Is there any suggestion that the bombers and their victims dies from different causes?
More manufactured outrage from the press, not to mention cynical manipulation and exploitation of the bereaved and disabled. Well done her majesty’s press!
And if the bombers had had seperate inquests, then the mail would be screaming that it was a “waste of money,” and they were being given “special treatment. “
Oddly, the BBC reported yesterday: “A further three-day hearing, scheduled to begin on 26 April, will decide if full inquests are needed and what their remit should be. The coroner will then rule whether to split the inquests into the victims’ deaths and those of the bombers.”
Just as oddly the BBC (and every other news organisation) reported back in November 2009 that the families were indeed informed by Lady Justice Hallet that a joint inquest would be held.
So presumably the Guardian, BBC etc were also indulging in ‘hateful shit stirring’ and ‘cynical manipulation and exploitation’ when they reported the families’ (of the victims) reactions. The Mail has used that outrage to wrap round yesterday’s joint pre-inquest hearing.
Oh and if you actually read the Mail story you will notice it accurately reports the 26 April hearing.
And er.. the BBC story also seems to suggest that the families are more than a wee bit unhappy about the proceedings. But then they have been waiting almost five years for an inquest.
So just maybe we could a little bit of our outrage for the disgraceful way these families have been treated.
Karlo – I’m still failing to see the scandal which the Mail is so outraged about, they’re not exactly saying ‘those bombers were OK really weren’t they’.
It is shit stirring of the highest order. Part of the concerted attempt to try and create racial hatred in communities.
The actual story is that this is a “pre-inquest”, and a judge will later on in the year decide whether the actual inquests will be seperate or not.
The issue is that small things like this will more than likely upset people who have lost loved ones, no matter how sensible, and sincere the moves actually are.
When you have tabloid papers doing their best to twist the information in mock outrage, it is shit stirring.
Like it or not. This story probably only makes the Mail’s front page as the bombers happen to be Muslim.
Well given that one of the ‘apparent’ bombers was under surveillance and had known terrorist links it might be nice to have a full public inquiry into what MI5 knew and whether the carnage could have been avoided. After all if the attack warrants a public memorial surely it deserves a public inquiry.
But actually it isn’t the Mail which is outraged so much as the families. The Mail (and the other news media) are merely reporting the anger and anguish of survivors and families of those who died. The outrage -and i’m sure you know this really – is directed at the official arrogance and incompetence that the families have had to deal with. Um.. and just because it’s in the Daily Mail doesn’t mean it isn’t true (contrary to popular – on this website anyway – belief).
I’m no legal type, but I never quite understood the motive for all these inquests.
I imagined they were to determine the cause of death, and these’s not much doubt in this case,
the mail often starts its articles along the lines of “there was outrage today as such-and-such a thing happened,” making it sound as if it was a mass outrage, but then after a few paragraphs saying something like “there was 1 complaint.”
today it had quotes from 2 families who said they were outraged. maybe that really is representative of how all the families at the inquest felt, maybe it’s not, it can be hard to tell sometimes because of the mail’s (and, to be fair, much of the media’s) track record for taking 1 or 2 complaints and making it sound like there’s been some sort of mass outrage.
Nickpheas – it may seem sensible to you but a lot of us grown-ups regard it it as crassly insensitive to the feelings of the survivors and families of those who were murdered.
Now if we want a really sensible idea – how about a full public inquiry into the single deadliest terrorist attack in England.
Karlo – of course it doesn’t. How could it?
This place is obviously littered with so much bullshit as to make its original aims redundant – which you so rightly point out.
Is there any suggestion that the bombers and their victims dies from different causes?
More manufactured outrage from the press, not to mention cynical manipulation and exploitation of the bereaved and disabled. Well done her majesty’s press!
And if the bombers had had seperate inquests, then the mail would be screaming that it was a “waste of money,” and they were being given “special treatment. “
Congratulations to the Mail on it’s hateful shit stirring.
Oddly, the BBC reported yesterday: “A further three-day hearing, scheduled to begin on 26 April, will decide if full inquests are needed and what their remit should be. The coroner will then rule whether to split the inquests into the victims’ deaths and those of the bombers.”
