Serious Incident in Glasgow

mmj_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think GD have enough of this narrative to froth about, TBH. In Glasgow, when a stabbing is described as "not terror related" then it is usually classified as "A Rammie".

Move on Chaps, nothing to see here.
 
Must admit I do find it odd that they magicked up 2 dead bodies some how! It's not as if it was a massive incident with dozens of wounded or dead to keep track of.
 
Dis86 said:
Must admit I do find it odd that they magicked up 2 dead bodies some how! It's not as if it was a massive incident with dozens of wounded or dead to keep track of.
Click to expand...
apart from the fact that there was another stabbing the other day, and by the sounds of it the initial reports of 3 dead may not have been from an authorised police source, which means it may have been someone who wasn't actually aware of the details (or even the wrong incident).

There are some very good reasons why you tend to take such information only from authorised police sources early on, because they'll have their information checked and cleared to reduce mistakes.
A "whitehall" source might be no better informed than someone at the local pub, especially in the first hours (even officers on the ground may not have accurate information because they may be unaware of what has happened before they got their, or at a hospital etc).
 
Apparently eyewitnesses reported at least one of the victims was of African appearance, probably saved by the policeman who was on scene but it might be racist to say that as BLM won't want to hear it.
 
Werewolf said:
apart from the fact that there was another stabbing the other day, and by the sounds of it the initial reports of 3 dead may not have been from an authorised police source, which means it may have been someone who wasn't actually aware of the details (or even the wrong incident).

There are some very good reasons why you tend to take such information only from authorised police sources early on, because they'll have their information checked and cleared to reduce mistakes.
A "whitehall" source might be no better informed than someone at the local pub, especially in the first hours (even officers on the ground may not have accurate information because they may be unaware of what has happened before they got their, or at a hospital etc).
Click to expand...

The stabbing several days ago is surely irrelevant? Unless someone was stupid enough to conflate the two?
As I say, it's not like there was a huge number of victims to keep track of!
 
Dirk Diggler said:
This thread has turned into a desperate attempt at GDer on GDer. It was a disagreement that got out of hand, get over it. :p
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you could write a small program in Python or something to predict these threads at this point. Add in a few names, some keywords, and voila. When a name turns up and a word is mentioned, you can predict exactly what the next step is. Always the same story. Every. Single. Time.
 
Diddums said:
Pretty sure you could write a small program in Python or something to predict these threads at this point. Add in a few names, some keywords, and voila. When a name turns up and a word is mentioned, you can predict exactly what the next step is. Always the same story. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see how accurate AI could do this aftter analysing the entire forum's posts. That would be funny. :)
 
Diddums said:
Pretty sure you could write a small program in Python or something to predict these threads at this point. Add in a few names, some keywords, and voila. When a name turns up and a word is mentioned, you can predict exactly what the next step is. Always the same story. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

I'll throw this post in here. You can variably attribute it to about 10 different posters.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33719325
 
mmj_uk said:
Apparently eyewitnesses reported at least one of the victims was of African appearance, probably saved by the policeman who was on scene but it might be racist to say that as BLM won't want to hear it.
Click to expand...
I know this might be difficult for you, but grow up. :)
 
Dis86 said:
The stabbing several days ago is surely irrelevant? Unless someone was stupid enough to conflate the two?
As I say, it's not like there was a huge number of victims to keep track of!
Click to expand...
There may not be a huge number of victims to keep track of, but things do get confused very easily, especially early on or if someone is asking a question of someone who isn't aware of what's actually happened and it's not made clear which incident is being talked about.

That's a far simpler explanation than for some some reason everyone is trying to hide multiple deaths.

Remember the London tube bombings where it was initially reported as equipment failures (because high voltage transformers can and do have a habit of failing in an explosive manner under certain conditions and that was far more likely than suicide bombers), or the hundreds of other more minor events where the media have reported something in the first hour or two then had to correct themselves when it turns out the Bob the bulder who was on scene didn't actually see what he thought he saw, or that a police officer (even a senior one) who said something was going off information that they'd heard on the radio that turned out to have been incorrect/speculation from before anyone had a clear picture of what was going on.

An unnamed "source" from the government/whitehall in the first hour or two of an ongoing incident is about as reliable as an eyewitness account from a half drunk teen, as at least the eyewitness might have been in a position to see something (even if not much), whilst the unnamed source could be anyone and very likely to be basing their statement on old and incomplete information, if not third hand unverified information that is little better than rumour (as unless they're actually involved in managing/collecting the information they're unlikely to be getting verified information direct).
 
From what I am hearing, the Home Office moved asylum seekers into a hotel in Glasgow City Centre and ignored warnings of overcrowding. Apparently it is a Brazilian man with a history of severe mental health issues who is the attacker. Rumours from the hotel that he went a bit manic last week too.
 
Werewolf said:
There may not be a huge number of victims to keep track of, but things do get confused very easily, especially early on or if someone is asking a question of someone who isn't aware of what's actually happened and it's not made clear which incident is being talked about.

That's a far simpler explanation than for some some reason everyone is trying to hide multiple deaths.

Remember the London tube bombings where it was initially reported as equipment failures (because high voltage transformers can and do have a habit of failing in an explosive manner under certain conditions and that was far more likely than suicide bombers), or the hundreds of other more minor events where the media have reported something in the first hour or two then had to correct themselves when it turns out the Bob the bulder who was on scene didn't actually see what he thought he saw, or that a police officer (even a senior one) who said something was going off information that they'd heard on the radio that turned out to have been incorrect/speculation from before anyone had a clear picture of what was going on.

An unnamed "source" from the government/whitehall in the first hour or two of an ongoing incident is about as reliable as an eyewitness account from a half drunk teen, as at least the eyewitness might have been in a position to see something (even if not much), whilst the unnamed source could be anyone and very likely to be basing their statement on old and incomplete information, if not third hand unverified information that is little better than rumour (as unless they're actually involved in managing/collecting the information they're unlikely to be getting verified information direct).
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anyone's tried to hide it, just find it odd! We have had far more accurate casualty information from much larger incidents yet this one seemed to go completely boobs up.
 
Jono8 said:
History repeats itself in wonderful ways :p

Good old asim.
Click to expand...

I love how something he never said has now become fact :)
At the time he said he knew of people who could get a Mac 10 in 3 minutes not that he could get one.
To be honest back then I'm pretty sure I knew people who could make phone calls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom