Bbc and grenfell coverage

Once again the bbc have done to death another news item, the first anniversary of the Grenfell disaster, why o why do they have to do this with every big story, in the end we turned of the bbc news but then it was all over the radio,grr.anyone else agree?

Once again the bbc have done to death another news item, the first anniversary of the Grenfell disaster, why o why do they have to do this with every big story, in the end we turned of the bbc news but then it was all over the radio,grr.anyone else agree?

Yes . I hate to say it but I got fed up of hearing the word Grenfell ,all day

Respectful touch from a tube driver.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2018/jun/14/tube-driver-halts-journey-and-waves-to-people-holding-grenfell-vigil-video

RIP

It's a grim irony that on the first anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, 2 other tower blocks in separate incidents have been ablaze in UK.

I think it's testament to the survivors of the tragedy that the broadcast media and some print media still devote time and space to the issues that it raised.

Not sure why, but some events like Grenfell, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Hillsborough disaster really capture the imagination of journalists - hence the coverage. Other events, possibly just as important, don't get the same attention. (Maybe someone could offer an explanation...?)

I don't begrudge the time and space given to the fire.

Once again the bbc have done to death another news item, the first anniversary of the Grenfell disaster, why o why do they have to do this with every big story, in the end we turned of the bbc news but then it was all over the radio,grr.anyone else agree?

Says it all.

It's a grim irony that on the first anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, 2 other tower blocks in separate incidents have been ablaze in UK.

 

I think it's testament to the survivors of the tragedy that the broadcast media and some print media still devote time and space to the issues that it raised.

 

 

Not sure why, but some events like Grenfell, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Hillsborough disaster really capture the imagination of journalists - hence the coverage. Other events, possibly just as important, don't get the same attention. (Maybe someone could offer an explanation...?)

 

I don't begrudge the time and space given to the fire.

What are the other events that are just as important that don’t get coverage?

Grenfell was an appalling tragedy. The news coverage has been dignified and proportionate. Anyone who is “fed up” of it needs to give their heads a wobble. The worst fire since WW2 is a shameful thing for 21st Century London.

If anything, the media needs to be more forensic in the next few days. People need to be prosecuted for their part in this. We need the media to be asking why this isn’t happening and not allowing the inquiry to kick the can down the road, as they often do.

Grenfell was an appalling tragedy. The news coverage has been dignified and proportionate. Anyone who is “fed up” of it needs to give their heads a wobble. The worst fire since WW2 is a shameful thing for 21st Century London.

 

If anything, the media needs to be more forensic in the next few days. People need to be prosecuted for their part in this. We need the media to be asking why this isn’t happening and not allowing the inquiry to kick the can down the road, as they often do.

The media won’t though. They’ll focus on people hugging firefighters and stuff like that.

Some of the people paying their respects were genuine but others jumped on the bandwagon . They were crying but no tears were running down their faces. I found the steel band the most touching

Grenfell was an appalling tragedy. The news coverage has been dignified and proportionate. Anyone who is “fed up” of it needs to give their heads a wobble. The worst fire since WW2 is a shameful thing for 21st Century London.

 

If anything, the media needs to be more forensic in the next few days. People need to be prosecuted for their part in this. We need the media to be asking why this isn’t happening and not allowing the inquiry to kick the can down the road, as they often do.

Completely disagree. That's the last thing we need. The media throwing out their opinion, speculation and stirring up the already excessive public "outrage"

You say people need be prosecuted as if its that easy. Have you actually thought for a second about that process. Firstly, prosecuted for what exactly? What criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt has this readilly identified individual(s) committed? What deliberate negligent actions and breaches of the law of this county at this time can be categorically proven on the balance of probabilities against readilly identifiable individual(s)?

Until an inquiry says otherwise people need to realise that sometimes things just happen. Things lay undiscovered until a tragic event brings them to light. Things once seen as perfectly acceptable standards suddenly on the spin of one incident become the exact opposite. Accepted ways and methods undertaken for generations suddenly are deemed unsafe and unreasonable.

