tolerance to anyone who seeks to use these obscene acts as justification for verbal or physical attacks on any particular group. People who do this are assisting the extremists and alienating the very people who we need to bring closer. The message that we will not be divided must be loud and clear and personal responsibility must be taken by everyone to ensure it flourishes. The same applies to anyone or any group that seeks to make political gain out of the situation.


Mike

 

[Hotel California]

Internet is terrorists biggest weapon!

 

[Velma's Dad]

In my possibly naive opinion, one of the measures that should now at least be considered is for Governments to agree to stop any coverage of terrorist incidents in the media, whether by agreement with the press or failing that by legislation, if that is actually possible. Yes, details would still be posted on social media but that too should also be discouraged by fully explaining to the general public the rationale behind the advice. Anyone witnessing or involved in an incident should be advised and encouraged to report the details to the police only and not the media or others. This would be a constructive way for everyone to play their part in reducing this curse. Obviously the news would still get out but much less effectively in the eyes of the terrorist.
Such action would obviously cause debate about the gagging of the media but something drastic and tangible has to be done now to starve the terrorist of the oxygen of publicity. The Government should carry out a review and spend more money on measures to prevent acts of terrorism and leave no stone unturned in tracking down those who commit these atrocities. However these incidents will continue to occur in high profile locations regardless, all the while the media replaces reporting day to day news with wall to wall coverage of the terrorists' sick actions. That is precisely what they want.

I think you make an interesting point here Borris. At the barbers earlier I picked up today's Daily Mail and it had ten - or it might have been 12 - pages of tightly packed coverage and opinion on Saturday's attack. And I've just checked the BBC News website and about 80 percent of its home page space is still given over to the attack, its aftermath and what politicians are saying about it.

Without I hope being disrespectful to the people who actually suffered in this dreadful attack, it might also be possible to view the amount of news coverage as a tad unbalanced when set against all the other important things that are happening and being debated in the public sphere this week.

We talk a lot about wanting to snub the terrorists and to insisting that life will go on as normal, yet our media respond to what they perceive we want: which is wall-to-wall coverage of not just the event itself, but also a fire-hose of other coverage: interviews with people who were in that part of town that evening (regardless of whether they actually have anything relevant to contribute) and with emergency services staff who are invited to spill out their emotions about "how the atrocity affected you" (on camera, to a million strangers), and with someone who was in the same class at school as one of the attackers (he seemed quite ordinary at the age of ten), and what one politician said to another politician about what words the other had used, or failed to use, to condemn the perpetrators, and interviews with a lecturer in comparative religion from the University of Snotshire about "what's the problem with Islam today?" (and I can give you 45 seconds to explain that to us before we have to switch to what some cretin with small hands tweeted overnight).

And yet, I'm not actually sure that moderating the amount of news coverage would have much impact on the mindsets of highly radicalised jihadists, who probably don't read the Daily Mail or watch the Beeb anyway. But I would say it does have the effect of terrifying a large portion of our population, and tends to fuel frantic demands to politicians to "do something"; demands to which they are often happy to accede, as it gives them a chance to show how in control they are.

In that sense I'd agree with you that remorseless and obsessive news coverage can cause huge damage. But not principally because it encourages potential terrorists (although it may do, to some extent) but because its effect on public sentiment tends to narrow our options for a sensible and balanced response. It's the terrorists who provoke us, not the other way round. We shouldn't forget that the descent of Afghanistan and Iraq into chaos, fuelling what may now be a Thirty Years War in the Middle East, was precipitated by the USA's response to a shocking - and yet singular - attack in 2001.

 

[Borris]

I think you make an interesting point here Borris. At the barbers earlier I picked up today's Daily Mail and it had ten - or it might have been 12 - pages of tightly packed coverage and opinion on Saturday's attack. And I've just checked the BBC News website and about 80 percent of its home page space is still given over to the attack, its aftermath and what politicians are saying about it.

Without I hope being disrespectful to the people who actually suffered in this dreadful attack, it might also be possible to view the amount of news coverage as a tad unbalanced when set against all the other important things that are happening and being debated in the public sphere this week.

We talk a lot about wanting to snub the terrorists and to insisting that life will go on as normal, yet our media respond to what they perceive we want: which is wall-to-wall coverage of not just the event itself, but also a fire-hose of other coverage: interviews with people who were in that part of town that evening (regardless of whether they actually have anything relevant to contribute) and with emergency services staff who are invited to spill out their emotions about "how the atrocity affected you" (on camera, to a million strangers), and with someone who was in the same class at school as one of the attackers (he seemed quite ordinary at the age of ten), and what one politician said to another politician about what words the other had used, or failed to use, to condemn the perpetrators, and interviews with a lecturer in comparative religion from the University of Snotshire about "what's the problem with Islam today?" (and I can give you 45 seconds to explain that to us before we have to switch to what some cretin with small hands tweeted overnight).

And yet, I'm not actually sure that moderating the amount of news coverage would have much impact on the mindsets of highly radicalised jihadists, who probably don't read the Daily Mail or watch the Beeb anyway. But I would say it does have the effect of terrifying a large portion of our population, and tends to fuel frantic demands to politicians to "do something"; demands to which they are often happy to accede, as it gives them a chance to show how in control they are.

In that sense I'd agree with you that remorseless and obsessive news coverage can cause huge damage. But not principally because it encourages potential terrorists (although it may do, to some extent) but because its effect on public sentiment tends to narrow our options for a sensible and balanced response. It's the terrorists who provoke us, not the other way round. We shouldn't forget that the descent of Afghanistan and Iraq into chaos, fuelling what may now be a Thirty Years War in the Middle East, was precipitated by the USA's response to a shocking - and yet singular - attack in 2001.

I agree that the last thing that is required is an over reaction by any Government. There are always repercussions. Equally, extra measures being put in place that would reduce our day to day freedoms or way of life should if possible, also be avoided. Not being informed about terrorist attacks in the media would obviously be a reduction in our freedom but I personally feel it's a price worth paying if it reduces the numbers of these vile attacks. It is these sick misguided individuals who should be have their plans thwarted and cutting off media coverage of their actions may just help a little.

Just my thoughts although I doubt if it will ever happen.