pap

Good man. I accept your apology, but it doesn't really change the fact that you swallowed the b*llocks in the tabloids. It demonstrates that you're happy to accept whatever sh!t you're shovelled. I don't accept your "short hand reference" explanation either. Let's call it what it was, a sneering attempt to shut down debate using the exceptional nature of the event and move on. For the sake of clarity, there is a massive difference between state-sponsored terror and what we collectively refer to as "the government". You are deliberately using that term because of its implicit connection to the useless, no-mark MPs that sit in Westminster. It's a good tactic, CB - I wouldn't consider them capable of much either. So let's settle on "state-sponsored", rather than the huge colluding Parliamentary conspiracy you seem keen to concoct. Oh, and for the record, while I consider the narratives of 9/11 and 7/7 to be highly suspect, I've never said anything about Sandy Hook. Perhaps you are confusing me with another conspiracy theorist you're paid to argue with One of the most outright stupid statements ever made. Most conspiracies happen without ever being reported. Seriously, think before you post. All you're doing here is adding to your reputation as a mindless automaton who has to be told what's true by a government or corporation. I've banged the civil liberties drum for years, CB Fry. This is not a new concern. If you're really interested in my views on civil liberties, use the search facility. It's all there.

Civil liberties remains my primary concern. The justification in almost all cases for their removal are "terrorist atrocities" such as this. The amount and character of the legislation introduced after 7/7 is truly horrifying. We have an enabling act ready to go. Still, if you're only just learning that there was no beheading in Woolwich, it's entirely unlikely you'll have heard about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, 2006.

Again, you're mis-representing my posts. The video was one of fourteen concerns I enumerated. It doesn't stand in isolation. Your general tactic of debating is dishonest, and your conclusions are child-like.

More progress? buctootim told me I wasn't winning any converts the other day, yet here you are finally acknowledging that there was no beheading. I'm proud of you, CB Fry. Proud. Yeah, ok. Operation Gladio says hello.

Ah, ye olde "have no specific answer so launch an ad hominem attack". Remind me. Is that #2 or #23 in the Junior Book of Internet Debating Tactics?

socal, you weighed into this thread by ribbing ottery's emoticon posting style. Your next contribution was this:- Despite saying this, you then ask if I'm aware of any footage taken by adults, laying down a gauntlet for proof based on information that may or may not exist, even though you've correctly said I can't have all the facts It's a ridiculous position in any event. A detective investigating a crime does not start out with all the facts. They're derived through a process of investigation and elimination in which most inconsistencies are resolved. Also, he or she is unlikely to be satisfied of an explanation of "maybe some crazy people did some crazy ****".

I think there are some crossed wires here. The kids are on the bus that was stopped by the perpetrator so that he could get someone to film his statement. I also find it almost incredible that they chose to record this statement in-situ in the first place. There was no guarantee that they'd get their message out when involved in an act like this. Why not pre-record? One possible reason is that the perpetrators wanted to wait until they'd gone past the point of no return. I can buy that, except if that's the plan all along, why not bring a camera? I know that recording devices are more or less ubiquitous, but why take the chance? Surely it's easier to bring a phone that stop a London Transport Vehicle in the hope that someone will film you. So, to return to your point, the kids I'm referring to are on the bus that was stopped by the knife-wielding madman. They'd have every right to be scared out of their wits, but were calm, talked about lunch with one saying "they've got another little film scene to do yet". It's not conclusive by any means, but combined with the baffling "plan" of these master terrorists, it's another thing that doesn't add up.

You asked whether there were adults who'd taken extra footage. I said I didn't know. That's fair, isn't it?

I have many qualities, but I can't count omniscience among them, nor am I prepared to concoct an account of footage/pictures I haven't seen.

