Monday, October 13, 2008

It's OFFICIAL!! Executing innocent people in public is OK. Shoddy paperwork not OK


Menezes officer changed evidence

An investigation has begun after an officer admitted changing evidence during the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The Special Branch officer, named as Owen, said he deleted a line from computer notes which quoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it would investigate.

Brazilian Mr de Menezes, 27, was killed by police who mistook him for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

Owen, a surveillance officer, told the inquest the deleted line claimed Ms Dick had initially said the electrician could "run onto Tube as
not carrying anything".

But on Monday he said: "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that."...

Am still really, really curious how the fact that JCdM patently wasn't carrying anything when he was executed is going to be explained away

It's going to have to be something quite special

'Challenged. Shot 9-10 head' by PC Pinocchio Biggie Big Nose, aged 8 &1/2



Anonymous said...

They had to execute him, and had to cover it up, simple. They're just trying to burn one of their minions for it now...

Anonymous said...

"They had to execute him"

why did they have to execute him?

what was their motive?

Stef said...

The only thing I'm personally sure of is that 'They' set out to kill someone that day

and whether that person was carrying something that could have been a bomb didn't come into it

Stef said...

The full deleted line reads

"Management discussion, CD: can run onto tube as not carrying anything. Persuaded by U/I male amongst management"

CD = Cressida Dick
U/I = Unidentified

am curious to know the ID of the U/I male amongst management who persuaded CD that shooting someone who couldn't have been carrying a bomb was OK

No doubt the inquest will get onto this in due course

/ doesn't hold breath

Anonymous said...


Usually threats to the state are dealt with in a lethal manner, eg David Kelly and other similar "suicides". The other possible motive is to set a precedent for killing unarmed people in public.

Multiple operatives, several shots to the head at close range suggest that it was imperative that the target be dead.

Does that make my point clearer?

Stef said...

Usually threats to the state are dealt with in a lethal manner

I'd suggest only after the efficacy of an assortment of carrots and less lethal sticks has been considered

wrt JCdM

It is possible that his executioners really did get him mixed up with someone else

There does appear to have been a balls up of some kind. The behaviour of Ian Blair and Co. does suggest they'd thought they'd killed someone no-one would give a toss about

What isn't possible is that JCdM's executioners could have honestly believed the man they shot in the face repeatedly was carrying a bomb

So the urgency of his public execution has yet to be explained

Anonymous said...

Heh, when I say "threats" I don't mean the average conspiraloon like you or me, but you make a good point.

The behaviour of Ian Blair and Co. does suggest they'd thought they'd killed someone no-one would give a toss about

On the contrary, every time the police have killed someone innocent openly, theres always been an uproar in some form or another. Even if it was a terrorist people would still take notice (in a different way of course).

Surely the leadership aren't naive enough to think nobody would be bothered?

Stef said...

OK, I was being lazy when I wrote that (was multi tasking)

After JCdM was shot Ian Blair screwed his long-term career prospects by announcing in public that the person shot was connected with terrorism (when his staff already had plenty of time to establish an innocent man had been killed)

Blair thought a terrorist had been killed

(Maybe someone was fitting Blair up but I'm not going there as that's layering speculation on speculation and it's late and it would give me a headache)

I am also thinking of Mark Whitby's legendary, and well repeated, eye witness (sic.) account of the execution - heavy coats and JCdM 'acting like a cornered rabbit' and all

Lies were told and broadcast that day which would never would never have been really challenged if JCdM had turned out to be connected with terrorism

He wasn't and they have been

I take your point that there would have been some level of outrage even if a real terrorist had been shot but the vast majority of people wouldn't give a toss about the legality of an execution, or even if the people involved were lying, if they thought a genuine terrorist had been killed

That's what I mean by 'not give a toss'

Think also about 7/7

Speculation that something was amiss with the official story was rife and even creeping into the mainstream media

Then the 'Confession' (sic.) videos appeared conveniently out of the ether. The guilt of the alleged bombers was confirmed in the mind of the bulk of the general public and, lo, people stopped giving a toss about any inconsistencies

Few people would remember JCdM today if he were a guilty man. I think it's at least possible that his executioners were banking on that


Anonymous said...

StefZ sais: I'd suggest only after the efficacy of an assortment of carrots and less lethal sticks has been considered - If there was a written set of guidelines and not an on the spot individual decision made by God knows who, then perhaps you are right.

Anonymous said...

