So, let me get this straight.

The security services issue a statement about 4 suspected bombers who
are about to blow us all up as a follow-on from 7/7.

The BBC as a lap dog to the establishment go with everything that is
issued by the government (or they will lose their licence).

Now, we learn that all four of the bombers have been captured.

Oh, right. How convenient. Lets all celebrate to the altar of the
Blairs and their Rolled-Up Trouser Legs.

So everything is alright now, and we can carry on killing Iraqis even
though they had no WMDs?


Do they really thing this will all go away?

crazy_horse_12002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> So, let me get this straight.
>
> The security services issue a statement about 4 suspected bombers who
> are about to blow us all up as a follow-on from 7/7.
>
> The BBC as a lap dog to the establishment go with everything that is
> issued by the government (or they will lose their licence).
>
> Now, we learn that all four of the bombers have been captured.
>
> Oh, right. How convenient. Lets all celebrate to the altar of the
> Blairs and their Rolled-Up Trouser Legs.
>
> So everything is alright now, and we can carry on killing Iraqis even
> though they had no WMDs?
>
>
> Do they really thing this will all go away?


Is it really possible that one person could be so stupid?

wrote in message 
news:1122660694.540704.45260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> So, let me get this straight.
>
> The security services issue a statement about 4 suspected bombers who
> are about to blow us all up as a follow-on from 7/7.
>
> The BBC as a lap dog to the establishment go with everything that is
> issued by the government (or they will lose their licence).
>
> Now, we learn that all four of the bombers have been captured.
>
> Oh, right. How convenient. Lets all celebrate to the altar of the
> Blairs and their Rolled-Up Trouser Legs.
>
> So everything is alright now, and we can carry on killing Iraqis even
> though they had no WMDs?
>
>
> Do they really thing this will all go away?
>


How is this on topic for uk.railway?  Troll.

On 29 Jul 2005 11:11:34 -0700, crazy_horse_12002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


>The BBC as a lap dog to the establishment go with everything that is
>issued by the government (or they will lose their licence).


No, as has been shown in the past, they do not and will not.  I must
admit I didn't like the Director-General-related politicking one
little bit, but the BBC opposed the Government in that instance and
still exist more or less as they did, and continue with what I
consider to be the most balanced news reporting you're likely to get
hold of in this country.


>Do they really thing this will all go away?


Much as I doubt their competence at various things, I don't think for
a minute that they are *that* stupid.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

crazy_horse_12002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


> The BBC as a lap dog to the establishment go with everything that is
> issued by the government (or they will lose their licence).


That whole Hutton thing passed you by didn't it?

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:27:23 GMT someone who may be Stuart
 wrote this:-


>That whole Hutton thing passed you by didn't it?


Since then the BBC seem to be rather more keen to follow the
official line.

An example of this is the way they kept on with the power surge
story long after it appeared most unlikely.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Troll eh? Stupid eh? And as 3 bombs exploded on the underground, that
is enough of a railway link for me.

Surely, you only mean that I disagree with your points of view.

If so, dont ever read this newspaper article:-

*** Eye witness testimony indicates that at least one of the trains on
7/7 was destroyed by a device placed underneath the train, either on
the tracks or attached to the carriage. This evidence is not consistent
with the official version of events involving "suicide bombers" which
the mass media has universally accepted and failed to question despite
serious inconsistencies and unanswered questions. ***

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The
metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They
seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody
being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.


SOURCE

Cambridge Evening News, "I was in tube bomb carriage - and survived",
11 July 2005.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:topme11v4fgal7a614u11sv7nh27bl4cjo@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:27:23 GMT someone who may be Stuart
>  wrote this:-
>
> >That whole Hutton thing passed you by didn't it?
>
> Since then the BBC seem to be rather more keen to follow the
> official line.
>
> An example of this is the way they kept on with the power surge
> story long after it appeared most unlikely.
>
>
> -- 
>  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
>  I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
>  prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:topme11v4fgal7a614u11sv7nh27bl4cjo@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:27:23 GMT someone who may be Stuart
>  wrote this:-
>
> >That whole Hutton thing passed you by didn't it?
>
> Since then the BBC seem to be rather more keen to follow the
> official line.
>
> An example of this is the way they kept on with the power surge
> story long after it appeared most unlikely.
>
>
> -- 
>  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
>  I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
>  prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.



Hmmm. A touch of paranoia in this post and silly words after your name.
Maybe Rupe's Sky News would be more acceptable as a source of unbiased
factual reporting?

David Hansen wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:27:23 GMT someone who may be Stuart
>  wrote this:-
> 
> 
>>That whole Hutton thing passed you by didn't it?
> 
> 
> Since then the BBC seem to be rather more keen to follow the
> official line.
> 
> An example of this is the way they kept on with the power surge
> story long after it appeared most unlikely.


Because at the time that was the only explanation.

Sky and others might have mentioned bombs first.... but they work to the 
mantra 'Never wrong for long' - they'll report anything that pops up on 
the newswires and other sources and then if it's wrong they'll then stop 
reporting it. It happened a lot on 7/7 did the BBC report the suicide 
bomber being shot at Canary Wharf for example?

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:07:13 GMT someone who may be Stuart
 wrote this:-


>> An example of this is the way they kept on with the power surge
>> story long after it appeared most unlikely.
>
>Because at the time that was the only explanation.


It was the only official explanation for a while. However, for
several hours I heard it being reported after bomb stories were also
being reported.

I'm all in favour of the BBC not rushing into things like some other
organisations. However, this is a relative rather than absolute
criteria. Never forget that Andrew Gilligan's story was correct and
his "crime" was to get a few words wrong on the first broadcast.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Well now here's a surprise:-

*** On FOX News Channel's Day Side, Terrorism Expert John Loftus
revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the suspect wanted by British Police
for "masterminding" the July 7th London bombings and July 21st
attempted bombings is in fact an asset of MI6, the British Secret
Service. According to Loftus, Aswat has been under the protection of
MI6 for many years. ***

But then we never believe anything owned by Murdoch, do we?