School Bus set on Fire in Milan

BorneTobyWilde · 21-03-2019 01:29PM

Are we sure no one was hurt, in video they smash door and as kids leap from bus he drives off and into the side of other vehicles, possibly trapping people between the bus they just leapt from and other vehicles.

gozunda · 21-03-2019 01:45PM

BeerWolf wrote: »

Find it amazing that they allowed a vile bastard to drive a bus full of kids...

The only thing to do is to change the bus laws. It looks it's just too easy to drive a bus these days. We need to restrict access to buses and have a bus amnesty where all the dangerous buses should be surrendered as soon as possible ...

GinAndBitter · 21-03-2019 01:59PM

Disgusting act of terrorism against defenceless children.

jmayo · 21-03-2019 03:16PM

Zorya wrote: »

At first I thought it was quite strange that this incident was reported in such a muted fashion, as it was potentially so terrible. But upon reflection I wonder if it was a concerted decision not to give this event too much media exposure to avoid the possibility of copycat actions, or putting ideas in people's heads. This would be a very soft target for terrorists, with bus loads of children daily driving here and there, and so on. Maybe that is the reason it is so down-played. Which would be a good reason.

Yeah that is why RTE are not exactly pushing the story.

And reading the text in their article...

"I want to put an end to it, I want to stop the deaths in the Mediterranean," several reports cited the driver as saying.

His motives were not immediately clear and the reference to the Mediterranean could be to the thousands of migrants who have crossed from North Africa to Italy, many of them losing their lives on the dangerous journey.

Reports said he was 47 years old, of Senegalese origin and had been a school bus driver since 2002.

No sh** it could be all about African migrants crossing the Med.
Who would have thought that's what he meant. :rolleyes:

Also it was good of them to reaffirm the mantra about how dangerous it was.

LessOutragePlz · 21-03-2019 03:48PM

Grayson wrote: »

Quit whinging about the main stream media.

No thanks but you can keep trusting them and not questioning the motives and agendas behind their publication of certain stories/news and not others.

Kleine Hundin · 21-03-2019 04:05PM

It doesn't matter the background of the guy as he should have raised some many flags and not be allowed anywhere near children. The Italian police are woeful in prevention.

My husband has first hand experiences of incompetent italian authorities. Also relating to a bus driver with mental health issues and gun. This neighbour of his pointed a gun at my husband and threaten him. It took two years before the police came around to remove the gun from the neighbour. He also was a bus driver who took his passengers off the official route for a drive for some reason only known to him. You would call that a hijack. He was under eviction process that also lasted years.

When the court case finally came around it was also a farce to informing my husband as to when the trial was, even though by then he had left Italy and he had travelled especially back to Milan to give evidence.

So just because this guy has an immigration background, don't let it blind you to ineptitude of the authorities.

Grayson · 21-03-2019 04:31PM

declan2693 wrote: »

They probably did but it would have been racist to not allow him the job based on them. Your probably thinking what a retard post ive made yet look at what happened in England with the Muslims paedos.

That's not what happened in the UK is it? they didn't apply for jobs with children and have previous convictions for child abuse, and then get the job anyway.

Boggles · 21-03-2019 04:55PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No thanks but you can keep trusting them and not questioning the motives and agendas behind their publication of certain stories/news and not others.

But they have published the story.

Sand · 21-03-2019 10:57PM

Do we have to consider controlling and restricting the far left groups and speech which has clearly radicalised this man? Groups like Human Rights Watch have created the false belief that the Italian authorities are actively endangering and harming migrants, when the reality is deaths are significantly down. Surely, given this sort of organisation and media was claiming the stakes were the lives of innocent migrants, a violent reaction was inevitable from those took in by such views?

At the very least such groups need to be more careful and considered how the speak and act. Dangerous individuals could act on they say.

Boggles wrote: »

But they have published the story.