1) It would take time for the armed response unit to get to the loacation, it depends where in London they were at the time. 20 minutes, and as already stated, other OB nearby. The armed response unit did not engage the alleged perpetrators when they arrived. The perpetrators simply ran to the armed response unit to get shot. 2) they were waiting for the security services to inflict harm on them. If that's the case, it was the least impressive attempt ever. They were armed with a revolver and cutting implements. Their plan to inflict the harm you suggest involved running several yards in the open toward the waiting guns of the armed response unit. 3) Cops, shootings, murders just like in the movies. That's one explanation, but I think kids are cannier than that. None of them seemed alarmed by what they were seeing. 4) I'm no expert but I expect if a crime happens outside of their barracks they go into lockdown. I'm pretty sure they are not allowed out run out and start shooting sh!t up every time a crime is committed nearby. One of their own is attacked outside the barracks. No-one went out to help, despite the obvious advantage in capability they had. 5) Bloke beheaded by two armed men, they would be waiting for armed response unit. There was no beheading. You're in the same position as CB Fry, arguing on very stale information. Fair's fair; there is just as much chance of the OB believing that at the time. It's a reasonable explanation in isolation. 6) There were witnesses, some on TV, some on twitter, how many we will find out at the trial. Have you seen how busy that street on a normal day? It's the sort of place holepuncture might uncharitably describe as "crawling". The eyewitnesses that were there were unreliable, especially boyadee, the chap who originated the beheading news. 7) Plenty of blood where he got run over, probably already dead when beheaded, blood doesn't spurt out of a dead person. I've seen different shots from different times; some in which blood is present, others where blood is not present, but the prone figure is. The shot from the top of the bus shows no blood whatsoever. I'm therefore unable to share your confidence about the blood, because I've seen different pictures of the same event that don't back each other up. Not beheaded. There is no blood on the jackets of either of the perpetrators. - video was clear to me, one with orange hands obviously been altered. Yeah, let's skip the pantomime act. We can't do oh yes it is, oh no it isn't. The difference for me is in the consistency of the more orange image. It's discoloured, but the levels are consistent throughout and there is almost zero pixellation or evidence of big frame transitions. Orange hands wins for me. 9) Had contacts with muslim extremists, if he was approached hardly a surprise. They wanted to recruit him. To what end? Well, if we're anything like the FBI, who clear up one third of their terrorist cases by creating them in the first place, we may have used him as an asset. Personally, I think there is a fair chance he was working for the intelligence services, whether he knew it or not. His actions made no sense. He waited for 20 minutes for an armed response unit to turn up and then ran at them. His accomplice spoke with passers by. I can understand them wanting to get a message out, so I get why the video happened, but I really don't get why they didn't just scarper off into the anonymity of London if terror was their aim. That would have made sense, and would have caused genuine terror across the capital. 10) I assume you mean the armed response unit, looked like a slick, effective and appropriate response. You've probably established that I'm talking about the perpetrators conveniently running into a hail of gunfire. Armed response unit were waiting by their vehicles. The perpetrators ran into range. 11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting. - See 7 I have to admit, I haven't seen as many shots of the perpetrators as the main scene, but didn't they put eight bullets into two people? My numbers may be wrong. 12) They just murdered someone I expect they had other stuff on their minds. "What time will the armed response unit get here? We really fancy running into their bullets". 13) Not sure of relevance but it's not at all unusual for a black londoner to speak gangster style to his homies on twitter, no matter how articulate. Just trying to look cool In his new position as articulate Guardian columnist, he could give us a very good account of what happened on the day. He's elected not to expand further on any of it, largely because he is talking out of his arse. He originated the decapitation meme and I don't know if you remember, but the country went apesh!t over it. It didn't happen. Wasn't true. I know you still think it is, you're lagging behind the times in terms of information, and as I demonstrated with the links earlier, you could have only formed that opinion if you'd swallowed the boll*cks in the tabloids on day one. You could have only kept it because you haven't bothered to follow up. 14) Obvious, anything muslim related is hyped up by the media. This isn't happening by accident, as I'm sure you know. We've pre-emptively invaded two Muslim countries in the past 12 years, there was always going to be agenda to soften the reality that our forces would be responsible for the deaths of over a million human beings,

I've met loads of gay people through Uni and clubbing. While there are undoubtedly flamboyant and camp queens about the place, they represent a fraction of the overall community. I've met just as many people you'd consider normal, not suspecting a thing about their sexual orientation. Indeed, some of the funniest stories you hear involve thick heterosexuals who conflate gay men with effeminate weaklings and getting their (metaphorical) arses turned over. Indeed, the all-conquering ancient armies of Greece and Sparta got a bit of bumming in between battles. We've all met the relentlessly tireless queen who sees sexuality as a broad substitute for a personality, but that's the exception rather than the rule. You can't definitively say all heterosexuals act in similar ways, no more than you can put homosexuals into a big camp box, as anyone who has been battered by a batty boy will attest.

