Watching BBC News now. A white van has ploughed into people on London Bridge, shootings and stabbings at Borough Market.
It's still ongoing.
Perhaps next time someone posts a News thread the thread police will tell us if we can mention politics at all.
We should ask HQ for a Breaking News section distinct from politics pages.
At the moment there is A LOT of partisan comment expressed on every subject mentioned. Mine was absolutely NOT partisan, it was an expression of horror at the way party bickering and sarcasm toward other posters surfaced even before the bodies were cold. I did not specify any particular party influence.
My other point was that "News and politics" is two topics rolled into one. There are items which do NOT belong just under a cosy heading like "chat". They are definitely news and do not deserve to instantly become politics - some things will inevitably trigger political discussion but the families involved should be allowed a little space to grieve first.
Politics is not a dirty word and is inevitably to the fore during a general election campaign. That is fine. Terrorist acts such as this dreadful incident are inextricably linked with politics - either in the minds of the terrorists or of our legislators. I have no problem with that. Our sorrow and sympathy to the families involved are a given and not minimised by talking about how the parties might propose to deal with these threats to our peace and democracy.
Indeed it was whitewave.
Why do you all think you can change people's behaviour? Why do you think you have that right?
The only behaviour that could be changed is that of the organisation and they are not going to stop the Politics/News thread - it is not in their interest and all organisations work in their own interest.
perhaps posters could have the sense to realise that NEWS and politics also includes news which is not narrowly party political?
What a thoughtless comment when we are in the middle of an election where many things become political - certainly this attack as it was totally political - it was an attack on our democracy and our way of life. Please tell me why we should not discuss that and discuss what the parties are saying about it during an election.
The only thing I can think of that would give you what you are appear to want is a "Books of Condolence" topic heading where a tread can be started for all or any deaths. However, I think that GN would have to put some comments at the beginning to say how it should be used. It seems to me that the only political comments some complain about are those they do not agree with. If one political comment where to be put in the 'book' you would start a discussion which, it appears, is not what you want.
May, not those who have commented on here, was the first to comment. If you believe that contrary arguments should not be put during an election you too are ready to suppress our democracy.
Hear hear! Luckygirl
If anyone is about to take personal offence about something that is not directed at their personal post - I will tell you if it is - the above is a general post.
May received much criticism for immediately using a terrorist attack for a party political broadcast. The same applies to anyone else.
The key word is "immediate".
Democracy gives me freedom to deplore bandwagon-jumping.
I am thinking that she has probably done herself a disservice by her blatant electioneering in spite of the the agreement. It is a mark of her desperation.
So do you think a 'Books of Condolence" heading would give you what you want Elegran - no political comments, including yours.
Interesting post Jen. More and more of those on the ground - those we send in to deal with this - are commenting on the cuts that have been made.
Second post Steve Hilton's comments quite stunning Jen.
Theresa May responsible for security failures of London Bridge, Manchester, Westminster Bridge. Should be resigning not seeking re-election
Dear Gracegran2. In case you haven't noticed, I have not MADE any "political" (i.e. party political) comments at all. I have commented on the prevalence of inter-party warfare breaking out within a few hours of a terrorist attack by fanatics.
I am sure that ISIS will be rubbing their hands with glee at the sight of it. Just what they are aiming for. Disruption, disharmony, division. THEY don't care who is elected.
I look forward to the morning of the 9th June, whoever is elected, whoever is PM. They can then get on with it and implement whatever measures they have cobbled together. Whoever they are. A plague on both your houses.
John Pilger wrote a very informative and intelligent piece showing how the British Government is in league with the Saudis and are suppressing information relating to the Saudis and their support of terrorism.
It's my belief [and I could be wrong] that one of the main things that brought about peace in Ireland [and please, please don't let brexit ruin destroy that peace] was when support from America dried up [thanks to Clinton and Blair working together]. So it's vital to the peace process that we stop support from Saudi Arabia. We must not be so desperate for trade deals that we allow this to happen.
tegan that makes a lot of sense. I see Corbyn intends to do just that if elected.
Sorry not to have read all posts on this thread, this may have been commented on already: I feel that the wall-to-wall publicity/comments/news etc. about recnt events is playing into the hands of IS (or whoever); I know in the past that comment has been made about e.g. school shootings in the US, that it 'glorifies' the killers and encourages copycats. Is that not true about these events also? Obviously we should be told what is happening, but surely not days of wall-to-wall coverage? Isn't that to an extent playing into IS's handds?
I'm not saying, by the way, that Americans wanted people to die, but that the misguided support was due to a nostalgic love of the homeland that they or their families had left.
I think politics affects most of life and it is unrealistic not to relate it to every day events let alone major ones. Surely it is a sign of a healthy democracy that we can debate, sometimes heatedly, on here without fear of censure (mostly!) or retribution?
tegan love of homeland is not what is driving the Saudis though.
No; I don't know what is behind it. What I mean is that it's important that financial support dries up for terrorist organisations, along with lots of other measures that stop radicalisation before it happens not just attempts to thwart it when it already has [although that is vitally important also].
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
