Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

17
  • 1
    @FD_bfa I think it would be fair to distinguish between viewers from people who were actually involved and in danger. "I feared for my life" is far different from "I was horrified by what I saw" Commented May 14, 2025 at 20:26
  • 1
    @WeatherVane Watching news is a choice, and it's unlikely you don't know what you're getting yourself into. Lots of news shows even warn when they're about to show sensitive footage. Commented May 14, 2025 at 20:28
  • 1
    @Barmar My point about the facts is that I don’t know how many people in the crowd were actually at risk. For example, someone who witnessed the incident from the other side of the crowd may have been at no risk at all (depending on the weapon). They would be a secondary victim and subject to the Alcock test. On the other hand, a primary victim, at risk of being injured by the gunshots, doesn’t need a close relationship to any victims. Commented May 15, 2025 at 0:32
  • 2
    @TobySpeight That's a good point. I focused my answer more on the issues that the OP was alluding to (ie issues relating to remoteness + pure psychiatric harm), but for completeness I will update my answer when I get a chance Commented May 15, 2025 at 6:58
  • 2
    @MichaelHall ...and it was also a stab at a litigation culture that thinks if anything bad happens to you, it must be somebody else's fault :) Whilst that isn't the case in UK, there is an increasing demand for 'compensation'. Commented May 15, 2025 at 18:23