London bombs – the sequel

July 21, 2005 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

It’s interesting to see that BBC TV is a lot less “excited” about this than the N.American news feeds.

Police are investigating “minor incidents” at three Tube stations: Oval Station, Warren Street and Shepherd’s Bush. There was also an explosion on a bus in Bethnal Green, East London. No major injuries reported as yet.

There are suggestions (but not from the police) that they were nail bombs which failed to go off properly – only the detonators exploded.

OK, it’s becoming annoying – the BBC reporters are beginning to talk up the stories and trying to make more of it because almost everyone they interview is sounding calm and saying it’s all under control.

e.g. “London Transport have said that there have been incident teams checking for chemical hazards and have found nothing” (and then the reporter adds) “at least as far as they can tell” – that was unnecessary.

Yeah, and now they’re re-hashing the stories all over again. OK BBC, if there’s no new news, then move on to something else.

[BBC]

The police are also dealing with “an incident” at University College Hospital and armed police have been deployed. The suspicion is that a bomber is in the Accident & Emergency department.

Could just be a security measure; the “experts” they’re interviewing are suggesting a bomber is running loose in the hospital.

10:25(EDT) OK, that’s suddenly more interesting! Live camera at Downing Street shows man arrested by armed police! Reporter describes the scene as “chaotic” but it looks very organised to me – the police are very definitely in control of the situation. (Well, I saw it happen but the reporters seem to have missed half of it and sound confused!)

10:30 – The police have just instructed the TV crew (outside #10) to turn their cameras off and the BBC team are arguing with them! Morons! Just do as you’re told or don’t be surprised if you’re bundled into a van and driven away!

10:37 – BBC have found the footage and re-show it. One guy being arrested by armed police.

10:41 – OK, I’m getting really annoyed with the two BBC “news anchors” who just described one of the armed police officers who walked up to the guy on the ground as “edging” up to him. No, he walked straight up.

It’s interesting to see footage from another angle – the guy on the ground appears to be lot fatter as he lies down than when he’s led away – what was he wearing under his jacket? Or is it a rucksack?

11:00 – The police said the University College Hospital incident is over.

11:05 – Another repeat (and extra) of footage of the arrest @ Downing Street shows it was a rucksack.

11:35 – Suggestion that St.Albans railway station closed because of a suspect package

11:40 – Police confirm only one casualty and no fatalities.

Tags: , ,

Comments

10 Comments on London bombs – the sequel

  1. true_nexus on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 4:38 pm

    2. Ya.. I noted that too..
    but you know how the U.S. (and therefore just about all of N.A.) is about stuff like this – they FREAK in order to retain that level of fear in their citizens so as to ensure that people still back the so-called “war on terror”.

    nex

  2. henman on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 4:48 pm

    3. …Otherwise they might notice what a pointless waste of money and lives it all is.

  3. true_nexus on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 5:06 pm

    4. Ya think??

    Remember back in the 80′s when Mehmet Ali Agca shot Pope John Paul II?

    There was a HUGE hub bub surrounding that and how the KGB and Bulgarian Secret Service (who were working for the KGB) were involved and how Agca; even though he had stated that he had no political affiliation to any organization, was associated with these groups.

    If you dug deep enough into the story there was all sorts of CIA involvement with respect to disinformation being disemminated to the U.S. and North American public.

    All of that so that Regan could have an excuse to increase military spending and bolster up a military during the cold war.

    How much you wanna bet the same crap’s taking place now.

    nex

  4. henman on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 5:18 pm

    5. You’re not suggesting the USA has funded/trained/directed terrorists such as Bin Laden or the IRA?

    /shocked
    // OK, maybe not

  5. zang on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:04 pm

    6. No, I think he was suggesting that the Bush and Blair administrations would use fear as a motivator towards their own political gains!

    Really, I’m mortified.

    Oh, I’m sorry… I forgot to switch my calendar to 2005. They wouldn’t do that *this* year, would they? :P

  6. henman on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:09 pm

    7. Isn’t it more worrying that people still believe them?

  7. zang on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:30 pm

    8. Oh, completely. Worse yet is the great strides made in reducing people’s civil liberties.

  8. henman on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:42 pm

    9. Oh, you mean in ensuring their freedom.

  9. zang on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:44 pm

    10. Of course.

    Reminds me of a Ben Franklin quote (this isn’t exact):

    “He who trades liberty for safety deserves neither”.

  10. henman on Thu, 21st Jul 2005 7:51 pm

    11. That was pretty much how I remembered the quote, but it’s scary that many websites have “PCed” it and instead of “He” they now say “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” What is this world coming to? :(