Just as oddly the BBC (and every other news organisation) reported back in November 2009 that the families were indeed informed by Lady Justice Hallet that a joint inquest would be held.
So presumably the Guardian, BBC etc were also indulging in ‘hateful shit stirring’ and ‘cynical manipulation and exploitation’ when they reported the families’ (of the victims) reactions. The Mail has used that outrage to wrap round yesterday’s joint pre-inquest hearing.
Oh and if you actually read the Mail story you will notice it accurately reports the 26 April hearing.
And er.. the BBC story also seems to suggest that the families are more than a wee bit unhappy about the proceedings. But then they have been waiting almost five years for an inquest.
So just maybe we could a little bit of our outrage for the disgraceful way these families have been treated.
Karlo – I’m still failing to see the scandal which the Mail is so outraged about, they’re not exactly saying ‘those bombers were OK really weren’t they’.
Karlo
It is shit stirring of the highest order. Part of the concerted attempt to try and create racial hatred in communities.
The actual story is that this is a “pre-inquest”, and a judge will later on in the year decide whether the actual inquests will be seperate or not.
The issue is that small things like this will more than likely upset people who have lost loved ones, no matter how sensible, and sincere the moves actually are.
When you have tabloid papers doing their best to twist the information in mock outrage, it is shit stirring.
Like it or not. This story probably only makes the Mail’s front page as the bombers happen to be Muslim.
er Charlie..
Well given that one of the ‘apparent’ bombers was under surveillance and had known terrorist links it might be nice to have a full public inquiry into what MI5 knew and whether the carnage could have been avoided. After all if the attack warrants a public memorial surely it deserves a public inquiry.
But actually it isn’t the Mail which is outraged so much as the families. The Mail (and the other news media) are merely reporting the anger and anguish of survivors and families of those who died. The outrage -and i’m sure you know this really – is directed at the official arrogance and incompetence that the families have had to deal with. Um.. and just because it’s in the Daily Mail doesn’t mean it isn’t true (contrary to popular – on this website anyway – belief).
‘Um.. and just because it’s in the Daily Mail doesn’t mean it isn’t true’
No, but it carries a strong possibility of being bullshit.
a bit like many of the comments on Mailwatch then
I’m no legal type, but I never quite understood the motive for all these inquests.
I imagined they were to determine the cause of death, and these’s not much doubt in this case,
Ah Monopoly……the true face of over expansion and lust of captalism.
Well not the face more the symbol really
the mail often starts its articles along the lines of “there was outrage today as such-and-such a thing happened,” making it sound as if it was a mass outrage, but then after a few paragraphs saying something like “there was 1 complaint.”
today it had quotes from 2 families who said they were outraged. maybe that really is representative of how all the families at the inquest felt, maybe it’s not, it can be hard to tell sometimes because of the mail’s (and, to be fair, much of the media’s) track record for taking 1 or 2 complaints and making it sound like there’s been some sort of mass outrage.
Karlo, when you don’t appear here does that mean that the comments are correct then? Because you don’t turn up often.
Seems entirely sensible to me. How are they supposed to explain how people died without mentioning the bombers?
Or is there some rule on inquests that means all people must get the same verdict?
JSwindle
No I don’t and no it doesn’t.
Nickpheas – it may seem sensible to you but a lot of us grown-ups regard it it as crassly insensitive to the feelings of the survivors and families of those who were murdered.
Now if we want a really sensible idea – how about a full public inquiry into the single deadliest terrorist attack in England.
Karlo
The only interest in this news story for the Mail Editors is probably the fact that the bombers were Muslim extremists.
The outrage is their own. Outrage at “broken britain” and the effects of letting too many muslims into the country.
Sorry, I agree with the general sentiment, but continually higlighting mock “outrage” at something pretty straightforward is pretty tiresome
Karlo – of course it doesn’t. How could it?
This place is obviously littered with so much bullshit as to make its original aims redundant – which you so rightly point out.
The Daily Mail, however…