Laura Kuenssberg

I've never had any problems understanding her. Do you have a problem with Scots, Izabella?

Course ......

Can't understand a word she says and she is impossible to lip read too. Not that she can help her oral impediments of cours.

Well, it was only a matter of time before the media turned its focus onto blaming the security services for failing to have a 24/7 tail on every one of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people who have ever appeared, however briefly, on their radar.

If this somehow translates into fewer budget cuts and less pressure on the poor sods on the front line, it could be a good thing.

I believe she's been jeered at by the hard left rabble so that alone is enough to make me sympathetic towards her. She's clearly super bright and as others have said she does her job well we don't want fluffy headed reporting on the news she's not Holly Willoughby. Thank God!

Laura K is a very bright and astute young woman who is very well respected in journalistic and other circles. Let her do her job.

I like her. As for her saying that security forces 'missed' Masood, that's all over the front covers of most of today's papers. It does seem that some would prefer a rather bland way of reporting news.

She is a woman in a male dominated world, women must sit at news desks , read their scripts and dress smartly . Laura K doesn't , she reports facts , she reported the attack on Westminster as it happened, suppose she was expected to weep a little tear, have a croak in her voice and say - I think our policemen are wonderful whilst fluttering her eyelashes .

If Laura K thinks the security around Parliament is inadequate, why shouldn't she say so in terms as "aggressive"* as she likes?

*Remember when "aggressive" was used as an insult to women who stood up for themselves? I prefer incisive or sharp as those indicate a good brain that likes to get to the bottom of the matter, to the truth.

Nothing and nobody is beyond criticism. Not all criticism is bad. Some of it is useful and constructive. I am sure that security around the Palace of Westminster will be gone through with a fine tooth comb after Wednesday's events. And a good thing too if prevents a repeat of that outrage.

Some here are putting their spin on it, she reported what happened .

Of course she is a professional, that is the way she got the job, and of course she reports the facts, it is the way that she reports them. She is I think becoming more aggressive in her manner, which I find unappealing, so she loses my interest.

Whilst she may not be the most likeable of journalists in her manner( who is???), she did her job by reporting the truth. Worrying if we pillory a reporter for telling the truth. It was a statement of fact.
On the whole, even from the French perspective here where I currently am, there has been nothing but praise and admiration for the police, and surprise that those guarding Parliament are not be armed.

Laura Kuenssberg is a thorough professional. If you don't like the facts that she reports then seek your preferred version of the news elsewhere...there are plenty to choose from.

Kuenssberg was in the HoC when it all happened. At first, nobody knew what was going on and she tweeted factual information as it became clearer. It could have been much worse, but nobody knew at the time that there was only one assailant. For a journalist, it was a coup.

I didn't interpret her reporting that it was Fallon's bodyguard who had shot the murderer as a criticism of the police and security forces, but as a fact.

I agree with you Iam64. I suspect more police will be routinely armed, but I guess that's going to be something the new Met Commissioner decides.

Kuenssberg is, as daphnedill says, a professional journalist. She reported the facts as they happened and I didn't interpret what she said as criticising the police or security services. The assailant was shot by an armed personal body guard, thankfully before he could maim or murder anyone else. The key issue has to be consideration to more armed police, or even the routine carrying of arms by all our police personnel. I'd rather that didn't happen but I can see its something that will have to be reviewed and re considered.

Don't listen to her then. Simples!

I can`t stand listening to the woman either . It is not just that she puts her own `spin` on everything it is also her whiny, nasally voice .

Chewbacca

You made that inference. Kuenssberg stated facts.

Kuenssberg is a professional journalist. She stated facts. I'm fed up with the kind of journalism which gives the public the kind of narrative people want to hear.

Kuenssberg makes direct reference to the fact that intelligence sources "missed" Masood and that he "slipped through" surveillance and then immediately refers to him being stopped, not by parliamentary routine police, but by a personal body guard. The inference being that the events of yesterday were not the results of a seriously twisted and evil man but due to the inadequacies and failures of security forces. I wasn't there but I'm pretty certain that those who were, did their absolute best to do their jobs fully. Lessons for the future will, no doubt be learned, but only person is actually responsible for what happened. And that's khalid masood .

Eh?

What did she which was trying to lay blame ?

Yes Jalima she's more of a Paxman type journalist. She doesn't have sufficient empathy to report on events such as yesterday's; her style and delivery is too combatative. Heaven knows what those who were actually caught up in yesterday's events must think, especially the policeman's family, knowing that he lost his life and Kuenssberg is alluding to the fact that the police force somehow "failed". How crass.

She doesn't just report the facts though, she was trying to lay blame with the security services.

Surely her remit is to report the facts? 'News at 10' should give us a clue.
Put her on Newsnight, more her type of programme.

I am not sure what point you are making tigger ?

I did not see her report so I may well agree with you but in what way do you consider it divisive? Who did you feel she was trying to divide. Most reports, BBC included, I have seen, have been v supportive of the Met and very respectful in their reporting of the death of the police officer.
The facts are that a non-uniformed, armed security officer did fire the shots that killed the murderer and the car was driven into the fence at Westminster. Is it the reporting of those facts you object to or did she embellish the facts in a way you did not agree with or did she gave an opinion that you disagreed with?