But what is the basis for the media institutions, people etc. in believing he was "mistaken" for a terrorist I wonder? - Oh yes. Because that is the official line.

Stef said...

But what is the basis for the media institutions, people etc. in believing he was "mistaken" for a terrorist I wonder?

Diagnosis = SADS

as for the guidelines thing, I'm only trying to stress that, as a general rule, the number of people any covert control system would have to bump off is a relatively small proportion of any potential threat - the rest could be quietly bought off, fobbed off, scared off or pulled off

The flesh is weak

The JCdM execution was a mess

Possible reasons for it being a mess are...

1. A case of mistaken ID
2. The right ID but hastily arranged
3. A deliberate statement of messy, public brutality

I appreciate that some people have picked up on the fact that JCdM was an electrician but in itself that's not enough to hang anything on IMHO

What I can be sure of is that...

- An innocent man was executed in public

- The media routinely refer to him being mistaken for a suicide bomber as if that were an established fact

- That is not an established fact and it is clear that, by their own account, the executioners had plenty of opportunity to establish that he could not have been carrying a bomb

- That terminal discrepancy has now been acknowledged, even in a state-run hearing

On top of that, there is much other material which demonstrates the official account is a lie

I don't criticise folk who speculate about what really went on that morning but, as with the J7T group, I think concentration on the lies is more productive than trying piece together what really happened with scraps of imperfect information

Anonymous said...

someone must know who his UK employer was??I think this would give us a clue as to why he was shot.

come on fuck who employed him in the UK? the metro?

Some tips - the contradiction between the Transport Police, Metronet and the National Grid. The former two declared there WAS a power surge which "caused the explosions". The latter - the National Grid, DENIED there was ever a power surge.

Menezes was a contract electrician. See my point?

Where did Menezes work at prior to his murder?

Stef said...

One question that I'd like to see answered is why did the executioners chase the driver of JCdM's train down a tunnel and put a gun to his head (as described by a statement released by the driver's union)

“It is extremely disappointing that at the Mayor did not give the assurances that our members are seeking on key safety and security issues,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“We are seeking straightforward commitments to dropping plans to cut station staff and to ensuring that safety regulations for sub-surface stations remain in place, but these were not forthcoming.

“I am sure that Tube users would agree with us that we need to see more uniformed staff on stations, not fewer, and that safety regulations brought in after the Kings Cross fire should remain in place.

“In the absence of positive responses on these and other concerns we put forward, I have today requested a direct meeting with the Mayor on Monday, and will be consulting the general secretaries of our sister unions and members of our parliamentary group over the weekend.

“Our members and all LUL staff have shown immense courage and commitment through the awful events of the last two weeks, but their concerns at the way yesterday"s alert was handled are serious and there are many other issues that remain to be resolved.

“Their concerns will have been fuelled by the revelation that an innocent Tube driver today found himself with a police gun at his head during the incident in Stockwell station in which a suspect was shot dead.

“No apology could ever be enough ever take away the trauma that that driver has suffered and there should be a full inquiry into the handling of the incident,”

How does that fit in with the official account of that morning, especially the claim that JCdM was mistaken for a lone suicide bombers?

Is the driver going to give evidence at the inquest?

Sinclair said...

...the J7T group, I think concentration on the lies is more productive than trying piece together what really happened with scraps of imperfect information.

Thanks for the heads up, Stef.

For anyone interested, J7's analysis of the (open court) JCdM inquest transcripts is here (although pay close attention to what was said at the Coroner's Opening Statement on September 22nd 2008).

Stef said...

and let's not forget...

STAFF at Stockwell Underground station have protested at police suggestions that closed-circuit television cameras were not working when an innocent man was killed by police hunting potential suicide bombers.

paul said...

I just want to know what this amazing anti-camera device the terrorists all use is.

Antipholus Papps said...

Where did Menezes work at prior to his murder?

Indeed! I can't help but be suspicious that he was killed either because he saw something he shouldn't, or as anon 21:52 said - to set the precedent of summary execution on suspicion of 'terrorism'.

Not that I automatically assume our governmernt and security services to be up to no good! Perish the thought. ;)

not anonymous said...

Where did Menezes work at prior to his murder?

yep normally in Newspaper reports his employer would make a statement saying something like yeah Charles was a good worker always on time,did an honest days work was popular with his mates etc etc etc,,,but here we have not a peep.Zilch.Odd.

Anonymous said...

Personally I don't think it was a case of mistaken ID.

