The story continues to unfold. Looks like no blood on the suspect (assuming that's the suspect), that's for sure.

On the other hand, if you look at the ground directly in front of the guy with the red tie and phone, you can see what looks like blood soaked in to concrete with some paper (napkins?) or tissues on it.

I've looked around for the text (searching for defined text strings is an easy way to track down specific articles etc) "said he intervened to stop the attacker". It looks like the original BBC article had this (what we see in the tweet you reference) and also had "who had blood on his face and chest" BUT the same article now has been revised and does not include that.

Not also that it's not an actual quote, but the reporter's statement.

Original article quote and link: https://www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1339244-Girl-and-mum-stabbed-in-Leicester-square

If you follow the link you'll see the article has now been altered/revised.

Although Truth Signal's immediate conclusion is: it's a psyop, and Abdulklah made up the "blood" part and BBC ran their script, it could very easily have been a mis-report initially, in the rush to get the article (story) out and it included some misinformation (incorrect information).

I think its worth applying some critical thinking here.

If its a psyop, a) why would Abdullah make up the "blood" part when there was no blood on the attacker (according to alleged footage of suspect)? if it weakens his story? and b) if its a psyop, why not have blood on the suspect if its going to be part of abdullah's story?

There seems to be a good number of witnesses, and so, if its a psyop, would they not set it up with the fixed story about blood on the suspect and it being consistent with Abdullah's story?

To me, its seems a lot more likely that in the confusion, the reporter got it wrong. If you listen to Abdullah, his English is far from native or smooth. Also, so far, I've not found footage of him actually saying he "intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest".

Rather, the reporter wrote this. It's not a quote. None of the quoted material that I've found actually has Abdullah saying there was blood on the attacker. Is it possible that he was actually talking about the kid, and the reporter misunderstood or mixed it up?

The original BBC report (we can assume) wrote:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest.

The current version of the report reads:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker and, with help from colleagues, gave first aid to the child.

Sinister conspiracy to make fake accusations about blood that were then modified because actual footage of "suspect" does not show blood? Or mistaken report that was corrected when the mistake was figured out?

If it is a psyop, does that mean a) the incident was faked, b) the rescuer and his collegues are fakes (plants), c) the 'suspect' is an actor, d) the area was cordoned off to look like there was an incident e) there was fake blood poured on the ground and f) all the media INCLUDING any alt media (every fricken human has a phone with a his-res camera these days) is all paid off and planned?

So, more critical thinking: WHY?

What's the objective here? To run a story that an immigrant colored man can be a hero? Does Abdullah look like an illegal immigrant? So what benefit to who if such a story came out? To quell the racial conflict by saying there are good immigrants/muslims, etc? Surely the UK DS wants to INFLATE the tensions and the conflict, not reduce it.

Why choose "one of the busiest tourist districts in the capital" to stage a psyop?

The problem I have here is that while its valid and usually always beneficial to question the narratives ('news') we are being sold, too many people see some small fact "Hey, He said there was blood on the attacker (reporter's statement) but where it is (footage)?" and immediate draw the conclusion that fits THEIR bias and prejudice instead of actually looking at as many facts as possible (i.e. tracking them down, examining a wide swath of information) and then, by applying critical thinking, try to find out where the facts point regardless of any preconceived notion.

It's always challenging these days to filter truth from disinfo, misinfo, which is happening on 'both sides' and all over the place.

Best thing is to collect data, and analyze without a preconceived bias and see where the totality of evidence leads, if anywhere.

To me, the reporter's statement that said Abdullah said he saw blood on the perp + the video of the suspect in police custody is a pretty flimsy basis on which to assert psyop, particularly when there are other as, or more, plausible possible explanations.

But eyes on. The timing is .... dasting. But I figure I'm good enough at spotting media psyops now to know when some people just leap for 'psyop' when there is only a very flimsy basis for the assertions....

PS. updoogle for raising a relevant data point and referring to it as highly suspect, which reveals a solid questioning and skeptical mindset.

The story continues to unfold. Looks like no blood on the suspect (assuming that's the suspect), that's for sure.

