hmm. I sort of see what you mean, but think it unlikely. I feel the plod come out worse from it than the perceived benefit to govt of getting a reaction of "the media are useless, see can't believe what you read in the papers". More likely someone fancied a quick buck - sometimes the simple explanations are right..
You are probably right but I wondered whether the tack was going to be "see how the pinko terrorist loving treasonable meeja attack our brave boys in blue"
I doubt it - the media was generally supportive of the police action and gave every impression of embracing the "if he's foreign and running, shoot him" style of policing that Ian Blair was unashamedly evangelising the week after the murder. If this new version of events is correct, the police - Ian Blair in particular - have the most to lose now (not counting the de Menezes family, whose loss was acute, tragic, utterly needless and perpetrated, it would seem, by morons).
oh, I see, you mean - "look the nasty papers are getting at our brave (might have been a bit hasty like, but were only trying to protect Die Volk) coppers, by publishing this (even if it's true it's not in the public interest) Now we're not going to give them anything, and you should ignore everything they say, they just tear people down who are trying to do a good job?" Yup, it's possible - storing up points for later on you mean? What a worrying thought, just what civil liberty is bliar going to attack next?
That was my train of thought. I now doubt it though. The fact that the gov/met are stonewalling suggests that they have really been caught by surprise. I mean since when did Blair maintain "a principled silence"?
haha, that's brilliant. Sorry, any sentece with the use of the word Blair and principled amuses me greatly. Shame you weren't so avowedly taciturn when the question of David Kelly's name came up hey Tony?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 11:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 11:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 11:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 01:57 pm (UTC)