Although taking the opposite of the official story has proven to be a healthy default position, it would be silly to adopt unwavering opposition to everything official, or to think that no truth ever comes out from official channels. It's usually highly spun, fudged or white lied, rarely is it, but is occasionally, spun into meaningful lie or outright lie (e.g. Iraq).

If anyone cares, here's how I weigh it up.

The questions of 7-7 and coincidences are just too much for me to accept the official line. As such I am sceptical about all things related to 7-7. If 7-7 is a black-op, doubtlessly only a very few number of people will know it. People further down the line will probably believe the official version - unless they are a loon like me. So for them, they believe they are dealing with real bombers and so will shoot first and cover-up later.

BUT, the issue is much wider than just who pulls the trigger. The assassins who end up with gunshot residue on their hands will not disobey an order or an cleverly worded ‘indirect’ suggestion that someone must be or is to be killed. Yes, the shooter here is clearly guilty of murder and should be slung behind bars - no question! In a case like this, the actual shooter always has responsibility, no matter if an order was given, because a subordinate must apply morality and the law to whatever situation. But the commander also bears responsibility, arguably more so, because he knows his decision will be carried out either directly on demand, or should the subordinate refuse (most unlikely), he will get another drone to do it.

Since July 23rd 2005, there has never been any clear indication that the shooting could have deliberate. Hasn’t there been clear instances where it was apparent he wasn't a threat? This begs the question "then why was he shot?" It is unlikely I think that a decision to shoot was taken lightly - in the context of the official story and lack of confirmation about who he was, as well as all the other circumstances. The reason for ordering him shot must be very important, and the ‘cos he was a bomber’ suit simply doesn’t fit.

There is a near total lack of evidence backing 'mistaken identity' and far more suggestion that it was deliberate. The Electrician component is suspiciously coincidental as are the apparent failings of electrical systems on 7-7 as is the vacuum of information about his employer and where he worked.

There is far less reason to believe the official line not just because of the cover up, than there is to believe that something untoward happened.

Why are the authorities been given the benefit of the doubt? We know how cheap Filth master Bliar regards human life – Iraqi and British, given that he knew British soldiers would die for his pack of lies while he and his buddies fixing the intelligence around the policy. Intelligence that ANY operative would only provide with clear statements as to the near worthlessness of what it was that was being offered up/compiled.

But the disgusting lies about JCDM also indicate that the authorities are willing to lie and pervert the course of justice in other areas (changing log entries etc) so this in itself lends credence as the deplorable nature of the people that ordered his shooting. Such ‘character profile’ is commonly used in court.

And what about 9-11. The same culpability upon the establishment is there too. They caused or let 3000 people die on that day – does anyone here really dispute that? It is quite surprising, and that’s understatement, that JCDM's killing is seen in near total isolation from other events which are surely beyond any reasonable doubt, reveal the murderous twist in these people, quite literally, calling the shots. David Kelly is the same. Nobody can say that wasn't a killing.!

Clearly as they killed Kelly, then they can kill anyone else who some shadowy bastard thinks is necessary liquidation. The microbiologists SADS cases show up on the radar too, as does the aimes strain of anthrax from fort Deitrick, Maryland.

This gets back to the reason why JCDM was shot. It has to be important. Even if the reason isn’t important how can one sit on the fence and ignore the stronger suggestion?

Stef said...

I think you might misunderstand what I'm suggesting when I refer to mistaken identity

The official version of the Mistaken ID narrative does not hold water

The executioners did not mistake JCdM for a suspected potential suicide bomber

He had no bomb

They may, however, have been looking to shoot someone other than JCdM, and other than Osman Hussain, and fucked up

I suggest this possibility because the police really did act as if they genuinely believed the person killed could have been labeled as a potential threat

If Ian Blair, for example, had known that an innocent man had been killed he would not have said things which made him look like a complete tool 48 hours later


We really could go round the houses with this indefinitely

None of us have enough information to know what really happened

I do know, however, that if I'm discussing the JCdM execution with people who currently believe the official narrative that I can tear their complacency full of holes without reverting to any kind of speculation

- JCdm could not have been carrying a bomb

- There's been no explanation of the treatment of the train driver

- Station staff made a statement that all CCTV was functioning

- The story that the video camera outside JCdM's home was turned off so that someone could go for a piss is demonstrable nonsense

- So-called eye witnesses gave false testimony

That's the kind of material I use to support my point of view

That's the kind of material I would use to secure a conviction and use as leverage to get the people involved to tell the truth and give more information so that we can figure out what really happened

That's a way forward

Just my penny's worth and I don't pretend that my opinion has any more weight than other people commenting here

Stef said...

