Serious Incident in Glasgow

wunkley said:
Why is the mainstream media now reporting 0 deaths, apart from the ‘attacker’?!

I’ve been following this story all afternoon on multiple main stream sites. Was ‘3’ dead, ‘6’ injured being exported for 4 hours. Something very, very fishy occurring here.
Click to expand...

Sky News correspondent seemed adamant about 3 deaths but then sometimes speculation just runs away with it
 
chrismscotland said:
Sky News correspondent seemed adamant about 3 deaths but then sometimes speculation just runs away with it
Click to expand...

Nope sorry. I know proper journalism is virtually dead, but you don’t run with a story for 4 hours and quote death figures for a ‘relatively’ small and ‘contained’ incident and then do a complete 180.
Something going on here.
 
wunkley said:
Why is the mainstream media now reporting 0 deaths, apart from the ‘attacker’?!

I’ve been following this story all afternoon on multiple main stream sites. Was ‘3’ dead, ‘6’ injured being reported for 4 hours. Something very, very fishy occurring here.
Click to expand...

Nothing fishy, just the usual vein of ******** that permeates social media and its influence on wider media reporting; where it is more important to be first regardless of veracity so as not to lose out on being top of the page for the likes, comments and publicity.
 
StuBob said:
Nothing fishy, just the usual vein of ******** that permeates social media and its influence on wider media reporting; where it is more important to be first regardless of veracity so as not to lose out on being top of the page for the likes, comments and publicity.
Click to expand...

whilst I agree that goes on in part, scum as they are - main stream media sites don't release / quote death figures for an incident like this simply based on social media. There are still some basic protocols that have to be followed.

This was ALL afternoon. For 4 straight hours all mainstream media sites reported 3 dead (which potentially means 4 actually in total, as the perpetrator is often not included in the media released figure for attacks, only the victims) - and now it’s just reported that the ‘attacker’ is dead. No one else. Wake up sheeple!
 
Last edited:
Propaganda is already in full swing, "not treated as terror related" roughly translates to it is probably terror related but we don't want people to question immigration policy so we'll look for other reasons. In the same way that toppling historical statues and rioting "was not treat as a crime" because of who it involved.
 
wunkley said:
whilst I agree that goes on in part, scum as they are - main stream media sites dont release / quote death figures for an incident like this simply based on social media.

This was ALL afternoon. 4 hours reporting 3 dead, and now it’s just the ‘attacker’ dead. No one else. Wake up sheeple.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was a confusing situation?
 
StriderX said:
Maybe it was a confusing situation?
Click to expand...

This isn't an incident akin to a bomb going off or something big, where multiple injuries, deaths and yes - confusion could occur. It's not like the death toll was reported as 55 and then revised a bit later when things settle to 48.

This incident was "3 dead" - for 4 hours - to "0 dead" (not including the attacker). That does not happen.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Maybe the victims are in hospital and sustained injuries not as serious as first thought? They probably got their "news" from twitter in order to be first. Be patient.
Click to expand...

Again, it's a numbers game. 'Mistakes' for casualty/ death numbers can happen if it's a major incident with multiple (i.e. dozens) of casualties, that likely end up in different hospital sites (as most hospitals are not set up to admit multiple casualties at once).

3 'stabbing' victims - if they were not dead - would all have gone to the same hospital.

Come on people, something stinks here, can you not see it?
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Maybe but I'd rather not speculate. Let's wait for the facts.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point dude. This a prime example of how we can never know the "facts" with today's corrupt mainstream media. I've watched it happen in real time today.

My now departed father in law, an ex-copper who was a proper policeman in the days when the police were allowed to actually police, threw out many pearls of wisdom. One being - when a biggish news story breaks, and there seems to be a bit of confusion with the 'facts', the details that first come out in the immediate aftermath are usually the truth.
 
wunkley said:
whilst I agree that goes on in part, scum as they are - main stream media sites don't release / quote death figures for an incident like this simply based on social media. There are still some basic protocols that have to be followed.

This was ALL afternoon. For 4 straight hours all mainstream media sites reported 3 dead (which potentially means 4 actually in total, as the perpetrator is often not included in the media released figure for attacks, only the victims) - and now it’s just reported that the ‘attacker’ is dead. No one else. Wake up sheeple!
Click to expand...

Tbf the BBC on their live news feed of events had one of their correspondents 'confirm' 3 dead from their sources at Whitehall. Make of that what you will, what chance do we have.
 
Last edited:
wunkley said:
You're missing the point dude. This a prime example of how we can never know the "facts" with today's corrupt mainstream media. I've watched it happen in real time today.

My now departed father in law, an ex-copper who was a proper policeman in the days when the police were allowed to actually police, threw out many pearls of wisdom. Once of which was - when a biggish news story breaks, and there seems to be a bit of confusion with the 'facts', the details that first come out in the immediate aftermath are usually the truth.
Click to expand...

Did they police during the social media age?

There's already one bit of fake news in this thread, initial 'facts' that come out during these type of events are usually false.
 
StuBob said:
Tbf the BBC on their live news feed of events had one of their correspondents 'confirm' 3 dead from their sources at Whitehall. Make of that what you will, what chance done have.
Click to expand...

You kind of wonder why Whitehall would be giving out information when the Scottish Police or Scottish Government hadn't even confirmed the facts yet
 
wunkley said:
You're missing the point dude. This a prime example of how we can never know the "facts" with today's corrupt mainstream media. I've watched it happen in real time today.

My now departed father in law, an ex-copper who was a proper policeman in the days when the police were allowed to actually police, threw out many pearls of wisdom. One being - when a biggish news story breaks, and there seems to be a bit of confusion with the 'facts', the details that first come out in the immediate aftermath are usually the truth.
Click to expand...
I don't trust MSM either but your assertion still requires proof. The alternative is either to physically be at every site as it unfolds or trust the disarray of initial reports. Most people will listen to a variety of sources and draw their own conclusions, as that's all you really can do.
 
I imagine the police just want to make sure that all the residents are confirmed alive against the records held by MEARS, I hope that the current numbers are accurate, but I can easily see a worst case scenario being possible.
 
wunkley said:
Again, it's a numbers game. 'Mistakes' for casualty/ death numbers can happen if it's a major incident with multiple (i.e. dozens) of casualties, that likely end up in different hospital sites (as most hospitals are not set up to admit multiple casualties at once).

3 'stabbing' victims - if they were not dead - would all have gone to the same hospital.

Come on people, something stinks here, can you not see it?
Click to expand...

You're trying really hard to make something out of nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom