Three stations evacuated in London

That's a very spirited defence of the police, BBC LDN, and your arguments are very well presented.

However, I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. Given that the story changed a lot through yesterday and the general concern over a "shoot-to-kill" policy after all the strife it caused in the Troubles, it does look like something went wrong. If you look at my original post, I said that the police may have been thrown off the scent, that's all. I never suggested a "bizarre and ridiculous conspiracy" took place.

I was not seeking to start a mass discussion on it - in common with others on the rest of the thread, I posted an observation about the news coverage as well as new information on the enquiry.

The main point of the post however was the choice of media terminology to describe the suspects on the 7th July and the 21st July. There is plenty of evidence that seems to suggest the 7th July bombers were, in fact, the bombers - however, according to the Police, they are still suspects. I find it interesting that the Police and the media disagree over the term.

To break away from this argument, why did the BBC pull Rachel Schofield out of her slot about half an hour in to replace her with Louise Minchin? Was it purely that Louise is a 'face' to BBC One viewers (compared to Rachel), or did they feel Rachel could not deal with Breaking News? Either way, if I was in her position, I'd, frankly, be annoyed. I really don't understand the BBC's need to put a 'face' on when the put a special on BBC One/Two. If they're good enough for N24, why not network? It doesn't matter who brings you the news, as long as they do (and, of course, that they're not absolutely dreadful at it. I wouldn't really like Peter Sissons [accomplished as he is at network/other scripted bulletins] bumbling his way through a big breaking news story).

Sky had this as their main headline at 12am and had an update laterin the first half hour before moving onto the sports news. As their was very little information there really wasnt much point sticking with the story for extended periods of time. I noticed the ITV NC finally slapped on a breaking news graphic at about 1.05am over an hour after the news broke and only after they started showing repeats of the late news.

Well, bugger me. Despite my bloviation above, it seems the police shot dead someone who wasn't related to the attacks. That said, I still stand by my comments about the police and giving them the benefit of the doubt until we are given reason to question their actions.

This, however, is a deeply regrettable situation.

N24 broke this news at 1701; no idea when ITV and Sky broke this. N24 seem to have been well prepared for this news as they've had a good deal of reaction in the last 5 minutes already.

Having gone out with a policewoman in my time and met her police buddies, I have no doubt that they were acting on the now proven-to-be erroneous information they were given. They are all pretty much good sorts.

However, without wishing to stray off-topic at all, this should act as proof to all of you (particularly the slavishly-obedient-to-whatever-the-official-line-is-that-day Marcus) that society needs people who question things. By questioning things, you get an idea of what you're being told and its efficacy. It's not about wacky conspiracy theories - it's about an open society where our servants (the public sector) are held accountable to us.

As said in a previous post, big up to Sky News for breaking with the consensus and running with the story. If it weren't for their probing and awkard questions, we may never have known the truth and it might have been buried. A good example to prove that other news organisations (with the exception of the odd lone voice in them like Martin Brunt) are staffed by lazy journalists simply reporting the government line.

Don't be so naive. Sky News were the ones who had the caption Suicide Bomber shot dead up over their output for most of Friday. The fact the Police got it wrong was leaked to them an hour before the police announced it in a press statement. It was heavily reported on all news networks. Hardly a great journalistic coup, or a great cover up. And kind of gives the lie to the idea that the whole plot is being set up by the security services. Hardly puts them in a good light does it.

Marcus, Marcus, Marcus.

How quick you are made to look a little naive yourself. I am NOT a journalist, I am NOT in any media organisation. Other than doing a bit of reporting for my student newspaper, I have no experience whatsoever.

However, by comparing a few media reports even before the Martin Brunt report, I am able to see inconsistencies. Little ol' me, with no journo training whatsoever. When I point out these facts, you nigh on accuse me of being the next David Icke.

AMAZINGLY, my suspicions turn out to be correct. That there WAS something in fact wrong with the whole story. All New Johnnyboy, away from the entire incident, not a member of any news organisation, was able to demonstrate something wrong before anyone else. All New Johnnyboy, an intelligent guy, no doubt, but not working for a media organisation, virtually SCOOPING the rest of the media because he approached the whole thing with a TINY bit of objectivity.

If *I* can see problems with this, why can't you, a BBC journo? As said in the Lounge, you are there to ask the questions I CAN'T ask.

When you discover a little bit of journalistic objectivity, and aren't some fresh faced boy awed by speaking with the major politicians of the day, let me know. I'll watch or listen out for you then, knowing you are more interested in reporting the TRUTH than arse-licking politicians.