A catastrophic chain of events can occur none of which is necessarilly the blame of a single entity.

It COULD be a tragic event with no single individual fault and until we are told otherwise by those with all the information and the correct objective status there is no place for high emotional, highly subjective reactions and media spin.

Facts are what's needed.

Completely disagree. That's the last thing we need. The media throwing out their opinion, speculation and stirring up the already excessive public "outrage"

 

You say people need be prosecuted as if its that easy. Have you actually thought for a second about that process. Firstly, prosecuted for what exactly? What criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt has this readilly identified individual(s) committed? What deliberate negligent actions and breaches of the law of this county at this time can be categorically proven on the balance of probabilities against readilly identifiable individual(s)?

 

Until an inquiry says otherwise people need to realise that sometimes things just happen. Things lay undiscovered until a tragic event brings them to light. Things once seen as perfectly acceptable standards are suddenly on the spin of one incident become the exact opposite. Accepted ways and methods undertaken for generations suddenly are deemed unsafe and unreasonable.

 

A catastrophic chain of events can occur none of which is necessarilly the blame of a single entity.

 

It COULD be a tragic event and until we are proven otherwise there is no place for high emotional, highly subjective reactions and media spin.

 

Facts are what's needed.

Absolutely not.

We need proper investigative journalism. We need people who made the decisions that led to this catastrophe being charged and tried. We need the establishment who think that it is ok to treat poor people in this way to find out that it is not.

What we really don’t need is a public enquiry that will take years, bury the facts and protect the guilty. We’ve already had far to many of them.

Incidentally, you seem to be afraid of the media doing their job. Maybe you could tell us why you are so afraid of a free press. That, or pop off to the World Cup to see what the alternative looks like.

Absolutely not.

 

We need proper investigative journalism. We need people who made the decisions that led to this catastrophe being charged and tried. We need the establishment who think that it is ok to treat poor people in this way to find out that it is not.

 

What we really don’t need is a public enquiry that will take years, bury the facts and protect the guilty. We’ve already had far to many of them.

 

Incidentally, you seem to be afraid of the media doing their job. Maybe you could tell us why you are so afraid of a free press. That, or pop off to the World Cup to see what the alternative looks like.

Charged for what exactly? Poor people in what way exactly? Nothing has been fully established yet.

They can do their invesigative journalism all they want. I have no problem with that, however, you seem to be under some delusion that they are a magic quick fix who will charge through the evidence double quick to capture the "villans" and bring them to book.

You have also gone all tin foil with some wild statement that all public inquires are just snail pace process ultimately there to establish some method of cover up.

You need to realise that any disaster such as this is not black and white. There are 1001 different things to consider. Blame is not something you just pluck out of thin air. The incident MAY or MAY NOT have been caused as a result of the hands of architects, construction companies, local authorities, central government, Health and Safety Executives, cladding manufacturers, product designers, product testers, landlords, tenants, illegal tenants, window manufacturers, door manufacturers, fire chiefs, police officers and even the firemen themselves.

Once they have done that, then what? It still needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt that any or all of those individual(s) or companies have actually broken the law.

Upsetting and appauling as the tragedy is, SOMETIMES there is no single blame. SOMETIMES it takes a tragedy itself to happen for the laws to be changed and society to think differently.

Its happened before and it will happen again. The cause of the Kings Cross disaster was a previous unknown phonomenen. The age of asbestos being the magic future building material which was pefect fireproofing until is horrendous health problems came to light. The use of lead in domestic substances such as paint were common until the nasty side effects were known. The miricle discovery that was CFC gases and the answer to so many problems, until the hole in the ozone layer happened. Some are still denying that..... the list goes on.

I am not afraid of the media at all. I am just trying to demonstrate to you that its not that simple as people screaming "get em all prosecuted" and "put em on trial". That is pure emotion which has no place when try to objectively establish facts.