Could The Bbc Be Accused Of Allowing 'political Agendas' To Exploit Tragedy?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778888/Murdered-Alice-s-sister-slams-BBC-Just-let-grieve-says-Question-Time-panel-s-discussion-tragic-case.html

A legitimate question was asked whether convicted criminals should be allowed freedom of movement across EU borders.

Obviously this was asked because of the recent discovery of the body of murdered schoolgirl Alice Gross and regarding the prime suspect Arnis Zalkalns, a convicted killer from Latvia.

Should all discussion regarding this horrible murder be curtailed in case it upsets certain sensitivities?

[ToraToraTora]

No but they could wait a bit. They did the same thing after 9/11 after inviting a load of anti Americans into the audience. She is correct.

[woofgang]

Speaking personally I do think that such public discussion can and should wait. When I lost my husband to cancer, I found articles and programs about cancer painful in the extreme and I avoided them like the plague. I still cannot watch the the charitable appeals that say stupid things like "Cancer we are coming to get you" and "One day all cancers will be curable" They make me just about speechless with rage.
Official enquiries and so on can still carry on but I don't see any need for Question time to jump on the bandwagon.

[anotheoldgit]

What about the victims of these child abuses, should debating this subject also be frowned upon?

[woofgang]

I think general discussion, while painful, is acceptable. Tying it to single recent cases is not.

[anotheoldgit]

woofgang

that is how debating works a single or several happening occur, and this sets of debate.

[Apariah]

Pointless discussion whilst we still subscribe to Blairs HRA and EU mess and answer to foreigners.

It should be had but later.

[Peter Pedant]

// Should all discussion regarding this horrible murder be curtailed in case it upsets certain sensitivities?//

I dont understand the Anglos - they find all sorts of reasons to stifle legitimate debate including - "its too disgusting"

is that why we never hear of Syria nowadays ? - dead babies and all that - too too disgusting to transmit ?

[woofgang]

no PP I think general discussion and debate of any issue is reasonable. I think its different and not acceptable where its tied to one very recent case.

[Zeuhl]

Whilst we all should sympathise with the nearest and dearest of Alice Gross, it is hardly reasonable to expect everyone else to avoid discussing significant wider issues that such a case might prompt.

The media (such as Question Time) will always be examining issues that a number of people will find distressing because of their personal circumstances. That is life. I would hardly have expected Alice's family to have sat down for a cosy bit of Question Time viewing anyway in the circumstances.

As woofgang points out, individual tragedies affect people all the time, but the rest of the world goes on.

[Zacs-Master]

As TTT has said, it was insensitive timing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gromit]

Er, how are we supposed to have a topical debate if we are supposed to wait until recent events have faded from memory?

If someone is involved in a recent events then they are understandably sensitive, but shouldn't expect the general public to ignore it nor have an opinion on it.

[jackthehat]

Having a discussion about 'foreign' criminals and the ease with which they seem to enter the country, is one thing.

To specifically mention Alice Gross in the question title was insensitive in the extreme...

[Zeuhl]

/To specifically mention Alice Gross in the question title was insensitive in the extreme... /

as I recall, they didn't.

The question referred only to the issue of criminals crossing borders.

Dimbleby made the (obvious) connection to Alice Gross but only to make it clear that discussion should keep away from that specific case.

[Zeuhl]

just checked on line. the question was:

'does the panel think that freedom of movement across eu borders should include convicted criminals?'

[anotheoldgit]

For those who didn't watch the show, the question referring to convicted criminals and border controls takes place about 30 minutes into the show.

[agchristie]

What if there was no suspect and, say, in four weeks time it was featured on Crimewatch and directly resulted in an arrest and conviction?