[RichardCoulter]

I forgot to mention that, whilst they cancelled​ a historical programme about a bridge, the BBC were happy to show a programme about Australian medical crews rescuing people who have had accidents!

If I had been personally affected by the terrorist attacks and were the sort of person to be affected by things shown on television afterwards, I know which programme I'd find more upsetting. In addition, I think that those who have had loved ones killed or maimed by these atrocities will be very unlikely to be watching (or even concerned about) what's being shown on television- their minds will be on other more important matters.

Sadly, these types of incidents don't look to be going away anytime soon. On the one hand the mantra is that we will carry on as normal and not let the terrorists win, yet we are highlighting the incidents and giving them publicity for weeks afterwards by doing things like disrupting the TV schedule and televising benefit concerts.

As a result of all this publicity, retail spending is down as people are afraid to go out and spend, which benefits nobody.

As these incidents are now happening with such regularity, perhaps the only time that they should be referred to is on the news, otherwise we are playing right into the hands of these terrorists?? Is there even a case for news blackouts to deprive them of the oxygen of publicity?? The problem with this is that I'm sure the news reports helped to evacuate the affected parts of London last weekend.

It's a difficult balancing act between carrying on as normal, whilst letting those who have been personally affected know that people care and that they have their support.