Van Slams Into Pedestrians Near London Mosque Leaving "Number Of Casualties", Driver Arrested

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

$20 says in a day or two will hear the words, "authorities knew the man was a potential threat" or something along those lines. They need to get it together.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Detectives have trawled through around 80 hours of CCTV so far. They have visited 140 locations and recovered 33 digital devices from a number of addresses in Wales."

80 hours of CCTV? And 140 locations? What if it turns out to have been an accident, caused by a drunk driver?
I presume they are trying to somehow make sure they delete all the CCTV that shows the actual incident occurring... before the court case.

You'll notice that this COMPLETELY BIASED article says "Nine other people were taken to hospital when a van driver targeted the area busy, with worshippers attending Ramadan night prayers at the nearby mosque."

"nearby" meaning "500 yards away".

You'll also notice that it says "Finsbury Park mosque tragedy in pictures".

But it happened in Whadcoat Street. The BBC must be kicking themselves that they produced that aerial map showing exactly where the incident happened.

It's VERY simple: If the van driver had been deliberately trying to kill muslims by running them over, he would have smashed into the BOLLARDS that are less than twenty yards from the entrance to Whadcoat Street, because he would have been accelerating, not decelerating. The fact that the front of the van has not been smashed in by a bollard or bollards proves that he was decelerating and was able to stop before hitting them.

And that is IT. That is all you need to know about this case. Any detective worth his salt would have come to this conclusion on the night of the incident, as soon as he saw where the van was stopped, and the lack of damage on the front of it.

a reply to: JohnThomas

It's VERY simple: If the van driver had been deliberately trying to kill muslims by running them over, he would have smashed into the BOLLARDS that are less than twenty yards from the entrance to Whadcoat Street, because he would have been accelerating, not decelerating. The fact that the front of the van has not been smashed in by a bollard or bollards proves that he was decelerating and was able to stop before hitting them.

The basic -- OK, BIG -- mistake you're making here is the assumption that the driver barrelled down that road like a bat out of Hell. It would be quite possible to accelerate briefly to a moderate speed and then brake rapidly to avoid (duh!) doing yourself a mischief by crashing destructively into the completely-obvious bollards.

From an outside perspective, the van would seem to lurch rapidly forward then stop rapidly. It wouldn't take more than a second or two, and would be over before anyone had time to react.

Or perhaps you think that he drove single-mindedly toward the scene all the way from Wales, accelerating throughout, with the Dambusters march building to a climax as he hurtled the final 500 metres?

a reply to: JohnThomas


So you are presuming that the detectives are deleting the CCTV footage? That is one hell of a presumption but I think that you would be wrong. That is not how things work.

a reply to: Grambler

Well, people are fed up. I do not condone these attacks how ever i am not surprised.

Hate breeds hate.

Just as I predicted... ONE one second clip of the van turning into Whadcoat Street (which the media doesn't mention, apart from that ONE BBC article), at about 10 - 15MPH.

Look at this CCTV clip:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Why is most of the video blurred out? Why does this particular video start just as the bus in the bus lane pulls away?

This video, also on the BBC website, shows that a bus pulls up in front of Whadcoat Street, seconds before the van turns into it, but also the video strangely stops before we can see HOW LONG THE VAN TOOK TO STOP after hitting the crowd...

www.bbc.co.uk...

I wonder why that would be...
There is a CCTV camera mounted high on a pole (as high as a streetlight) about two hundred yards back on the left on Seven Sisters Road, which points directly towards the traffic lights just ahead of Whadcoat Street- and would have recorded the van's ENTIRE journey down the road.... I wonder why we haven't seen that footage yet. I wonder why they aren't showing us the muslims dragging the driver out of his van and kicking him and beating him up on the ground... I wonder why the alleged police officer's bodycam footage of Darren Osborne allegedly confessing to having done it on purpose.
Just as I predicted... and the public will lap it up...

