The Times front page this morning

I saw it and wasn't squeamish about the picture, I think it gave a good impression of the extent of the carnage that was caused.

I was confused though as to why they chose to refer to Mummbai as Bombay? Is there an obvious reason for this or am I just being stupid?

Bombay is the former name of Mumbai - so I guess they elected to use both for those who know it more significantly by its previous name. A bit like St. Petersburg/Leningrad.

Sorry SLD I did know that but I just thought it strange for The Times not to call it by it's new (proper I guess) name. I wondered if perhaps there was a fued between the Tmes and India or something silly.

Ah right sorry, no I guess it's one of those things done for clarity that sometimes isn't all that clear at all!

I agree that the photograph was very hard-hitting; I would imagine that more time than 'average' would have been spent deciding whether or not to use such an explicit image but on balance I think it was appropriate. It certainly gave a very clear portrayal of the aftermath of the shootings.

But I'm also unsure why the chose to Bombay not Mumbai in the headline - if you tend to read Saturday's Times then there's a Feedback column which discusses readers' views on the writing and editorial decisions, I bet it will be discussed there this week.

I thought the case with Mumbai / Bombay wasn't as clearcut as other places and using one name as preference over another had political implications (as all these things do, but I thought there was something more behind it) I was wondering in light of the fact it was a terrorist attack, they chose the least controversial version. Or perhaps the Tuimes house style is just a bit colonial still.

I thought the picture very powerful indeed. The ordinaryness of the station, with the blood and left luggage & shoes. Shocking, but these things should be. I don't think it was unnecssary. We're too exposed to sanitised violence these days. Somethings need to be shown so people understand and don't just flick over to the weather forecast

I would have thought using Bombay would be more controversial as it's the anglicised/colonial name. I would say it's more appropriate to use the indigenous name, whatever the story. I wonder what their reasoning was? I've just looked at their website and they use Bombay there, too.

I thought the front page picture was excellent.