On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:16:28 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

Heck, *one* shot could have sufficed if they just wanted to kill him, but
they believed they were trying to prevent a detonation (you places yer
bets, you takes yer chances). If, like the officers involved in this
shooting you think the guy can detonate a bomb, why risk it?

I had the impression that the task of the cop that grabbed him was to pin
his arms and hands in case he tried to reach for a detonator, while someone
else was responsible for taking the shots. And I'm sure his ears may still
be ringing...

-=jd=-

No bomb. Just panic.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:
I'm thinking the media has been duped, not by malice, but by sloppy
journalism in the race to be first with the breaking news.

I reckon you've hit the nail on the head, there.

So what gives? Did a reporter grab some commuter schmuck at the scene and
swallow the initial reports (about the padded jacket; attempting to elude;
refusing to comply with officer orders) without verifying it? Then that one
account made the network rounds until it mushroomed into a near conspiracy?

This wouldn't be the first time the BBC and other British media have
jumped the gun. The Beeb were recently found guilty of making false
accusations against the UK government's reasons for entering the
second Iraq war, which may have contributed to the suicide of a
government defense consultant. In particular the BBC was criticised
for allowing a major story to air UNCHECKED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_inquiry

I do find it a rather laughable situation, after all the BBC are just
another government-run broadcaster, no matter how much people would
like to play this down by calling their funding a "licence fee" rather
than a tax (there's a 10-quid a month "licence fee" for having a
television in your house; sounds like a tax to me). Essentially what
happened was that one division of the government took another division
of the government to court for libel (but they called it a "judicial
enquiry"), which is plainly daft and an indicator of just how
overburdened with bureaucracy the UK has become.

Whilst the UK news media are more serious in their political coverage
than their US cousins, there is nevertheless the same hunger to be
"first with the news", and the Sky/Fox corporation battle it out with
the BBC to be the first to break any news item. The BBC is also
particularly fond of digging, digging and digging some more to find
dirt on politicians and politics; this has been backfiring frequently
in recent years as the desperation to beat Sky/Fox to a news story
often means that stories go out unchecked.

If an Sky or BBC reporter got an eyewitness spinning them a complete
yarn about a major story, they WOULD broadcast it, because they're too
busy racing to beat their competitors to the scoop rather than
stopping to coroborate the evidence.

So I reckon you've got it absolutely correct on about a reporter
swallowing an initial eyewitness report without verifying it, and it
spiralling out of control.

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com
Gloucestershire, UK

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:35:10 -0500, wrote:

london metropolitan cops are really no authority anymore,neither is new
Scotland yard.Hey,it was New York,U.S.A.that told them what happened.The
only thing london metropolitan cops are good for is walking old biddies
accross the streets and when they get off duty and back home,peeking
through the curtains in their windows

Well, yes, I'd certainly agree that the UK police have been
ineffectual with several recent major events. However, you've got to
give them credit for arresting all four of the recent bomb suspects
within a week of the failed bomb attack. Four years on and there's
only been one person arrested over 9/11 and he got released!

just like all of them other
limeyland Cowards over there.

Now that's just blatant childish namecalling, unncessary and
unintelligent. If you have a logical argument, fine, let's discuss it
(ideally on a political newsgroup) but there's no need for prejudice.
What on earth have you got against Brits? We always back you Americans
up, even when you occasionally have some ill-considered moments, let's
have a bit of support coming back our way too, please?

As for cowardice, may I remind you that we entered WWII in 1939 even
though we hadn't yet been attacked, two years before the USA who only
entered when their naval bases were bombed. I'm not saying that our
actions were particularly intelligent, but you certainly can't accuse
the UK of being cowards. If anything, I'd say we're rather feisty -
never shy of a good scrap!

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com
Gloucestershire, UK

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:51:52 +0100, Andrew Oakley
wrote:
government defense consultant. In particular the BBC was criticised

Oh dear, all this taking to Americans is beginning to rub off on me.

I did, of course, mean "defence consultant" not "defense consultant".

http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/american.html


--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com
Gloucestershire, UK

How his ears are doing? On a fireing range with a bunch of other guys
fireing their Firearms (M1 Garand Rifles,at least) being fired,you only
hear the mechanical clicking noise of the Rifle you are fireing.I know
that is the way it was when I was at the Fireing Range at Fort
Gordon,Georgia in 1962.
cuhulin

I remember a DI once told us lean mean fighting machines,y'all better
not lose or damage that M1 Garand Rifle because if you do,$164.00 will
be dectucted from your pay.I took durn good care of my Rifle that was
issued to me.
cuhulin

It is called New Scotland Yard nowdays.I dont remember how many years
ago it was,but the old Scotland Yard moved into a new building,(or some
new buildings) whatever.I think it has been at least twenty years ago,I
could be mistaken though.
cuhulin

I think Sky is better than BBC.Only my opinion.
cuhulin

I have known for years about the brit "white paper" they have or did
have about removing all of the Irish folks from the Six Counties.Lots of
brit comedies and other brit programs on tv in U.S.A.show how good the
brits are at peeking through their window curtains.Most folks in
U.S.A.are not window curtain peekers,I always step outside if I want to
see what's going on outside.In U.S.A.there are some brit comedies and
other brit tv programs on BBCAmerica all the time and also on PBS TV.
cuhulin

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...


I'm thinking the media has been duped, not by malice, but by sloppy
journalism in the race to be first with the breaking news.

I can't find anything that names an authority official as providing the
initial reports of the victim wearing a padded coat, jumping the
tunstiles,
etc. I *have* seen it attributed to anonymous "initial eyewitness
reports".
For all I know, perhaps Jason Blair provided the info. I sure can't find
anything similar to a clear, direct attribution to any "Inspector Joe
Schmoe-Clouseau of Scotland Yard".

The first round of reports were good, in that they gave the source of the
"padded jacket" as a witness, in this story the witness is named:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

A different eyewitness in the same story says the guy "appeared to have a
bomb belt and wires coming out". Oh, well.


The confusion came later, and oftentimes just hours later. News columnists
were among those most eager to jumble the few known facts with unreliable
eyewitness accounts and jump to their conclusions.

That's the liberal media for ya.





Next, I hear that Scotland Yard, during their on-going investigation,
briefed the family with the information that has been leaked. That tells
me
that the Yard was not going to, and could not, cover anything up if they
were keeping the family informed.

So what gives? Did a reporter grab some commuter schmuck at the scene and
swallow the initial reports (about the padded jacket; attempting to elude;
refusing to comply with officer orders) without verifying it? Then that
one
account made the network rounds until it mushroomed into a near
conspiracy?

The reporters don't have to verify a story. They ought to verify their
source. Such as -- was the eyewitness really at the station? Does the
source seem given to fantasy? Nearly all journalism is some sort of story
retelling.

But, in this case, it seems the "opinion makers" were the worst offenders in
taking the babblings of shocked eyewitnesses as God's Honest Truth.



Is it possible for the media to make a traqic event even worse?



Yes, and we have yet to hear much from the lawyers, politicians and
bureaucrats.

Frank Dresser