I'm not sure I see the logic in showing shocking details of a mass murder making somebody more likely to report an individual they suspect of terrorism.

Even ignoring the above logic, does the effect of pummeling the public (including children who will see this stuff on facebook/twitter etc.) with gory details and images of mass murder not need to be taken into account? There is always more we can do to stop this kind of thing, but it has to be weighed up against the wellbeing of victims, family and the wider public.

More so, the above explanation is not why papers churn out this stuff. It's for a few extra quid. Was reading about the outright harassment an individual and his family received whilst his brother was missing following a recent terror attack, all to get a bit more detail to sell a few papers. How these people sleep at night I will never know.

In order to take the mudslinging away from the Manchester thread I feel we should use this one to talk about the ins ad outs of what's happening regarding the heightened threat on here.

What do people make of the NY Times publishing pictures of the aftermath of Monday, particularly the picture of the detonator. Does it compromise the investigation?

In a word yes.
As now it has been proved there was/a rather large terrorist cell in and around Manchester.
But let's not worry,,because we are told time and time again that its a tiny minority.
Well considering thst the security services are watching at least 3000 people,and have foiled I think 9 plots in the last 3 years..yeah 3000 nah nothing.

Doesn't help that austerity has meant loads of frontline and back office staff have been cut

Doesn't help that austerity has meant loads of frontline and back office staff have been cut

I'm not sure I see the logic in showing shocking details of a mass murder making somebody more likely to report an individual they suspect of terrorism.

Even ignoring the above logic, does the effect of pummeling the public (including children who will see this stuff on facebook/twitter etc.) with gory details and images of mass murder not need to be taken into account? There is always more we can do to stop this kind of thing, but it has to be weighed up against the wellbeing of victims, family and the wider public.

More so, the above explanation is not why papers churn out this stuff. It's for a few extra quid. Was reading about the outright harassment an individual and his family received whilst his brother was missing following a recent terror attack, all to get a bit more detail to sell a few papers. How these people sleep at night I will never know.