I just want to know what this amazing anti-camera device the terrorists all use is

If you're familiar with the original Italian Job you will recall that this technology has existed since at least 1969 when it was perfected by Benny Hill

Stef said...

Just my penny's worth and I don't pretend that my opinion has any more weight than other people commenting here

PS That's not me saying that people shouldn't kick ideas around and see where they take them


We have to be very careful not to be drawn into favouring particular alternative narratives

It can't have passed anyone's attention that the first thing conspiracy theory debunkers attempt to do is to draw sceptics of official narratives into committing to an alternative narrative

You then find yourself having to defend your alternative narrative rather than concentrating on the holes in the official narrative

Anonymous said...

But Stef I can't see how those things add up. It seems to me your saying that

JC wasn't shot because of an ID mix-up but may have been shot because the guns were looking to shoot someone else but messed up.

Sorry, but that to me seems even more unlikely than the already unlikely ID mix-up, and I don't think my summary is unfair to your proposal.

Even if it happened, that what you say was actually the case, why is it, that the other possibility JC was the intended pre-determined target, always shelved in favour of weaker possibilities?

Let me expand on what I mentioned earlier. I think the two main areas of JCDM killing are

1) The shooters. They usually kill first deal with the flack after. That is the reality. Of course these people see it from the MSM propaganda line. Their actions must, IMO, be opposed and changed (or assassination will proliferate with impunity for expediency as social structures continue to crumble) The shooters are guilty and should be behind bars, not given awards, holidays and promotions. That's horrific! But this point isn't as important as point 2.

2) The Commanders. These are the people that really cause the killings and so, the greatest culprits. With no orders, there's no killings. It's these people that should be the focus of the investigation.

All the non-shelved possibilities lend themselves to either absolving the commanders of responsibility or limit their culpability so that the issue goes no further than them. i.e. they are only in the spotlight in terms of did they order a shoot? and if so did they unambiguously know who their target was.

There. >> dusts off hands. That's it.
The walls of the package are fully defined. Even some 7-7 inquisitors draw lines of confinement.

The stronger line of reasoning deserves more attention and not equivalence with weaker lines of possibility. I've studied 7-7 in quite some detail, it seems to me deliberate confusion, along multiple threads, has been sown into the fabric of that bloody day. Treating all possibilities in equal strength aids to that confusion and hiders progress.

Once more, JCDM is related to 9-11, Iraq (Yellowcake + Iraqi oil ministry forgeries) and David Kelly. The overwhelming evidence that shows a high level concerted effort to fulfil a high level agenda where the lives of others are sacrificed for plutocratic goals. The train of thought coming even from JC's killing leads to that direction, which just happens to be the one world government / NWO conclusion that others arrive at from analysis things besides JC.

"If Ian Blair, for example, had known that an innocent man had been killed he would not have said things which made him look like a complete tool 48 hours later" - He most certainly would, if his level of knowledge of events of that day were provided to him by similar idiots who killed JC and the commanders above him closer to the "core establishment" agencies {and their financiers}. Blair did appear to be on the same level of knowledge as the goon killers marauding on the streets and the underground, and he most certainly was pressurized to give statements/press conferences based on the spins people fed him. Ian Blair has responsibility for the murder of JC being the Head of the MET - an organisation clearly not under his full control, but subject to the influence of outside forces like MI6 and so forth. But once more who fed him this information? Did anyone pressurise him to give press releases?

"It can't have passed anyone's attention that the first thing conspiracy theory debunkers attempt to do is to draw sceptics of official narratives into committing to an alternative narrative" - True, but it hasn't escaped by attention that in doing so, they attempt to draw sceptics into CERTAIN alternatives only.

mistaken ID thing is the least likely as the case goes on it seems even more that this was just a story spun out to cover up a deliberate assassination. By not pursuing the strongest line, that means time and resources will be spent developing erroneous lines, and as they develop, more confusion can be leaked out, and people like Aaronisabitch can attack those lines more easily because they are false. All the while time goes on, people care less and less about it.

