Car Tragedy

[ronnybabes]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486029/Jasmine-Allsop-Olivia-Lewry-killed-hit-car-Gosport-H...

This is so so tragic, and my thoughts and condolences go to family and friends.

Why  though, were a 14, and 16 year old out so late, and making their way home alone from a "Party" at 4.00 am in the morning?

Or.. am I the only one thinking this?

[ronnybabes]

I thought we'd moved on about paper rounds, which really has no bearings on the circumstances of this tragic scenario.

If you keep reading the papers, then they have no incentive to change. If you then jump to moralizing on the basis of pure speculation in many cases, you are no better than the papers you read. 

Dear me. It was also on Radio News, TV, Google, and all sorts of  other media. All spouting the same story.

So to moralise to us, or me in such a high handed way, when people chat, and discuss topics of interest to them, or of topics that have moved them, is really very bad form.

Because, unless we actually  witness  the event, we rely solely on media coverage, be it TV, Radio, Search Engines, or Newspapers.

And.......When I see a news item, across the media, an opinion is formed.

Topical subjects debated on the RT are often accompanied by copy and pastings from media Sites. How else do we get our imformation?

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Don't think you'll find I have commented on the case

I'm sure that is what Lola implied.

You do comment on  a lot of topics, and make good sense might I add. I always consider your opinions and views seriously.

But... you have Posted on this  Thread,           and you have given the feeling  that you do not approve of discussing this topic.

Your approval, or disapproval is not needed.

If I don't want to discuss a topic on RT for whatever reason, I let the people who do, get on with it. 

---

[*.*..lola..*.*]

Can't see any relevant posts on the Hampshire Constabulary Facebook page ????

Creeky, your above response is almost as predictable as your complete inability to own up to your own inaccuracies LOL

On the plus side, I'm loving the way you use multiple question marks in most of your posts. They emphasise your comments perfectly without making you appear remotely hysterical...well done, you  

__________________________________________________________

Your approval, or disapproval is not needed. If I don't want to discuss a topic on RT for whatever reason, I let the people who do, get on with it.

Nicely put, Ronnie  

[upthecreekyetagain]

Can't see any relevant posts on the Hampshire Constabulary Facebook page ????

Creeky, your above response is almost as predictable as your complete inability to own up to your own inaccuracies LOL

Genuine response - I cannot see any relevant posts - where are they ????

[bankhaunter]

I thought we'd moved on about paper rounds, which really has no bearings on the circumstances of this tragic scenario.

It does have a bearing if the reason for a young person is out at 4.00am is considered to determine how safe they are rather than the mere fact they are there at that time.

[lost.parrot]

Who exactly is 'US'  ????

Turner was also discussed in a similar manner but you seemed to have a problem with that

It may be across different media, so was the Turner case. 

What I said was if you object to such coverage for someone you appear to support, yet indulge in the same with others newly deceased who you know nothing about on the basis of speculation, and continue to support the media which presents both, then you bear some responsibility for what appears in them

Isnt the DM presentation one of tragedy with an instant implied moral dimension, left dangling for some of its readers to pick up on?
The DM seem to have had access to one or more of the girls Facebook page, and from which it's likely they lifted the pictures of both girls, including the one with what appears to be some form of drink in hand.Was that the only picture availble or was it a preferred choice of the journalist involved? Dont you find it rather distasteful to say the least, that whilst family and friends are coping with raw tragedy, those involved in selling you their version of a story are likely rooting around both girls Facebook page for any salacious details and an 'appopriate ' picture to present a suitably packaged story to the armchair moralists

Is it so different from those who said some were quick to judge those celebs like Turner who they claimed were unfairly branded, by instant moralists? Its the same tabloids who run both stories.The tabloids not the police name and publish
Turner of course is alive and can afford legal action if needed.The two girls arent

[ronnybabes]

Who exactly is 'US'  ????

I did actually say, "us, or me". Us referring to RT'ers. (Couldn't you work that out?)

Turner was also discussed in a similar manner but you seemed to have a problem with that.

I had no problem with that debate, it was enlightening, but you obviously seem to have, and any way this is another  thread, if I had wished to continue commenting on the "Turner" subject I would havel returned to that thread.

Isnt the DM presentation one of tragedy with an instant implied moral dimension, left dangling for some of its readers to pick up on?