If you don't think there is a spin placed on the reporting then okay. Earlier this morning the headline was 'Italian driver hijacks and torches schoolbus full of children'. Now the story is 'Italy bus attack thwarted by 'hero' teenager who contacted police'. The article first establishes the 'hero' is an undocumented Egyptian immigrant. They have found their angle. They do not get around to noting that the driver is actually Senegalese (not Italian) or his motivations until the 4th paragraph when the heroic status of an immigrant has already been established as the context.

In a similar way you can see how certain positions are reported but qualified as being 'alleged' or 'claimed', or the usage of weaponised quotation marks to encourage the reader to believe the reported position is dubious or untrue. Whereas positions the reporter/editor approves of will be reported without those qualifications. If the media outlet disapproves of the person or group they are reporting on, there will certainly be the most unflattering picture of the subject used. If there is some perceived negative in the subjects past, it will be inserted even where there is little or no connection to the event being reported on. For example, reporting some appearance by Nelson Mandela at the UN, but reminding the reader he was a convicted terrorist before describing his speech. You report (some of) the facts, but how you present them establishes how the reader interprets those facts.

To deny the efforts of those in the media to manage the news only means you agree with the bias of the media you are consuming.

21-03-2019 11:11PM

Sand wrote:

In a similar way you can see how certain positions are reported but qualified as being 'alleged' or 'claimed', or the usage of weaponised quotation marks to encourage the reader to believe the reported position is dubious or untrue. Whereas positions the reporter/editor approves of will be reported without those qualifications. If the media outlet disapproves of the person or group they are reporting on, there will certainly be the most unflattering picture of the subject used. If there is some perceived negative in the subjects past, it will be inserted even where there is little or no connection to the event being reported on. For example, reporting some appearance by Nelson Mandela at the UN, but reminding the reader he was a convicted terrorist before describing his speech. You report (some of) the facts, but how you present them establishes how the reader interprets those facts.

A great post there. The like of fox and breitbart are equally as guilty and are (somewhat justifiably) pilloried for it while the BBC and other mainstream outlets are given a free pass.

News is nothing more than propaganda at this point. It is disheartening when you realise that the media are agenda driven rather than mediums than fact driven.

This is the main reason I left my journalism degree despite it being something I feel passionate about. Actual reporting is dead.

BBFAN · 21-03-2019 11:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A great post there. The like of fox and breitbart are equally as guilty and are (somewhat justifiably) pilloried for it while the BBC and other mainstream outlets are given a free pass.

News is nothing more than propaganda at this point. It is disheartening when you realise that the media are agenda driven rather than mediums than fact driven.

This is the main reason I left my journalism degree despite it being something I feel passionate about. Actual reporting is dead.

Anyone who thinks that the any form of media has ever been anything other than agenda driven is extremely naïve (and I'm being kind by saying naïve).

Medias job is to make money, not report facts.

21-03-2019 11:29PM

BBFAN wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the any form of media has ever been anything other than agenda driven is extremely naÃ¯ve (and I'm being kind by saying naÃ¯ve).

BBFAN wrote:

Medias job is to make money, not report facts.

I agree. And that's why I left. I think the media's only rule should be that they report facts without bias.

That has not and sadly will not happen.

BBFAN · 21-03-2019 11:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree. And that's why I left. I think the media's only rule should be that they report facts without bias.

That has not and sadly will not happen.

So how do you suggest media makes money so?

And how can you claim the likes of Breitbart are a credible source if you believe in only fact based news?

21-03-2019 11:41PM

BBFAN wrote:

And how can you claim the likes of Breitbart are a credible source if you believe in only fact based news?

I believe them to be as credible as other news sources. They aren't without their agenda and I hold them to the same contempt as I would the BBC.

Bizarre that you would try to say that I am defending breitbart. Im just pointing out that if people discredit them for having an agenda based skew, they'd also have to discount all the mainstream too.

