If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
where are the call on motorists to limit their extremist elements....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
from this letter bomber under the assumption that is in fact a disgruntled motorist, when if it was suspected extremist muslim, he'd be referred to as a terroist on the news
0
Comments
or a fundamotorist. boom boom.
i'll get me coat.
despite the islamic terroists words, they has as mcuh chance as succeding in their goals as pigs flying past my house right now, the government at the moment is of bigger threat to my freedoms than any foreign grouping
unless a country is going to ICBM nuke us ofc
What makes you think that it isn't based on politics?
As for the OP, this would really be a good point to raise in the "How Journalism Works" thread because it's relevant IMHO. Different reporting for similar acts and to be it just underlines the inherent racism/hysteria over Muslims.
The Daily Mail, which is the self-proclaimed crusader for the 'oppresed motorist' has on many occasions printed sympathetic (and sometimes thinly-veiled supportive) articles about various groups of people who blow up, burn or otherwise destroy speed cameras.
That is one instance of destruction of public property and vandalism that you won't hear the upright, law-abiding Mail newspapers complain about.
Or alternatively that the media report things in different ways because they're different.
As a matter of interest who had heard of the letter bomb attacks earlier in the year to animal labs and a chap involved in security
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6339481.stm
are the media biased towards ALF?
Anyway there isn't one all encompassing media - even within the BBC radio 1 news is different from radio 4 which is different from Newsnight. And in turn they're all different from the Sun and Independent (who in turn aren't too similar to each other).
Depends what there goals are. Personally I think they have long and short term goals and the short term goals are eminently achievable - eg British troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
To a certain extent I'd agree that this adminsitration is one of the less interested in individual rights with home curfew, increased time before needing to be charged, child booster seats, foxhunting. ban etc,etc. However, that doesn't mean a terrorist threat doesn't exist and that steps don't have to be taken.
Because in the end either the Government acts against those who threaten the lives of their citizens or the citizens tend to take the law into their own hands. And the experience from death squads in El Salvador through vigilante gangs in San Paulo to the UFF in Northern Ireland suggests that the reality isn't pretty.
PS I think most of the terrorists are actually British.
Well, persecuting these nutters (whilst they are just as dangerous) wouldn]t furthur the urrent anti-Islamic agenda. So meh.