When a tragic event happens in the uk, are the victims’ families told what to say publicly?

[Watermelonsugar44]

After the recent tragic event in Southampton, and previous incidents in Nottingham, Southport etc. there seems to be a common “script” which the parents or families of the victims use when addressing the public.

This usually includes a sentence around not stoking community tensions etc.

Are they told to say this? It feels almost managed now…like there is a script or something. It is such a coincidence that this is always included.

Parents that don’t comply, eg those of Rhiannon White, do not seem to get much in the way of publicity or attention by the government, whereas those that do comply get more.

Listening to Henry’s dad’s powerful speech, which showed his anger at the 2 tier treatment of his son, and quest for answers, I’m pretty sure, although he would not want riots, he would appreciate the overwhelming support of most of the general public who have been shocked and appalled by his treatment.

It seems like the government would prefer just brushing horrific incidents like this under the carpet, despite the perpetrator being convicted and sent to jail, and resent the outcry of anger. Surely it is normal to feel anger at a situation which could easily have been avoided, which highlighted institutional racism and discrimination?

It feels like they tell the victims’ families what to say and then refer back to it frequently in order to hush everyone up?

Comments to the public tend to be scripted. It helps you practice and get through an awful statement without bawling your eyes out in front of a media scrum.

They would have an FLO to advice them
on how to navigate the media, especially when cases relating to an incident are still in progress.

They will be advised on what they can and cannot say within the law (calling for violence is illegal, for one) and so as to not jeopardize ongoing proceedings. They are advised on what to say, but that isn’t the same thing as being told what to say Ultimately though it is up to the family. And yes, they are prepared in advance.

You're a conspiracy theorist. You know that, right?

Not what OP is asking, but...I wish the police and others would stop saying 'Our thoughts and prayers are with the family at this difficult time'.

It's so insincere and formulaic as so be meaningless.

I wish they'd just say 'We send our deepest sympathy to the family of....' - much less tacky.

Thoughts and prayers. They trot it out every single time.

I find it so sad that you can't even imagine that 'please don't use my dead child to spread hate' is just genuinely a pretty common reaction.

It's a legitimate question (despite the pearl clutchers).
From what I know the family liaison officer does help draft something but it is very much what the family want.
Where the 'nudge' unit come in is how that is reported i.e what the headline is. This is from someone who worked in government comms.

I used to be a press officer in the criminal justice system and have met numerous families who have lost people to violent crimes.

They're not told what to say.

They might have a lawyer or press officer help them to word their statement to make it clear and articulate and legally sound, but they aren't told what to say. I've drafted the statements that get read out on court steps after convictions - it's still very much their choice what to say, and if they didn't want to mention stoking community tensions etc, that wouldn't be included.

The vast majority are decent people who genuinely don't want to see a rise in community tensions or vigilantism as a result of their family member's death.

Almost everyone I've met who has lost a family member in awful circumstances doesn't want their child's/parent's/sibling's/spouse's death to be the trigger for further violence, and are very upset if that happens.

That isn't anything to do with the statements made by the families, though. The statements made by the families aren't part of those campaigns.

I agree

Yes hence why I said he obviously wouldn’t want riots.

Calling for answers and enquiries does not equal calling for riots and it does not mean inactivity either.

That wasn’t the point, the question was asking if they were told what to say because it seems like a script.

Nice try, but no. The family really have asked for the far right NOT to hijack their son’s death to fuel race riots. There’s no way to twist it, I’m afraid. Just admit that chucking wheelie bins and terrifying innocent people is more important than the family’s wishes. We all knew that anyway.

People underestimate the thin veneer of civilisation.

Governments are at pains to prevent riots not because they want things swept under the carpet. But because once that veneer is broken it's like opening pandoras box- innocent people killed, property destroyed, looting, rape and general criminality.

This idea that it s a good thing or can be kept under control is either a lie told by those who profit from disorder, or very naive.

Well you've been told what the answer is.

Families will be offered support and guidance from their Family Liaison officer but they prepare what they want to say and the message and sentiments are their own.

Yes perception management via The Nudge Unit.

A government is always for the people.

Can you clarify for me what you think the institutional racism was and what you’re referring to when you say a “ situation which could be easily avoided “

No. They’re not. This boy’s family are just saying how they feel, and people need to respect that.

That wasn’t the point, the question was asking if they were told what to say because it seems like a script.

You keep repeating this 'script' narrative. If you are referring to some stupid conspiracy theory just say so.

No they're not but I get the feeling you won't accept that answer no matter how many times you are told.

Some common sense. Reading the replies I thought I’d fallen in some weird subreddit.

@TemperanceWest thank you. I covered it with an edit because I think certain people are creating more threads to create more dissension, and by trying to counter them with things like evidence and common sense, I'm just adding engagement. There was absolutely no reference in Adam Novak's speech to the "two-tier policing" the OP keeps determinedly shoehorning into every comment , none whatsoever, but it was stated with such confidence in order to make people that haven't actually listened to his speech believe that to be the case. And yes, I am very fucking tired.

For asking a question? Lol

?

I don t recall the wording of mark duggans family or Chris kaba, but I think is was as placatory and measured as much more recent statements.

Im suspicious but I dont necessarily think they are guided in what to say, I believe a lot of families feel obliged to overtly condemn riots, anger and so on, as the narrative from some if you dont is that you support it.

So e.g. the recent case I dont think id want to say publicly "please dont riot/incite hatred" etc as to be perfectly honest, I think i would absolutely want blazing anger directed at the police and the family of the murderer, and everyone making up the shittiest of feeble excuses for the police's behaviour that night (it was dark, they were confused, he had a dark top on etc) But I imagine if I didn't, that would get picked up on and used negatively. So I would say it, through gritted teeth, because thats the expectation now imo.