WHY IS THERE NO OTHER CCTV FOOTAGE? WHY DID THEY STOP THE CCTV FOOTAGE BEFORE THE VAN EVEN HIT ANYBODY? It is vital that we see how long it took the van to stop. There must be other CCTV in that road, London is covered with it.

How do we know that Makram Ali wasn't ALREADY dead when the van turned into Whadcoat Street? (I won't see "when the van hit him" because so far no evidence that would prove that actually happened has been seen...) but hey, they've got CCTV of Darren Osborne "hiring a van" and "writing a note on a piece of paper in a pub", so he MUST be guilty.

Why haven't the muslims who viciously assaulted him been arrested for GBH? Oh wait, it doesn't fit the narrative of 'poor little muslims being victims'...

a reply to: oldcarpy

So, anything to say, oldcarpy? Where is the 80 hours of CCTV that the police were allegedly looking through? You would think it would kind of help their case if they actually had the CCTV of Seven Sisters Road, and the surrounding roads, wouldn't you... showing the van driving at speed....

The very video I linked to above shows it WASN'T a deliberate attack, he is driving FAR too slowly. For all we know, he could have stopped his van BEFORE he actually hit anybody at all - and then was dragged out by muslims and brutally assaulted.

Cue the excuses...

originally posted by: JohnThomas
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Detectives have trawled through around 80 hours of CCTV so far. They have visited 140 locations and recovered 33 digital devices from a number of addresses in Wales."

80 hours of CCTV? And 140 locations? What if it turns out to have been an accident, caused by a drunk driver?
I presume they are trying to somehow make sure they delete all the CCTV that shows the actual incident occurring... before the court case.

You'll notice that this COMPLETELY BIASED article says "Nine other people were taken to hospital when a van driver targeted the area busy, with worshippers attending Ramadan night prayers at the nearby mosque."

"nearby" meaning "500 yards away".

You'll also notice that it says "Finsbury Park mosque tragedy in pictures".

But it happened in Whadcoat Street. The BBC must be kicking themselves that they produced that aerial map showing exactly where the incident happened.

It's VERY simple: If the van driver had been deliberately trying to kill muslims by running them over, he would have smashed into the BOLLARDS that are less than twenty yards from the entrance to Whadcoat Street, because he would have been accelerating, not decelerating. The fact that the front of the van has not been smashed in by a bollard or bollards proves that he was decelerating and was able to stop before hitting them.

And that is IT. That is all you need to know about this case. Any detective worth his salt would have come to this conclusion on the night of the incident, as soon as he saw where the van was stopped, and the lack of damage on the front of it.

"I presume they are trying to somehow make sure they delete all the CCTV that shows the actual incident occurring... "
I was right all along... where is the rest of the clip I linked to above? Where is all the OTHER CCTV of the van driving around London?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Oldcarpy, do you think the information (lies, more like) contained in this article, from JUST AFTER the incident, might influence the jury slightly more than real, unedited CCTV footage would?

www.theguardian.com...

"Over the weekend he was heard calling his Muslim neighbour’s son “in-bred”."

How very scientific? By WHOM was he heard? By muslims, perchance, and reported AFTER the attack, perchance? As if muslims would use taqiyya to make out they are victims...

www.bbc.co.uk...

"Footage showing the moment the van turns sharply left, mounts the curb and ploughs into Mr Ali was seen by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court."

There IS no kerb into Whadcoat Street - it is a STREET. Where is the footage showing when the van "ploughs into Mr Ali"??? How convenient! We never get to see what actually happened. We never get to see all the OTHER CCTV footage of the van - why not? We never get to see what actually happened to the driver of the van as soon as it stopped. Why not? Scared it will show the muslims in a bad light?

a reply to: JohnThomas2

He was a delusional right-wing whackjob who immersed himself in Britain First videos, bought the van in the hope of killing Corbyn, failed, tried to kill lots of people in front of a mosque, failed, blamed it all on a magic invisible friend called 'Dave' and has now been found guilty. The jury was out for less than an hour. Open and shut.
I have no idea what you are trying to allude to.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: JohnThomas2

He was a delusional right-wing whackjob who immersed himself in Britain First videos, bought the van in the hope of killing Corbyn, failed, tried to kill lots of people in front of a mosque, failed, blamed it all on a magic invisible friend called 'Dave' and has now been found guilty. The jury was out for less than an hour. Open and shut.
I have no idea what you are trying to allude to.

