I think the "rent a van and bring your own knife" type of random killing spree is a reflection of the success of MI5, GCHQ and the Police in disrupting most of the more complex plots - Manchester being the exception, obviously.
The media have a part to play in this, when reporting events terrorists shouldn't be given names or photo space,when covering hate preachers mute their words.
More generally, I think that the extent of coverage has changed since the days of the IRA's bombing "campaigns". If I recall correctly, there was a view - famously expressed by Mrs Thatcher - that terrorists should not be given "the oxygen of publicity". http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106096 In this, as in her espousal of the European Single Market, she was, I believe, correct. A whole lot less gratuitous coverage - grief porn, I am tempted to call it - of the distress of survivors and relatives - would be good. I am not being unsympathetic, I feel that families who have lost someone don't really want the TV cameras and those who persuade the killers into committing their atrocities are encouraged to "have another go".
I have felt this way for a very long time be it terrorism or accidents or natural disasters, I feel the media is excessively intrusive at these times.
With twenty-four hour rolling news channels, how else are you going to fill the time? Some rather illiberal comments coming from those identifying as progressive and/or liberal!
You seems rather confused about what it means to be a liberal. "Liberal" is not the same thing at all as "Libertarian". The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
so was state sponsored murder by the british government and a shoot to kill policy on the island of Ireland ' and off course all you Brits on this site go Around wearing rose tinted spectacles cant seem to see the wrong or will ever admit the Atrocities that your own monarchy and government has done around the world which has more blood on its hands , that's why the uk is paying the price with stereotyping of communities in the uk which results in the hatred seen in many young muslims born in the uk' i while it also has double standards in selling Arms to the Saudi's to kill people in yemen' but off course the typical brainwashed general white Caucasian british voter would never own up to the wrongdoings of its own .
A football fan reportedly yelled “F**k you, I’m Millwall” as he single-handedly took on the three knife-wielding London terror attackers armed with nothing more than his fists. Roy Larner has already been hailed a hero, with a petition launched for him to be awarded the George Cross medal for his actions in the Black and Blue steakhouse on Saturday night. No one likes us!! They do now mate...Your a hero! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html
Remember Charlie Hebdo - the controversial French satirical magazine attacked by Al Qaida terrorists a couple of years ago? In a display of remarkably poor taste, their latest issue, which is published today, includes a cartoon of drinkers fleeing from a London pub: Slimming advice from ISIS: run fast!
Muslim reaction to the terrorist attacks in London and Manchester is, perhaps, typified by the behaviour of the Saudi World Cup soccer team who were playing against Australia in a qualifying match last night. Its players refused to take part in a pre-match one minute silence for the victims of the London attack claiming it's not in their culture. Whilst the Aussies lined-up on the centre line and stood in silence, the Saudis took up their places for the kick off.. As far as they are concerned, what took place in the name of their prophet is neither a crime nor a sin and not worthy of commemoration.
Doubtless an act of self-preservation - orders from on high and all that. I look forward to your beloved Theresa criticising the House of Saud for funding Salafism - and stop selling them arms. Might be a long wait.
I am of two minds wether to buy it..... Disassociating publically to soften backlash...?? But in secret root for the "martyrs"...?? Sorry folks, but to me this looks like window dressing for the gullible.
A well known approach used by drug dealers too. Seems to be anyone who does not want to be tracked for the no good that they get up to.
I never turn on location on my phone - save the rare occasion when I use Sat Nav function. I do this not necessarily to hide my movements from commercial interests but, rather, to lengthen battery life and to save a little bit of data allowance.
