undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrhizome13y ago0 comments

Are you implying that the police presence was demanded by the media so that they could have a better story, because there was "controversy?" I'm not sure that's a good justification for the use of public resources.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

pyre13y ago

On a more reasonable note, try:

- "The world is watching, so we better not let him get away."

- "If he uses the embassy to avoid charges in such a public manner, could set a 'dangerous' precedent."

- "The UK will have 'egg on its face' if they let him use this to get away."

- "We need to save face, the world is watching."

- "This guy is pissing me off. I normally wouldn't care too much, but he is flaunting his situation to the media, so I can't back down now."

- etc...

No one is saying that "The Media" specifically called for this sort of action. It's the "eyes of the world" that limit options. If this wasn't all over the news, it would be more likely that they might just let him go, but with the world watching "THEY ARE LETTING A CRIMINAL GET AWAY!!!" would be the next headline were they to let this slide.

citricsquid13y ago

I'm stating that with such a large amount of media and public present at the embassy police presence was required, due to the large crowds.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse