so, your first thought on reading the article was "That's hardly news"?
harsh
( minimum fuss - an all time favourite, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 13:58, archived)

Well it's not
I don't see why it deserves coverage. The father wasn't abusive, there was no failing by social services, etc. This is a private matter and should be treated as such.
( SuperMatt, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 13:58, archived)

Don't get me wrong, my sympathies go out to the family
but if we heard of every death like this...?
( SuperMatt, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 13:59, archived)

I don't disagree
but it wouldn't be my first reaction
( minimum fuss - an all time favourite, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 14:00, archived)

I never said it was my first reaction
but it wasn't very long before I thought that.
( SuperMatt, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 14:01, archived)

Oh DAMN that father not being abusive
I mean I was interested but then it turned out she had a happy life I was all 'what is this shit? Where's the beatings? Where's the years of abuse?' NONSENSE.
( Theoban What of it, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 14:03, archived)

The whole baby P thing should have got coverage
(but not as much as it did) because there was a public interest. A public service had failed in its duty, and as tax payers we need to know this.

But a telly being dropped by accident, it's just news for the sake of news.
( SuperMatt, Mon 29 Dec 2008, 14:05, archived)