On the other hand, if you look at the ground directly in front of the guy with the red tie and phone, you can see what looks like blood soaked in to concrete with some paper (napkins?) or tissues on it.

I've looked around for the text (searching for defined text strings is an easy way to track down specific articles etc) "said he intervened to stop the attacker". It looks like the original BBC article had this (what we see in the tweet you reference) had "who had blood on his face and chest" BUT the same article now has been revised and does not include that.

Original article quote and link: https://www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1339244-Girl-and-mum-stabbed-in-Leicester-square

If you follow the link you'll see the article has now been altered/revised.

Although Truth Signla's immediate conclusion is: it's a psyop, and Abdulklah made up the "blood" part and BBC ran their script, it could very easily have been a mis-report initially, in the rush to get the article (story) out and it included some misinformation (incorrect information).

I think its worth applying some critical thinking here.

If its a psyop, a) why would Abdullah make up the "blood" part when there was no blood on the attacker (according to alleged footage of suspect)? It weakens his story. and b) if its a psyop, why not have blood on the suspect if its going to be part of abdullah's story?

There seems to be a good number of witnesses, and so, if its a psyop, would they not set it up with the fixed story about blood on the suspect and it being consistent with Abdullah's story?

To me, its seems a lot more likely that in the confusion, the reporter got it wrong. If you listen to Abdullah, his English is far from native or smooth. Also, So far, I've not found footage of him actually saying he "intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest".

Rather, the reporter wrote this. It's not a quote. None of the quoted material that I've found actually has Abdullah saying there was blood on the attacker. Is it possible that he was actually talking about the kid, and the reporter misunderstood or mixed it up?

The original BBC report (we can assume) wrote:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest.

The current version of the report reads:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker and, with help from colleagues, gave first aid to the child.

Sinister conspiracy to make fake accusations about blood that were then modified because actual footage of "suspect" does not show blood? Or mistaken report that was corrected when the mistake was figured out?

If it is a psyop, does that mean a) the incident was faked, b) the rescuer and his collegues are fakes (plants), c) the 'suspect' is an actor, d) the area was cordoned off to look like there was an incident e) there was fake blood poured on the ground and f) all the media INCLUDING any alt media (every fricken human has a phone with a his-res camera these days) is all paid off and planned?

So more critical thinking: WHY?

What's the objective here? To run a story that an immigrant colored man can be a hero? Does Abdullah look like an illegal immigrant? So what benefit to who if such a story came out? To quell the racial conflict by saying there are good immigrants/muslims, etc? Surely the UK DS wants to INFLATE the tensions and the conflict, not reduce it.

Why choose "one of the busiest tourist districts in the capital" to stage a psyop?

The problem I have here is that while its valid and usually always beneficial to question the narratives ('news') we are being sold, too many people see some small fact "Hey, He said there was blood on the attacker (reporter's statement) but where it is (footage)?" and immeditatley drtaw the conclusion that fits THEIR bias and prejudice instead of actually looking at as many facts and possible and then, by applying critical thinking, try to find out where the facts point regardless of any preconceived notion.

It's always challenging these days to filter truth from disinfo, misinfo, which is happening on 'both sides' and all over the place.

Best thing is to collect data, and analyze without a preconceived bias and see where the totality of evidence leads, if anywhere.

To me, the reporter's statement that said Abdullah said he saw blood on the perp + the video of the suspect in police custody is a pretty flimsy basis on which to assert psyop, particularly when there are other as or more plausible explanations.

But eyes on. The timing is .... dasting. But I figure I'm good enough at spotting media psyops now to know when some people just leap for that when there is only a very flimsy basis for the assertions....

PS. updoogle for raising a relevant data point

The story continues to unfold. Looks like no blood on the suspect (assuming that's the suspect), that's for sure.

On the other hand, if you look at the ground directly in front of the guy with the red tie and phone, you can see what looks like blood soaked in to concrete with some paper (napkins?) or tissues on it.

I've looked around for the text (searching for defined text strings is an easy way to track down specific articles etc) "said he intervened to stop the attacker". It looks like the original BBC article had this (what we see in the tweet you reference) had "who had blood on his face and chest" BUT the same article now has been revised and does not include that.

