MP Sir David Amess has been stabbed and killed

[Sm5]

And if you didn't say where the person is from, those same far right nutters may well just go and target the nearest Mosque anyway, as soon as they hear about the possible connection to Islamic extremism. The problem here is with the far right 'nutters' who will mindlessly seek revenge on innocent people. It's an awful problem, but the solution in a democracy is rather obviously to deal with those far right extremists appropriately (and to provide suitable protection to people who may be at risk), not to hide information that is relevant to major news stories.

your heaping too much intelligence on the nutters, to be able to tell the difference between a Somali, Singaporean or a Swiss for that matter.

its not about hiding the news, its about how its presented.
Today the media incites the news, when it should report the news.

I understand the logic behind that, but the problem is that, if you want to figure out ways to make this kind of attack less likely in the future, then you need to understand the motives behind the current attack. Trying to hide the motives isn't exactly going to help there. (Though maybe trying to avoid specifically using the person's name too much in order to avoid giving them too much publicity might work).

Agreed, but newspaper headlines do not figure out ways to prevent it.
They just sell stories… the “what”.
Its the Police etc who investigate the “why” not Journalists.

We dont do trial by newspaper, but many have faced ordeals by media… that is the issue… and now the Somali minority is at risk in a story inflated by the media.

There is no need for mass publicity for crimes against individuals, where there is a risk that reporting style may bring retribution from other similar extremist elements… as both sides simply escalate a situation of committing events to draw attention… trouble is thats what sells newspapers.
When that owner isnt British, and is under influence of a foreign power, then its not reporting in Britains national interest.
Thats why media needs to be regulated.

 

[317 forever]

I had forgotten that he was still an MP as he was rarely if ever otherwise in the news in recent years. This in itself is a tribute to how dedicated he was at serving his constituents rather than seeking publicity yet alone a government position.

 

[Sm5]

I had forgotten that he was still an MP as he was rarely if ever otherwise in the news in recent years. This in itself is a tribute to how dedicated he was at serving his constituents rather than seeking publicity yet alone a government position.

And that is the news we should be reading.

 

[brad465]

imo the best response to this event is not to give any publicity to the perputrator at all, nothing..not a name, place or reason..… starve the headline, just publish the victim reaction and the prison sentence

On top of this, I would not bring in any reactionary measures of increased security or reduction in MPs contacting others, and instead focus on counter terrorism improvements and other means to find and foil planned activities. If we restrict our lives in response to a terror attack, the terrorists have won.

your heaping too much intelligence on the nutters, to be able to tell the difference between a Somali, Singaporean or a Swiss for that matter.

its not about hiding the news, its about how its presented.
Today the media incites the news, when it should report the news.

Agreed, but newspaper headlines do not figure out ways to prevent it.
They just sell stories… the “what”.
Its the Police etc who investigate the “why” not Journalists.

We dont do trial by newspaper, but many have faced ordeals by media… that is the issue… and now the Somali minority is at risk in a story inflated by the media.

There is no need for mass publicity for crimes against individuals, where there is a risk that reporting style may bring retribution from other similar extremist elements… as both sides simply escalate a situation of committing events to draw attention… trouble is thats what sells newspapers.
When that owner isnt British, and is under influence of a foreign power, then its not reporting in Britains national interest.
Thats why media needs to be regulated.

The media were investigated by Leveson, but the phase 1 recommendations were never imposed, and phase 2 never undertaken, which I put down to Cameron fearing Murdoch and his power. I think had the inquiry been done and implemented fully, the country as a whole would be far less divided now and both MPs whose lives were taken by convicted/alleged extremists in a toxic political environment would still be here.

 

[Falcon1200]

Reporting the perpetrator's heritage may not be directly related, but nor should mentioning it be taboo. Most people are smart enough to know that just because someone is from a certain background, it doesn't mean they are wholly representative of that background.

Agree, and as long as what was reported was fact and not guesswork or worse, a deliberate lie (which it was not), it should not be hidden. Censoring what the media, for all their perceived faults, are allowed to say is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[Sm5]

Agree, and as long as what was reported was fact and not guesswork or worse, a deliberate lie (which it was not), it should not be hidden. Censoring what the media, for all their perceived faults, are allowed to say is a dangerous road to go down.

The media is censored already. It is at the end of the day propaganda.
The media can be controlled, for instance that picture with Andrew and Guiffre… worldwide it shows his hand around her waist, the BBC crops that part…everytime without fail.