The truth or line of reasoning containing the most truth will always have to come under rigorous inspection at some time anyway. Why allow for this? It would help clear the deck of jetsam early on. And as for holes in the official narrative… A clever black-op planner will always throw these holes in deliberately to rob people of the time and in some cases energy. But undoubtedly some holes will be as a result of a 6 being passed off for a nine (e.g. eye witnesses; the old grey haired dude Re: Tavistock bus bomb, & JCDM bomb-wires coat witness).

Holes deserve examination yes, but surely not to the exclusion of building up the likely alternative narrative.

Anonymous said...

BBC interactive guide to the killings

Stef said...

I do not have the faintest idea what really happened on 22/7/05

but I do know that we are being lied to about what happened on 22/7/05

That's as far as I personally can go

Stef said...

I think I may have blogged in the past that Stockwell Tube is home to a Deep Level WW2 Air Raid Shelter

- At the time of JCdM's execution that Shelter was being used by an Israeli controlled secure storage company (I know some Loons have a thing for Israeli connections)

- The driver of JCdM's train was held at gunpoint in the tube tunnel between the shelter and the station platform

And with those two pieces of information I could merrily craft an alternative narrative about Mossad assassins crawling around our tube network, their hypothetical connection with the bombings the week before (I could even chuck in mention of VERINT), and JCdM having seen something he shouldn't have

and I'm sure that as my narrative was developed I could find additional information that fitted in with it, studiously discounting or ignoring anything that didn't

but, do you know what, I'm not going to because it would be bollocks

Stef said...

It's an interesting quality of human nature that we often find it so difficult to admit that we don't have the answers to a question

Personally, I find the words 'I don't know' to be very liberating

Anonymous said...

@ Stef.

Israel have blue in their flag and JC wore blue, so there's another irrelevant 'connection' of high lobbox content that can be used to try and avoid that line of enquiry.

If some can see good reasons for pursuing a strong line of inquiry, I think it's rather decent to point that out, and one would hope those respectable and clearly intelligent people are indeed of an open minded disposition to listen sincerely and honestly appraise those suggestions.

Personally, I'm of the opinion if people are under the impression that what they are doing now is the most effective method, then they are mistaken.

I haven't seen one investigation where the most favourable line of likleyhood/inquiy is not pursued for the purposes of full or sufficient characterisation.

It's been 3 years now and the march of history brings with it it's own problems.

I agree, to say "I don't know" can sometimes be the best and often the most honest answer. But in this case, we do know some things, and there is a strong line of inquiry. The "mistaken ID" is too weak as are similar alternatives. The strongest IMO, is targeted assassination.

But "I don't know" doesn't mean dead-end does it? Take Peter Power. I don't know if he had anything malicious to do with 7-7. Does that put Peter off the radar? Silly suggestion isn't it? And as you know, people are pursuing investigation into him - Rightly so!

As regular readers are aware, some of the things we do know are as a result of the inspirational and tireless J7 team who have avoided various pitfalls and employed the method of NOT pursuing a single possible narrative. Hats off to them for having got this far, but perhaps (or perhaps not!) people might agree that this method will soon outlive it's usefulness, if it hasn't already done so.

We all look for things which side with our prejudices, therefore wizened discussion and friendly suggestion help temper this. But it swings both ways.

In regards to the Israyhelli thing, it must be said a teflon coat has materialised.

It seems to me, that like those who thieved Palestine, the concept of law and justice is beneath certain people, and we have let boring baseless slurs of those who seek to use 7-7 for anti-Islamic hostilities and swerves in the direction of a totalitarian state, begin to condense the bounds of acceptable research. I wonder why Israyhelli connections subject to significant energy expenditure from numerous terror events.

not anonymous said...

meanwhile,,the paranoia levels go up.

Storm over Big Brother database

Exclusive: Early plans to create a giant database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit made in the UK were last night condemned by the Government's own terrorism watchdog.

one reader commented.

The UK is nothing more than the world's largest and most successful (it pays for itself, even if the markets fail the prisoners will bail it out) open prison. Cameras everywhere, your every movement, thought and word controlled, analysed and used against you should you prove to be a problem. I do not say this flippantly. I do not see any conflict at all with referring to the UK as an open prison. I wouldn't be surprised if it were now the case that you would have more right to privacy in if you were prison.

Stef said...

But "I don't know" doesn't mean dead-end does it?

Nope. Quite the opposite

not anonymous said...

and what the fuck is this all about!!yes we are all dirty dirty dirty and unworthy dirty dirty fuckers!!

Millions of children around the world are to use soap and water to mark the UN's first Global

fuckin well weird.

