Welcome to Gaia! ::

Oh give me a break. A cop defends his life and you guys protest, saying that he had no right to.

A cop shoots a black guy and suddenly everyone loses it.
Now it's gotten to the point people have forgotten what the riot is about.

London Riots Investigation Confirms Police Planted Bullet and Lied,
Murdered “Man Did Not Open Fire”

Posted by Alexander Higgins - August 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm

An independent investigation into the cause of the London riots reveals police planted a bullet and lied about the murder the man that sparked protests that turned into rioting across England.

London Police lied about the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mark Duggan which have sparked the London riots reveals a much awaited investigation into the shooting.

Police officers said the man who was inside of a cab was shot to death in a gun fight with police officers after the man opened fire but the investigation into the incident reveals the police lied and the man never opened fire.

Adding to the scandal, the police pointed to a bullet that was lodged into a police radiation that officers reported barely missed a police officer.

Ballistic analysis now confirms that the bullet found in the radio was actually fired from a police issued firearms which means that the police shot their own radio to plant evidence to support their story to cover up their brutal execution of the man.

The incident is also a black eye to the corporate media which has ignored numerous reports about the circumstances surrounding the man’s death. Instead they have repeatedly acted as a stenographer for the government reporting the man’s death was a result of a gun fight with the police.

Sky News reports:

Man Shot By Police ‘Did Not Open Fire’

The victim of a police shooting did not fire at officers before he was killed, according to a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

More: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/09/london-riot-investigation-police-planted-bullet-lied-murdered-man-open-fire-52881/

Source: http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16046775




London rioters are not 'protesters', admits BBC
Corporation receives more than 60 complaints over its choice of language when describing rioters and looters
Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 August 2011 17.49 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/10/london-rioters-not-protesters-bbc

The BBC's head of newsgathering has admitted that the corporation should not have described the London rioters as "protesters" after Saturday night, when a peaceful demonstration provided the initial spark for three days of escalating disturbances across the capital.

The BBC was criticised on Tuesday for continually referring to the looters and rioters as "protesters" – three days after the peaceful protest over the death of Mark Duggan in Tottenham.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The Media Show, Fran Unsworth conceded that its presenters should have dropped the term earlier.

"I think it was probably OK [to use the term "protesters"] on Saturday when the whole incident started off in a peaceful protest in Tottenham," Unsworth said. "But since then I don't think we should have been using 'protesters', clearly they are looters and rioters and that's how we should have been describing them."

Unsworth said: "We try not to be too prescriptive, but yes we have said actually that they're not protesters they're clearly rioters and looters. They are more descriptive terms and we should try and be as accurately descriptive as we can be."

Unsworth confirmed that the BBC had received 62 complaints from viewers on the language issue – but pointed out that 54 of those came after it was highlighted in the Daily Telegraph.

A Telegraph leader on Tuesday claimed the BBC "stupidly insisted" on calling the rioters "protesters".

Mary Hockaday, the head of the BBC multimedia newsroom, rebutted that claim in a post on the corporation's editors' blog on Wednesday.

"It's simply not true to suggest the BBC has portrayed these events as protests," she said. "Our role as with any story is to accurately reflect what is happening – from the original protest in Tottenham on Saturday night through to the subsequent riots and looting.

"We have clearly reported the riots, looting and mayhem of the past few days. The word protest or protester may have cropped up in live fluid coverage, as has been the case with other broadcasters, but none of our audiences to any platform can have been left in any doubt that we have been reporting riots and looting."

Separately, the BBC on Wednesday apologised for a BBC News channel interview with the prominent writer and campaigner Darcus Howe, who presenter Fiona Armstrong accused of taking part in riots in the past.

During a live interview, Armstrong said: "You are not a stranger to riots yourself I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself."

Howe replied: "I have never taken part in a single riot. I've been part of demonstrations that ended up in a conflict.

"Stop accusing me of being a rioter and have some respect for an old West Indian negro, because you wanted for me to get abusive. You just sound idiotic – have some respect."

The BBC said in a statement: "We'd like to apologise for any offence that this interview has caused."




Agent Provacature / Hired Criminal

It matters not because the rich not only don't care, they don't need to care.

So they're not allowed to do their jobs because people are complaining that they were doing their jobs? Or they are doing their jobs, just not immediately but later when they can catch the offenders alone? Or is it both?

It sounds like a huge ******** because the police want to do their jobs but they're not allowed to do their jobs because when they do their jobs people get hurt. This makes my head hurt a little.