 

[AlterEgo]

The media is censored already. It is at the end of the day propaganda.
The media can be controlled, for instance that picture with Andrew and Guiffre… worldwide it shows his hand around her waist, the BBC crops that part…everytime without fail.

What about this BBC article from six days ago? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849.amp

And this one? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50451953

 

[yorksrob]

If this is proved to be an act of terrorism, any sentence less than a whole life tariff will be a disgrace.

 

[Falcon1200]

The media is censored already. It is at the end of the day propaganda.
The media can be controlled, for instance that picture with Andrew and Guiffre… worldwide it shows his hand around her waist, the BBC crops that part…everytime without fail.

But the fact that you (and I, and millions of others) have seen the full picture surely disproves your assertion ?

 

[brad465]

If this is proved to be an act of terrorism, any sentence less than a whole life tariff will be a disgrace.

One of the reasons for giving a whole life tariff is "Murder committed to further a religious, political, racial or ideological cause", so were it proven to be terrorism and the suspect found guilty I don't see them getting anything else. Jo Cox's murderer got one as the motive was definitely a political cause.

 

[Sm5]

But the fact that you (and I, and millions of others) have seen the full picture surely disproves your assertion ?

True, but you didnt see it on the BBC.
why not ?.. as you say.. its everywhere else.

BBC short of web page space, saving a few kb for the planet ?

other examples, including D notices and Court Orders against publishing news are available… news can be muzzled when it agrees to be.

 

[Busaholic]

True, but you didnt see it on the BBC.
why not ?.. as you say.. its everywhere else.

BBC short of web page space, saving a few kb for the planet ?

other examples, including D notices and Court Orders against publishing news are available… news can be muzzled when it agrees to be.

Up to about 1990(?) MI5 had a 'liaison officer' stationed in Broadcasting House, in Room 105 on the First Floor. This official was responsible for vetting applications for management jobs, although the whole process was supposedly hush-hush and its existence was denied in no uncertain terms on many occasions. Brigadier Ronnie Stonham was probably the best known holder of this imaginary post!

 

[NorthOxonian]

Earlier today, it was announced in parliament that Southend is to be made a city in Sir David's honour. It was something he obviously felt very passionate about so it seems fitting.

 

[Busaholic]

Earlier today, it was announced in parliament that Southend is to be made a city in Sir David's honour. It was something he obviously felt very passionate about so it seems fitting.

I don't understand this obsession with trying to make every large town a city, but given the circumstances and acknowledging it's happened elsewhere already, I certainly wouldn't begrudge this one. I hadn't realised until today's tributes in the Commons quite how senior in parliamentary years Sir David Amess was, and the obvious affection he was held in by many from all parties because of his demeanour, character and lack of 'side'. Hard to imagine such a person being selected by either of the two main parties now to stand in a winnable seat, to our detriment.

 

[Falcon1200]

True, but you didnt see it on the BBC.

Yes I did ! Exactly as AlterEgo pointed out in Post #37.

 

[43096]

Earlier today, it was announced in parliament that Southend is to be made a city in Sir David's honour. It was something he obviously felt very passionate about so it seems fitting.

It smacks of “we need to be seen to do something”. Either it deserves to be a city or it doesn’t: using the assassination of the MP isn’t the right reason for making the decision.

 

[Sm5]

Yes I did ! Exactly as AlterEgo pointed out in Post #37.

Fair enough, missed it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm surprised people seem to be more miffed about Southend becoming a city, which was window dressing for the bonkers "social media anonymity to end" law the Tories are talking about now. Amess never campaigned for this and trolling played no part in his death.

 

[Domh245]

I'm surprised people seem to be more miffed about Southend becoming a city, which was window dressing for the bonkers "social media anonymity to end" law the Tories are talking about now. Amess never campaigned for this and trolling played no part in his death.

Whilst I agree that it's a bit of a distraction from other less savoury goings on in parliament, it's not at all correct to say that Amess had never campaigned for city status for Southend - his colleagues had certainly picked up on it, amongst some recent more obvious examples!

It would not be a David Amess speech without a plea for city status.

If the clock was not functioning, it must have been because it was smiling on the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), perhaps because it approves of his views on Southend city status. Who knows?

There is also his 2011 debate on the matter

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst I agree that it's a bit of a distraction from other less savoury goings on in parliament, it's not at all correct to say that Amess had never campaigned for city status for Southend - his colleagues had certainly picked up on it, amongst some recent more obvious examples!





There is also his 2011 debate on the matter

I meant Amess never campaigned for social media anonymity! Yet "David's Law" is being talked about as if it was some sort of factor in his death. He was stabbed by a terrorist.

