I agree with SOT. I cannot see the reason for this posting.

That really is fascinating.

In answer to Rich Kid's comment. The reason for this post is to try and ascertain whether or not we are being lied to by the media. And this could be a very serious lie. If we are being lied to – why – and what is coming down the track at us?

Anybody see the Sky News broadcast where the Sky reporter is at the very small cordoned off site where the policeman was reportedly shot in the head at point blank range? The camera zooms in on ground where we are told the police officer died; and the reporter says very clearly “you can see where they have put the blood”. What on earth is the reporter talking about, “they put the blood”?Who has ever heard of anybody “putting blood” at a murder scene after the event? I would expect a out-door murder scene to be properly cordoned off and protected by a tent – not left open to the elements, and subsequently have other blood put on the scene.

"The blood that was put there": Sky report:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e1_1420 ... comments=1

OMG, is that it? A tired Sky reporter who probably didnt get a lot of rest overnight, speaking live into the camera messes up his words? How bloody desperate are those who wish this to be another state inspired conspiracy? Its an occupational hazard in rolling 24/7 news reporting, indeed its so common, Private Eye have a regular feature highlighting cock ups from live news reporting

MI5, MI6, and GCHQ work in perhaps the most secure environments in the UK and indeed, the world, but Shayler, Machon and now Snowden (via UK links with the CIA) have leaked all sorts of stuff to the media in recent years. So if you cant get this lot to keep mum, how would nobody in Fleet St sill the beans?

Forget why for the moment, lets concentrate on how Sky would keep this fake murder secret? What's in it for them? Sky news is full of young and passionate news journalists who want to be the next John Simpson. Are you saying that they would stay silent? How? Why?

For those bound by the Official Secrets Act (Security Services, SAS et al), you could give a 95% guarantee of secrecy, but journalists? You are having a laugh!!!

Fully agree with Rich Kid, seeing as been printed, have to wonders if the person firing & the one laying down were reversed, would the world press be saying then.
So everyone wants the truth, which has me thinking, was my father in law telling the truth on what he saw as young Royal Engineer in 1945 who went into Belsen, things he saw could never tell his family, only once did he tell me. What about some of my friends, were they all involved in a scam dreamed up by the government, to collect death insurance & are really alive on some tropical island away from the people they love, I think not to both.
As for 9/11 & London Bombing, you want proof of those, have to get you on a BRIT Team, might make you think again.
You really want the truth stick to reading the Benno & Danny.

Apologies for not seeing this earlier as I have been away for the weekend..

Firstly there was some discussion over the army rumour service at the time the incident was ongoing. Sky were the first to broadcast this footage but pixeleated out the officer for obvious reasons. Within an hour of the incident the unedited video had been uploaded to live leak. Many (on arrse) viewed it and commented in the thread as to whether this was in fact that this was the officer being reported that had been murdered in cold blood, there was some confusion as the evidence seemed inconclusive from this very footage.

All that said the splash as the round hits the pavement is clearly visible. The bullet would either have lodged in the slab or more likely as as high velocity rounds do when they something hard, ricocheted, these (standard issue) rounds have the ability to pass through two course brick walls if they strike them at the right angle which demonstrates that the person hiding behind the parapet on the roof making the video was not safe either if the terrorist had spotted him.

If the round had struck the officer in the head at that range there would be considerable damage from the exit wound, I am of the opinion though that the round travelled through the fleshy part of the neck without striking bone. In much the same way as a hot knife goes through butter little resistance means no discernible effect that the round actually struck the man.
The fact the media reported that the officer had been shot in the head was in error, talking up the incident perhaps for journalistic licence.

The shooter was jogging at the time the round was fired and the video is not good enough to see if the weapon 'recoiled'. That said there are different types of ammunition which can be sourced for these weapons some of which is not as highly powered which maybe used in house clearing type operations or by police to minimise collateral damage when the round travels. We have no way of knowing (until the official report comes) of what type of ammo the shooter was using.

This officer was one of two who were in the car which was shot up by the terrorists as it reversed (at speed) down the alley, they were both I think wounded in that encounter. Very possible the officer then bled out but it did appear (from other video) that once the area had been secured there were several medics working on him and we was moved at speed to an ambulance and drive off.

The comments on the rumour service thread were hopeful at that time the officer was going to pull through....

Every right to ask the Question that the video asks though and the OP did not infer or suggest 'this was a put up job' simply that people make their own minds up.

Governments have lied before notable examples being Tonkin Gulf, US Led invasion of Iraq and the WMD being the driver of such, Watergate, Clinton and that Woman who he never had relations with, Iran Contra the list goes on, and these are just the US examples.

France pretty much has all the anti terrorist laws it needs, it already had (armed) troops on the street prior to this event and didn't need a 'spectacular' to enact more. It had little to gain by staging this.

I agree with rexy.

Thanks for your input Geezer. I've been hoping and waiting for your comments.

With so much blatant untruthfulness coming from the political class over the years, and a mainstream media that hasn't done its trustworthiness index any good either, my default position is to ask 'what is going on in any news report'.

As you rightly point out geezer, the WMD fiasco by Blair's crowd has done nothing to increase the level of trust in politicians. A trust that most MPs succeeded in completely destroying with their expenses feast.

Cameron's apparent willingness to drop bombs on anybody in North Africa and the Middle East at the slightest excuse hasn't done his trustworthiness any favours either; I'm sure it doesn't reduce the risk of terrorism – on the contrary, it must raise the level of anger felt against the West by those who have felt the weight of those bombs and missiles falling on them.

Ever since Blair and Bush cooked up their war against Iraq, we in the West have been led to believe that we can engage in a remote controlled war against whoever meets with our disapproval, with little or no risk to ourselves. Cameron comes along, and in complete contradiction of election promises (another form of lying) has virtually reduced the military defences of Britain to the point that our open borders are now an irresistible attraction to anybody who wishes us harm.

I can't help thinking that if Bush/Blair hadn't attacked Iraq that we wouldn't have the Isis threat we now have.

Blair did this country a lot of harm

_________________
Lets be careful out there !