"tried to kill lots of people in front of a mosque"... that right there shows me you haven't got a clue.
Whadcoat Street is 500 yards from Finsbury Park Mosque. Not "in front" of it. Couldn't you be bothered to actually research the lies you are defending?

You "have no idea what" I am "trying to allude to"... LOL. The questions I have written are very simple and specific, and easy to answer. Still, just do what almost everybody else here does, avoid discussing what people have actually written... Did you actually read anything I wrote above? Care to rebut any of it, rather than blindly parrotting what the press says?

Why wasn't this case called a 'terrorist' attack, when it clearly was?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Hmm...


Why don't we get to see the rest of the CCTV footage as the van hits the crowd? Why was the van driving so SLOWLY? Do you understand that bit, or is it too difficult for you? He can't have been going over 15mph, why wasn't he doing 60mph, if he was trying to kill people? You haven't addressed a single thing I wrote, just regurgitated the bollocks from the controlled media... I think you might be on the wrong site...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Are there any reports regarding the van's speed at the time of impact?

Judging from the ONE SECOND of CCTV footage the police have been kind enough to release, I would say it was doing 15mph or less. Funny how there is no mention of the speed of the van in the media reports of the court case! You would think they would be claiming it was hurtling down the street at well over the speed limit - after all, that's what you usually do when you want to kill people...

originally posted by: dam00
a reply to: IAMTAT
Not that Ive seen, a vehicle of that size and age will be fitted with a digital tachograph for recording the drivers hours behind the wheel and rest periods, they record the speed so there will be evidence its just a question of if it gets released

a) It helps if you quote the person you are replying to
b) We don't need the tachograph (although isn't it convenient that the controlled media hasn't mentioned it being brought up in court) - WE NEED THE CCTV footage, which they are CLEARLY hiding. Gee... why would they be hiding CCTV footage, which would be indisputable evidence? Because it shows it was an accident, that's why.

We need to see how the van driver got to Seven Sisters Road, and whether he drove around and around it or not - why is none of this being mentioned by the controlled media? It would all be contained in the CCTV footage- why they aren't showing us...
Is there CCTV footage of the front of Finsbury Park Mosque - which is, you know, 500 yards up the road and round a 270 turn? Were there loads of muslims standing outside it at that time of night - and thus a much better target for the van driver to hit?

Radio 4 has just reported on the 7 o'clock news that the accident happened "outside the mosque". It clearly did not. It happened in Whadcoat Street, which is 500 yards away from the mosque, you can't even see the front of the mosque from there.
I see nobody has bothered replying to any of my posts, so I guess we can take it as read that this was an accident and that somehow they have conned/brainwashed/forced Osborne into 'confessing' into "thinking the wrong thoughts" while he was driving into the crowd at FIFTEEN MILES AN HOUR...

Where is all the CCTV footage?

a reply to: JohnThomas2

Why are you so desperate for this to be a miscarriage of justice? He was tried, he used a stupid attempt at an alibi (the amazing invisible 'Dave') and he was found guilty. He drove into that crowd of people deliberately - there's nothing in front of the van in the CCTV footage, but he still makes that hard left turn. And anything that big being driven at people deliberately can only be for one reason - to hurt, harm or kill people.

a reply to: JohnThomas2

He got what he deserved

I wouldn’t be surprised if he was an ex member here to be honest

Frankly, we should still have the death penalty for those that decide to mow people down like that.
The guy is utter scum.

a reply to: JohnThomas2


The CCTV footage would have been made available to this nutter's defence team. It obviously did not assist him, because he is guilty as hell.