 

[The Ham]

I don't understand this obsession with trying to make every large town a city, but given the circumstances and acknowledging it's happened elsewhere already, I certainly wouldn't begrudge this one

Whilst there's always going to be outliers, a significant town with an urban area with a population of over 250,000 should always be a contender for city status (that's not too say that it should be a city, but it's certainly reasonable guide).

 

[LOL The Irony]

which was window dressing for the bonkers "social media anonymity to end" law the Tories are talking about now. Amess never campaigned for this and trolling played no part in his death.

I was just about to bring this up. Shame on them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm surprised people seem to be more miffed about Southend becoming a city, which was window dressing for the bonkers "social media anonymity to end" law the Tories are talking about now. Amess never campaigned for this and trolling played no part in his death.

I don't think we can be so sure of the bolded bit. So far I don't think any information has come out as to precisely what influenced the killer to carry out the attack. Personally I'd be astonished if inflammatory posts on social media didn't turn out to have played some role in radicalising him, and I don't think there's any doubt that if you ended social media anonymity, then fewer people would be posting inflammatory/false/wrong/libellous/dehumanising stuff of a nature likely to incite violence.

Also, even if direct trolling didn't have any influence in this particular case, Dave Amess's death does highlight the more general issue of safety for MPs (and other public figures) which is certainly being affected by onling trolling, so to me it seems perfectly appropriate to take up the issue in response to his death.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think we can be so sure of the bolded bit. So far I don't think any information has come out as to precisely what influenced the killer to carry out the attack. Personally I'd be astonished if inflammatory posts on social media didn't turn out to have played some role in radicalising him,

From where? Syria? Turkey? Islamic terrorism is a global endeavour.

and I don't think there's any doubt that if you ended social media anonymity, then fewer people would be posting inflammatory/false/wrong/libellous/dehumanising stuff of a nature likely to incite violence.

Either the words incite violence or they don't. People are allowed to be false, wrong, and inflammatory. Libel isn't a crime but a civil wrong. And where we're at a stage in society where the most elementary of opinions can be deemed by someone to "dehumanise" a person, count me out of the "everyone must have a government internet pass to use the internet" bad idea.

Also, even if direct trolling didn't have any influence in this particular case, Dave Amess's death does highlight the more general issue of safety for MPs (and other public figures) which is certainly being affected by onling trolling, so to me it seems perfectly appropriate to take up the issue in response to his death.

There is no correlation between online abuse of MPs and what has happened to Sir David Amess whatsoever. Their physical security arrangements should be reviewed, I agree, but going down the road of authoritarian states and ending all internet anonymity is both nearly impossible for Britain to implement and totally misses the point.

 

[Logan Carroll]

I find it uspetting how people sugar coat a man who fought against equal rights for gay people just because he was murdered. Like MPs being murdered is a gross disrespect to the very idea of democracy but i’m not shedding any tears for a man who treats me like a second class citizen because of my sexuality.

 

[DarloRich]

I find it uspetting how people sugar coat a man who fought against equal rights for gay people just because he was murdered. Like MPs being murdered is a gross disrespect to the very idea of democracy but i’m not shedding any tears for a man who treats me like a second class citizen because of my sexuality.

I think the issue is timing, decency and taste - one tends not to use a eulogy to call someone a scum bag.....................

 

[Logan Carroll]

I think the issue is timing, decency and taste - one tends not to use a eulogy to call someone a scum bag.....................

There’s a difference between respect and inteional sugar coating. I think it’s very disrespectful to LGBT people yo act like a man who views same sex relationships as meaningless as a selfless public servant.

 

[DarloRich]

There’s a difference between respect and inteional sugar coating. I think it’s very disrespectful to LGBT people yo act like a man who views same sex relationships as meaningless as a selfless public servant.

Like I said, an issue of timing, taste and decency.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There’s a difference between respect and inteional sugar coating. I think it’s very disrespectful to LGBT people yo act like a man who views same sex relationships as meaningless as a selfless public servant.

Aside from the issues of timing that @DarloRich mentions, you do know that it is actually possible to strongly disagree with a person on some issues, while at the same time respecting them as a decent human being and recognising that they have done their best to serve the public according to their own beliefs, don't you?

 

[Logan Carroll]

Aside from the issues of timing that @DarloRich mentions, you do know that it is actually possible to strongly disagree with a person on some issues, while at the same time respecting them as a decent human being and recognising that they have done their best to serve the public according to their own beliefs, don't you?

I don’t believe you can be a decent human being and not support marriage equality.

He’s either a bigot or a typical politician doing whatever to advance his career.