Millions of children around the world are marking the United Nations' first Global Handwashing Day.

In India, cricket star Sachin Tendulkar will be leading the campaign that will see children across South Asia simultaneously washing their hands.

The UN says it wants to get over the message that this simple routine is one of the most effective ways of preventing killer diseases.

The world is going fuckin MENTAL!! lemme outa here!

Stef said...

meanwhile,,the paranoia levels go up.

I was talking with/to a few folks yesterday and mentioned that even though of us with the time and inclination to track these things are hard put to keep up

How many chilling and very real terror trials/ massive plots and the like have been fed to the news in the last few days (now that the banking crisis is officially over)?

Quite a few

Oooh look, there's another

Anonymous said...

"Nope. Quite the opposite" - so why mention it?

Stef said...

Because sometimes, actually a lot of times, on-line Conspiraloons talk with great certainty about matters they can't be certain of

We are going over old ground here but if you look at the J7T site for example the group behind tit have gone to great pains to separate fact from speculation on their site

Based on the failure of numerous half-arsed attempts to slander J7T that's absolutely the correct approach IMHO

Stef said...

If you'd like to peruse the results of not adopting that kind of approach I recommend perusing this on-line car crash

Stef said...

hmmm, 'behind tit'

...typographical not Freudian


Anonymous said...

Apologies. I wanted to the last post but one, with this (semi-rhetorical) question

I wonder why Israyhelli connections are not subject to significant energy expenditure in regard to numerous terror events?

Anonymous said...

Re: Nicky Reilly.

It is very difficult for me to understand how a "Muslim convert" comes to believe that people he has no knowledge of, are legitimate targets to meet their maker.

Richard Reids case leaves me similarly bemused.

These men are utterly stupid.

The valid targets are quite clear, one adds suffering to misery by bringing peace, the eternal sort, to the rightful administrators of Palestine, and those targets aren't the clientele of giraffes restaurant.

Anonymous said...

Does all deserved discussion involving the Z and/or “supposed J” word bring about defacto implosion of information hubs? And who/what would be the reason behind collapsing it?

I'm sure some read about the background to this 911 web-implosion, and can draw their own conclusions.

I don’ think J7 is in danger of that.

It is bloody dangerous to close ones eyes to the persistent element common to all these terror events which is shaping the western world. Even cursory studies show alarming involvement of elements which support the 60+ year old Nakba.

I feel it’s like spraying the with fly spray failing to notice the T-Rex in the corner.

If there isn’t any Israyhelli connection, won’t a full investigation into those events prove that?

Anonymous said...

Interesting how they can't tell us just who persuaded Reilly to go blow himself up. Not even an inkling. It wouldn't suprise me if he was taking lectures at the same kind of mosque as Finsbury Park...

If you don't know the significance of Finsbury Park I suggest you read Webster Tarpley's books on state sponsored terrorism.

not anonymous said...

over at Lord Patels on the Jörg Haider thread.

I wrote

Note how all the mainstream media emphisis "Haider killed at twice speed limit"

that´s right folks,,no doubt after the autopsy he will have been ten times over the legal limit.

the moral of the tale will be don´t drink and drive at twice the speed limit!

well guess what???he was fuckin drunk!!

Haider 'drunk' in fatal car crash
Police near the wreckage of the car Joerg Haider was driving, 11/10/08
The accident occurred near the city of Klagenfurt

Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider was drunk at the time of his fatal car crash last Saturday, an official from his party has said.

Stef said...

I think you'll find that it's a medical fact that criticism of the banking system impairs the vision and leaves you thirsty as a docker on pay day

Stef said...

A BBC reporter on the Nicky Reilly case tonight...

'If Reilly's bomb had worked as intended and had exploded with great force in a restaurant full of people one can only imagine the carnage that would have resulted'

As someone with a rubbish imagination, I'm disappointed that the Beeb didn't provided any artist's impressions

they also forgot to use the words 'chilling' and 'very real'

Hopefully, they'll tighten things up before the 10 o'clock bulletin

not anonymous said...

the scripts are getting real predictable.I´m getting the knack for knowing what´s coming next.

Anonymous said...

another error...

In my 14 October 2008 16:11 post I said

"Since July 23rd 2005, there has never been any clear indication that the shooting could have deliberate."

I should have said
"Since July 23rd 2005, there has never been any clear indication that the shooting was anything other than deliberate."

(its been a very long day)