BBFAN · 21-03-2019 11:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe them to be as credible as other news sources. They aren't without their agenda and I hold them to the same contempt as I would the BBC.

Bizarre that you would try to say that I am defending breitbart. Im just pointing out that if people discredit them for having an agenda based skew, they'd also have to discount all the mainstream too.

No, that's fine, as long as we're agreed that all media sources have money as their primary motive that's fine.

Let's not pretend like some people do that one is more honest than the other and has no agenda.

21-03-2019 11:48PM

Absolutely. I think we can find common ground on that.

I just don't like when I see fox and breitbart passed off as loons with an agenda and in the same breath seeing people wax lyrical about CNN or BBC.

I find them all dishonest

Kivaro · 22-03-2019 12:04AM

BBFAN wrote: »

No, that's fine, as long as we're agreed that all media sources have money as their primary motive that's fine.

Let's not pretend like some people do that one is more honest than the other and has no agenda.

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. I think we can find common ground on that.

I just don't like when I see fox and breitbart passed off as loons with an agenda and in the same breath seeing people wax lyrical about CNN or BBC.

I find them all dishonest

Is AH broken?
A meeting of the minds from opposing sides.

I find CNN to be contemptible and overtly bias.
I have never visited breitbart-type sites ..... in fact, they give me the heebie jeebies.

After a lot of practice testing out various new sources, I find Al Jazeera to be quite good at reporting world news .... while understanding that there may be bias in some of its reporting too.

mvl · 22-03-2019 06:20AM

Kivaro wrote: »

Is AH broken?
A meeting of the minds from opposing sides.

I find CNN to be contemptible and overtly bias.
I have never visited breitbart-type sites ..... in fact, they give me the heebie jeebies.

After a lot of practice testing out various new sources, I find Al Jazeera to be quite good at reporting world news .... while understanding that there may be bias in some of its reporting too.

don't think so - actually I find AH to be pretty good at sharing world news (at least for someone who doesn't watch TV)

biko · 22-03-2019 09:39AM

Definitely a candidate for citizenship revocation and deportation back home to Senegal, where I'm sure he'll be welcoming more Chinese into his country.

topper75 · 22-03-2019 10:59AM

mvl wrote: »

don't think so - actually I find AH to be pretty good at sharing world news (at least for someone who doesn't watch TV)

Fora like boards are an excellent source point for news because the initially linked content is only the starting point - then it is thrown to the wolves and we can check to see what nuggets of truth (if any) might remain. Taking the initial content as is ain't bright, whatever the source.

Kivaro · 22-03-2019 11:26AM

mvl wrote: »

don't think so - actually I find AH to be pretty good at sharing world news (at least for someone who doesn't watch TV)

topper75 wrote: »

Fora like boards are an excellent source point for news because the initially linked content is only the starting point - then it is thrown to the wolves and we can check to see what nuggets of truth (if any) might remain. Taking the initial content as is ain't bright, whatever the source.

Totally agree.
Let's say a terrorist incident occurs in Europe today.
CNN will report it along the lines: "Donald Trump held responsible for the terrorist incident today".

Whereas in AH, you will have it reported very quickly; sometimes faster than other media outlets, then you will have a multitude of links posted where you can pick and chose your sources, and more than likely you will have a boardsie living/working in the area who will give us a live depiction of what is actually happening.

Traditional journalism is mostly dead and buried. There is a reason why multi-billionaires buy up news channels and major newspapers e.g. Ted Turner owns CNN, Robert Murdoch owns Fox and in Ireland you have the likes of the Irish Times and Irish Examiner under the same ownership and hence the same type of biased reporting and editorials coming from both.

