|
U-Know! Forum » Who did that cover up? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Kid Calamity 9045 posts |
Aug 17, 2005, 18:07
|
||
|
Of course we're all finding out about that dreadful mistake by our gun-toting boys in blue, getting the wrong man. Details about how he didn't actually try to flee the bobbies, when they called to him - how they didn't actually even call to him, as it turns out. How he made a dash for it, vaulting a ticket barrier in the process, raising further suspicion etc. etc. forcing the police to give chase and take him down, in order to save countless lives. We now know that account of events to be total bollocks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159310.stm However, as fingers are starting to point, as to who gave the orders, who failed to identify whatever signs - who caused this awful 'accident' - What I would like to know is WHO MADE UP THE ORIGINAL STORY ABOUT HIM FLEEING THE POLICE? Because that faceless individual was trying to cover up the whole thing. None of the witnesses said anything of the kind. Did the armed police officers quickly concoct the story among them? Or was it some official press officer doing a hasty bit of malicious lying? Nobody is actually asking who was responsible for the lies, are they.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Aug 17, 2005, 19:45
|
||
At least it wasn't a sucessful cover-up.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Aug 17, 2005, 20:12
|
||
No doubt we'll never find out as Scotland Yard are still saying it would be "inappropriate to comment". Personally, I'd be surprised if anyone ever actually gets prosecuted for propogating the misinformation.
|
|||
|
Kid Calamity 9045 posts |
Aug 17, 2005, 20:57
|
||
|
But that sort of blatent lie is surely conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Is it not? The papers who all printed the statement must all know from whom it came. And if the individuals in said police/govenment press office were only relaying the story, then they must know its origin. And of course, as Lawrence says, at least they didn't get away with it. Not this time though, eh?
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 00:00
|
||
|
I think the link Mr C is aiming at is: http://www.itn.co.uk/news/312121.html Found the relevance to this thread after a couple of clicks and a bit of scrolling. The above link is suitable for those who don't wish to blinded the logos on Mr Icke's e-shop, follow the link, but be aware that the content is uncannilly similar to that of the ITN news on the telly.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 08:01
|
||
|
Thanks Mike, I read your link, but what does this man's self-promotion and so-called 'lizards' have to do with a bungled police effort in which a Brazilian gets shot? Do reptiles hate Brazilians?
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 11:43
|
||
I think he just thought that was the link you meant off the headlines page on the Icke site.
|
|||
|
Hob 4033 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 12:05
|
||
|
Spot on. Thanks Cancer Boy. Sorry if you thought I was misrepresenting you Mr C. I just thought the link you posted might have seemed a little unconnected to the topic of this thread, so I was attempting to clarify things in case anyone thought you'd just posted a gratuitous David Icke link, as that's what it looked like at first glance.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 13:01
|
||
Indeed it is. Unfortunatly though, the police have got away with this sort of thing many times before (Stephen Waldorf, Rodney King, Winston Sillicott etc.) and givenj that anti-terrorist panic is still runining high in this country, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of anyone actually being charged, even though what the fuzz did was blatantly illegal.
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Aug 18, 2005, 13:18
|
||
|
I don't have much time for this man, but this letter is spot on. What's the betting no-one is even reprimanded? Letters -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The events at Stockwell tube station Thursday August 18, 2005 The Guardian The leaked statements from witnesses to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes refute the account spun to a compliant press in the immediate aftermath of his killing (Reports, August 17). It was claimed he was wearing a heavy jacket, implying he could have been concealing bombs on his body, that he vaulted a barrier, ran from the police and refused to stop. Now we learn he was wearing a light denim jacket, used his oyster card at Stockwell station, descended to the platform by escalator, had time to pick up a paper and, most damning of all, was being restrained by a surveillance officer when police officers pumped him full of bullets. In addition we are told surveillance broke down when one officer went to relieve himself, that mysteriously and culpably no CCTV cameras were working on Stockwell station just two weeks after 7/7. This is appalling. Letters -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The events at Stockwell tube station Thursday August 18, 2005 The Guardian The leaked statements from witnesses to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes refute the account spun to a compliant press in the immediate aftermath of his killing (Reports, August 17). It was claimed he was wearing a heavy jacket, implying he could have been concealing bombs on his body, that he vaulted a barrier, ran from the police and refused to stop. Now we learn he was wearing a light denim jacket, used his oyster card at Stockwell station, descended to the platform by escalator, had time to pick up a paper and, most damning of all, was being restrained by a surveillance officer when police officers pumped him full of bullets. In addition we are told surveillance broke down when one officer went to relieve himself, that mysteriously and culpably no CCTV cameras were working on Stockwell station just two weeks after 7/7. This is appalling. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the original story we were spun had had some truth in it, then it could have been argued the police might have had some excuse for shooting Jean Charles in what was a tragic accident. But if the statements that have been leaked are true, serious consequences must follow. The police officers who shot Jean Charles must be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. Those who fed the initial pack of lies to the press must be exposed and sacked. And Ian Blair and the government ministers who were responsible for sanctioning the shoot-to-kill policy which produced the utterly avoidable death of this young man, must resign. There was a time when ministers would have resigned automatically when far less serious events occurred on their watch. In the culture of lies and spin under this government, we seem to have lost that idea of responsibility. It's high time it was reestablished. George Galloway MP Respect, Bethnal Green and Bow
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
