The barbarians are at the gate and what’s top o’ the news? Why, the tax shenanigans of a well-known bureaucrat, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36010902 the parental heritage of some bloke in a frock and a funny hat, and "Nasa is trying to resuscitate its planet-hunting ( 'Beam me up, Scotty') Kepler spacecraft" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...resuscitate-planet-hunting-kepler-spacecraft/ Here we are, So-called Islamic State (as the BBC still insists on calling it ), there couldn't be a better time to come and get us!
I don’t see how what’s in the headlines of a particular day has any impact on the ability of terrorists to attack us. If anything, the authorities are probably better able to protect us from such threats without the tabloids second-guessing them every five minutes and constantly throwing out the “something must be done!” rhetoric which forces politicians to make constant disruptive changes to policies and procedures.
You must remember for the panty wetters in curtain twitching land this is the single most important issue, there is a Muslim terrorist behind every lamp post. Imagine what this lot would of been like in the Blitz, our fathers must be spinning in their graves!
Try 'because it tells them how ill-prepared we are' because your precious 'authorities' in whom you seem to have a touching but misplaced faith are obsessing about trivia when they should be making contingency plans for the up-coming attacks on us. I expected something like this from you - negative and provocative.
There is literally zero connection between the measures and preparations the authorities are taking to protect the nation from terrorism and what is written in the media. It’s not as if they’re going to report all the details of the security measures anyway. When the media do report in this area, it’s generally alarmist panic, exactly the kind of response the terrorists want to generate. Ignoring them and getting on with the trivia of life is arguably the best response the mass media could give.
If this pathetic excuse for a 'government' can't handle a little local difficulty like Cameron's tax problems, I'm bloody sure they couldn't handle an outbreak of Islamist atrocities. Jesus you're so naïve I almost envy you!
The government has nothing to do with Cameron’s tax controversy, certainly no part of the government that has anything to do with national security. That’s a political (non) issue. You’ve still not established how the headline choices of the national media has anything to do with our capabilities to address the threats from terrorism.
I'm talking of the incompetent handling of it; if he'd stopped 'Downing street's knee-jerk rebuttal that 'It's a private matter.', and then explained the details as he subsequently and eventually did, none of the furore would have come about. I also believe he made an error of judgement in publicising his tax return. And as to political nous having the ability or not to counter terrorist attacks, they have form - they (*)(*)(*)(*) up everything they take a hand in, haven't you noticed? Or you can give me an example of why you have so much faith in a bunch of mediocre career politicians; I mean just take a look at the front bench and tell me how many statesmen there are?
My point was that those decisions were made by the PMs Office, not the government, and so shouldn’t be spun to reflect negatively on the latter. As for the furore, I suggest that whatever response he gave, the tabloid trash and people like you would be spinning it in to a negative regardless. The whole sequence of ever extending statements was manufactured by the media by submitting a series carefully worded questions to Downing Street in the first place. They could have got the full answer pretty much straight away but they wouldn’t make as much money and political capital out of it that way. No actually. Not government and not really politicians either. Government is involved in thousands of different issues and decisions every single day and the vast, vast majority pass without comment. As with everything, it’s only the big disasters that get any attention – even great successes generally pass with little comment. There are just more people with vested interests in promoting (or inventing) bad news. Only as much faith as I have in the mediocre voters who elected them. Luckily, politics isn’t anything like as significant in the actual day-to-day running of the country and the politicians or obsessive politicos like to imagine.
They raise awareness at the very least. Provoke people to be on the look out. Also they can help in man hunts by releasing pictures of wanted criminals at large. And then there is investigative journalism which can play a direct role. Lots of countries treat journalists as spies, especially those in a state of war. A good example might be Sky News a couple of weeks ago who made headlines by handing over the online records of 1,000 IS recruiters or some such to the security services. So the news not only has the ability to act as a intelligence gathers and information disseminators, they also have the ability to set the agenda. To persuade people which problems need to be addressed and which methods are best used to address them. The national media has significant influence on all area's of government policy. Terrorism is no exception.
I just can't be bothered to reply to this; you're either being argumentative for the sake of it or don't have the nous to perceive the number of failings in the public services, not the least of them being a dysfunctional police service, and the imminent meltdown of the NHS. And when they (broadcasters usually) say 'Downing street says - then follow it with an announcement, it's a ploy to make the spokesman anonymous so that Cameron can use it to retract or alter if necessary without his judgement being brought under the spotlight. I won't be replying to any more of your posts.
