[ SECRET POST #2567 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2567 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Tumblr and/or social justice in and of themselves aren't fandoms, unfortunately.

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #367.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Mark Duggan

[ill_omened]

This is one of probably a dozen pieces by the Guardian, a normally respectable paper with the exact same argument, let alone the wider media landscape.

V53 was a trident officer, and there is almost zero percent chance he wasn't aware of the intelligence of Duggan - and the fact that it is very likely he has tried to kill people before will absolutley play into your risk assessment when you know he had a firearm.

I don't expect his family to ever admit it was justified, I merely expect that peoples who's job it is to keep the public informed shouldn't indulge them.

Re: Mark Duggan

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Except indulging them is more likely to"sell more papers" metaphorically.

Re: Mark Duggan

[(Anonymous)]

It's an opinion piece in Comment Is Free. It's not the Guardian reporting on news to inform the public, it's the Guardian getting one person in to say their specific stance on an issue. Maybe the Guardian's news coverage is equally bad! I don't know. But I don't think it's in itself illegitimate to have an opinion piece on CiF laying out this view, if it's one that people have, and if it's supplemented by a wider angle in the actual news coverage.

I mean, the Guardian is kind of an awful paper from a journalistic perspective at this point, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did screw things up. But I don't think this specific opinion piece on its own is evidence of that.