Well, possibly. As someone who is able to cast intellectual judgment on others, you must have some of the answers. I invite your consideration. Same as always. The slow erosion of civil liberties to the point where we have no rights, by sensationalising isolated events and presenting them as representative of the whole, so much so that legislation follows in its wake. After Woolwich, it was announced that 3Bn of funding could be diverted from the welfare bill to give to the police and security services. Irrespective of culpability, the basic pattern is atrocity -> more authoritarian legislation. We of all nations should know that you cannot kill terrorists to death, yet that was the plan we went along with. Woolwich can't be viewed in isolation. It's one in a series of events designed to create a strategy of tension, to use fear of terrorist attack to pursue policies that sensible democracies wouldn't touch with a bargepole, or to marginalise perceived threats to the establishment. One of the best examples of this was Operation Gladio, a far-right terrorist organisation in Italy created and operated by NATO. The objective was to ensure that the two left-wing parties, the PCI and the PSI, never attained power. Both NATO and the Italian state directed acts of state terror on Italian citizens through their Gladio proxies, and Gladio was far from the only operation of its kind. The existence and nature of Gladio was confirmed by Giulio Andreotti, Italian Prime minister in 1990. This isn't a fairy tale. NATO, through stay-behind groups like Gladio, directed terrorist atrocities all over Europe during much of the Cold War. It's a mistake to believe that Western forces don't have this in their locker, or have been blameless of it in the past. This was genuine false-flag terrorism happening over almost forty years. Look it up. Of course it isn't, but those are all legitimate concerns, which is probably why you avoided them. Pointing out that a list of concerns isn't a theory isn't a legitimate response to those concerns. My theory is that terrorist atrocities are being used to justify a more authoritarian society and actions, such as pre-emptive invasions, spying on one's citizens, detention without trial, torture - that would normally be abhorrent to an upstanding member of democracy. I'm not going to pretend that pre-9/11, we were all one huge melting pot, but the fires have been repeatedly stoked. My theory on Woolwich is that it's just another event to arouse public opinion and reinforce the message that Islamic extremists are dangerous. Here is a picture of a lizard to keep you happy. I'm sure that's what you were expecting:-

Yep, it's excellent to have a bit of news that almost everyone can get behind. Such a legendary personal tale too.

A whole new dimension to knocking one off.

If he plays, and if he scores, England fans are going to fall in love with his goal roar. Proper gives it

Nah, KRG was right. Honest answer too, so kudos, KRG.

Where do you stand on transgendered?

If you're looking for me to fess up to some of the labels you're assigning me with, of course I'm all of those things from time to time. Isn't everybody? I try to mix my arrogant posting style with enough humility so I don't have a torch-wielding mob at my door. I'm succeeding on that front, at least. I've never promoted the idea that I'm never wrong. The bloke you're criticising is a product of your own creation, mate. Fair dos, I can see how you'd develop that impression given our encounters in the past. I'm not quite sure why you're making such an effort to shift every topic of discussion onto your tedious agenda, even when I'm in agreement.

My genius plan has always been to attempt to achieve small scale self-sufficiency and then scale it up.

Absolutely stonking news. To use language Rickie would appreciate, I'm made up for the lad.

I was actually agreeing with your original points.

I don't need to provide any theories when so many others are constructing them for me, inexpertly as it goes. Cheers for providing me with the opportunity to ask more questions on Woolwich though. Here are some of the things that don't make sense to me:- 1) Reaction time of the OB 2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale. 3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet" 4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them 5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing. 6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street. 7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing. Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood. 9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event. 10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire. 11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting. 12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc". 13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop ) 14) The fuss.

Just for the record, BS - most claims are backed up with something. If your house was burgled, you wouldn't be able to say "the bastards nicked a £1M yacht from my broom cupboard!" to the insurance company and get away with it. You'd need to have something to back up your claims. Same principle applies here.

Then it didn't happen, and your input here is just another double helping of BS.