Original article quote and link: https://www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1339244-Girl-and-mum-stabbed-in-Leicester-square

If you follow the link you'll see the article has now been altered/revised.

Although Truth Signla's immediate conclusion is: it's a psyop, and Abdulklah made up the "blood" part and BBC ran their script, it could very easily have been a mis-report initially, in the rush to get the article (story) out and it included some misinformation (incorrect information).

I think its worth applying some critical thinking here.

If its a psyop, a) why would Abdullah make up the "blood" part when there was no blood on the attacker (according to alleged footage of suspect)? It weakens his story. and b) if its a psyop, why not have blood on the suspect if its going to be part of abdullah's story?

There seems to be a good number of witnesses, and so, if its a psyop, would they not set it up with the fixed story about blood on the suspect and it being consistent with Abdullah's story?

To me, its seems a lot more likely that in the confusion, the reporter got it wrong. If you listen to Abdullah, his English is far from native or smooth. Also, So far, I've not found footage of him actually saying he "intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest".

Rather, the reporter wrote this. It's not a quote. None of the quoted material that I've found actually has Abdullah saying there was blood on the attacker. Is it possible that he was actually talking about the kid, and the reporter misunderstood or mixed it up?

The original BBC report (we can assume) wrote:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker who had blood on his face and chest.

The current version of the report reads:

Abdullah, 29, who works at TWG tea in Leicester Square, said he intervened to stop the attacker and, with help from colleagues, gave first aid to the child.

Sinister conspiracy to make fake accusations about blood that were then modified because actual footage of "suspect" does not show blood? Or mistaken report that was corrected when the mistake was figured out?

If it is a psyop, does that mean a) the incident was faked, b) the rescuer and his collegues are fakes (plants), c) the 'suspect' is an actor, d) the area was cordoned off to look like there was an incident e) there was fake blood poured on the ground and f) all the media INCLUDING any alt media (every fricken human has a phone with a his-res camera these days) is all paid off and planned?

So more critical thinking: WHY?

What's the objective here? To run a story that an immigrant colored man can be a hero? Does Abdullah look like an illegal immigrant? So what benefit to who if such a story came out? To quell the racial conflict by saying there are good immigrants/muslims, etc? Surely the UK DS wants to INFLATE the tensions and the conflict, not reduce it.

Why choose "one of the busiest tourist districts in the capital" to stage a psyop?

The problem I have here is that while its valid and usually always beneficial to question the narratives ('news') we are being sold, too many people see some small fact "Hey, He said there was blood on the attacker (reporter's statement) but where it is (footage)?" and immeditatley drtaw the conclusion that fits THEIR bias and prejudice instead of actually looking at as many facts and possible and then, by applying critical thinking, try to find out where the facts point regardless of any preconceived notion.

It's always challenging these days to filter truth from disinfo, misinfo, which is happening on 'both sides' and all over the place.

Best thing is to collect data, and analyze without a preconceived bias and see where the totality of evidence leads, if anywhere.

To me, the reporter's statement that said Abdullah said he saw blood on the perp + the video of the suspect in police custody is a pretty flimsy basis on which to assert psyop, particularly when there are other as or more plausible explanations.

But eyes on. The timing is .... dasting. But I figure I'm good enough at spotting media psyops now to know when some people just leap for that when there is only a very flimsy basis for the assertions....

The story continues to unfold. Looks like no blood on the suspect (assuming that's the suspect), that's for sure.

On the other hand, if you look at the ground directly in front of the guy with the red tie and phone, you can see what looks like blood soaked in to concrete with some paper or tissues on it.

Worth keeping eyes on. Is it possible that it's a psyop? Certainly, but evidence is needed, and I wouldn't bet 'it's a psyop' just because that's convenient and suits my biases.

It's always challenging these days to filter truth from disinfo, misinfo, which is happening on 'both sides' and all over the place.

Best thing is to collect data, and analyze without a preconceived bias and see where the totality of evidence leads, if anywhere.