What is this obsession with the Daily Mail, that you seem to have? (I must read it sometime)

Why read it if you blatantly abhor it?

There are other ways of retrieving a balanced report. (hopefully)

TV, Internet, Radio, other Newspapers, and Chat Forums to name but a few. Try them?

PS: before you say it, I know you use a Chat Forum...  

[upthecreekyetagain]

There are other ways of retrieving a balanced report. (hopefully)

TV, Internet, Radio, other Newspapers, and Chat Forums to name but a few. Try them?

You are kidding! - aren't you?

[lost.parrot]

You did, but you have a tendency to refer to 'us' or 'the royal 'we' as though you were speaking for others. I was curious over who exactly you were speaking on behalf of. I take it that means just you then?

Regarding Turner, - didn't sound like that at the time, you appeared quite upset with the media coverage 

It was the paper you quoted from..simples

A 'balanced report' being instant speculation on someone just deceased would it?

It isn't sub judice or rather contempt of court;-  as far as I am aware no one yet has been charged even

The police may make requests of social media on the grounds of certain comments being prejudicial to ongoing investigations
I doubt armchair moralising would fall under that category though

I am not aware of any specific board ruling which would cover the matter directly, and im not aware any poster is issuing instructions as such, which would be beyond them. They may however express their opinions under the same genral terms about whether and why someone wanted to be morally dissecting newly deceased on the basis of speculation alone.Isnt that rather repugnant ? Wouldnt everyone want some degree of privacy to mourn if it were them, rather having media or any lone armchair pundit picking through what they thought was their life as soon as any tragedy broke?

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

There are other ways of retrieving a balanced report. (hopefully)

TV, Internet, Radio, other Newspapers, and Chat Forums to name but a few. Try them?

You are kidding! - aren't you?

---

I did cover myself by adding the word "hopefully", but I am not going to disagree with you on this issue.

    

[ronnybabes]

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

You did, but you have a tendency to refer to 'us' or 'the royal 'we' as though you were speaking for others. I was curious over who exactly you were speaking on behalf of. I take it that means just you then?

Regarding Turner, - didn't sound like that at the time, you appeared quite upset with the media coverage 

It was the paper you quoted from..simples

A 'balanced report' being instant speculation on someone just deceased would it?

It isn't sub judice or rather contempt of court;-  as far as I am aware no one yet has been charged even

The police may make requests of social media on the grounds of certain comments being prejudicial to ongoing investigations
I doubt armchair moralising would fall under that category though

I am not aware of any specific board ruling which would cover the matter directly, and im not aware any poster is issuing instructions as such, which would be beyond them. They may however express their opinions under the same genral terms about whether and why someone wanted to be morally dissecting newly deceased on the basis of speculation alone.Isnt that rather repugnant ? Wouldnt everyone want some degree of privacy to mourn if it were them, rather having media or any lone armchair pundit picking through what they thought was their life as soon as any tragedy broke?

              

[ronnybabes]

I doubt armchair moralising would fall under that category though

I am not aware of any specific board ruling which would cover the matter directly, and im not aware any poster is issuing instructions as such, which would be beyond them. They may however express their opinions under the same genral terms about whether and why someone wanted to be morally dissecting newly deceased on the basis of speculation alone.Isnt that rather repugnant ? Wouldnt everyone want some degree of privacy to mourn if it were them, rather having media or any lone armchair pundit picking through what they thought was their life as soon as any tragedy broke?

---

We all do moralise, and discuss, you do as much as me,  and about distasteful, distressing,tragic,and sad situations, as well as happy ones. It does not mean we,

sorry I mean I, do not feel compassion.

But it is the nature of a thread in a chat room, we have a view, and we air it, and debate it.

Sometimes we are swayed by differing points of view, other times we are not.

If an RT'er has a different opinion to me, which they usually have, because the ones who agree do not need to respond.......

Then surely that is a healthy welcoming exchange of views. 

[*.*..lola..*.*]

I doubt armchair moralising would fall under that category though

I agree - hilarious turn of phrase BTW  

Ronnie I love your 'chill pill' smiley LOL....snagged!

[lost.parrot]

Well you could have said the same about the Turner 'debate', but  hardly surprising, I don't recall the same stance.