May the AH News-desk have a long and healthy life .................... until it's bought by a billionaire. Then we will just seek news on the Internet using a different mechanism.

otnomart · 24-03-2019 11:21AM

This is the most complete article on the subject (in Italian):
http://www.dagospia.com/rubrica-29/cronache/carabinieri-do-it-better-altro-che-swat-negoziatori-raffiche-mitra-199091.htm
Google Translate: "throughout the West(ern wold) there is not a situation that began like this (51 children handcuffed on the bus, petrol cans, a psychopath who wants to get to the airport) that ended up without a single gunshot wound and only one wounded"

MrFresh · 24-03-2019 11:55AM

Sand wrote: »

Do we have to consider controlling and restricting the far left groups and speech which has clearly radicalised this man? Groups like Human Rights Watch have created the false belief that the Italian authorities are actively endangering and harming migrants, when the reality is deaths are significantly down. Surely, given this sort of organisation and media was claiming the stakes were the lives of innocent migrants, a violent reaction was inevitable from those took in by such views?

At the very least such groups need to be more careful and considered how the speak and act. Dangerous individuals could act on they say.

If you don't think there is a spin placed on the reporting then okay. Earlier this morning the headline was 'Italian driver hijacks and torches schoolbus full of children'. Now the story is 'Italy bus attack thwarted by 'hero' teenager who contacted police'. The article first establishes the 'hero' is an undocumented Egyptian immigrant. They have found their angle. They do not get around to noting that the driver is actually Senegalese (not Italian) or his motivations until the 4th paragraph when the heroic status of an immigrant has already been established as the context.

In a similar way you can see how certain positions are reported but qualified as being 'alleged' or 'claimed', or the usage of weaponised quotation marks to encourage the reader to believe the reported position is dubious or untrue. Whereas positions the reporter/editor approves of will be reported without those qualifications. If the media outlet disapproves of the person or group they are reporting on, there will certainly be the most unflattering picture of the subject used. If there is some perceived negative in the subjects past, it will be inserted even where there is little or no connection to the event being reported on. For example, reporting some appearance by Nelson Mandela at the UN, but reminding the reader he was a convicted terrorist before describing his speech. You report (some of) the facts, but how you present them establishes how the reader interprets those facts.

To deny the efforts of those in the media to manage the news only means you agree with the bias of the media you are consuming.

All fake news needs to be stamped out. Anything calling itself "news" should be required to clearly distinguish fact from opinion.

Yurt2 · 24-03-2019 12:04PM

Kivaro wrote: »

Totally agree.

Ted Turner owns CNN, Robert Murdoch owns Fox and in Ireland you have the likes of the Irish Times and Irish Examiner under the same ownership and hence the same type of biased reporting and editorials coming from both.

I'll stick up for the Examiner, by far the best Irish daily. The IT has indeed turned to mush, trading of the name on the masthead alone these days. Less said about the Indo the better.

Danzy · 24-03-2019 05:16PM

Yurt! wrote: »

I'll stick up for the Examiner, by far the best Irish daily. The IT has indeed turned to mush, trading of the name on the masthead alone these days. Less said about the Indo the better.

The Irish Times has become a copy and paste paper.

Examiner not what it was 5 years ago but easily the best broadsheet.

Eggbread · 24-03-2019 06:14PM

Worse than Brenton Tarrant, gets buried by the leftist media. Smh.

Boggles · 24-03-2019 07:43PM

Kivaro wrote: »

Totally agree.
Let's say a terrorist incident occurs in Europe today.
CNN will report it along the lines: "Donald Trump held responsible for the terrorist incident today".

No, no, no, they wouldn't.

latest?cb=20101223062640

BBFAN · 24-03-2019 08:39PM

Eggbread wrote: »

Worse than Brenton Tarrant, gets buried by the leftist media. Smh.

How on earth is he worse than Brenton Tarrant?????

Irish Stones · 25-03-2019 09:08AM

otnomart wrote: »

This is the most complete article on the subject (in Italian):
http://www.dagospia.com/rubrica-29/cronache/carabinieri-do-it-better-altro-che-swat-negoziatori-raffiche-mitra-199091.htm
Google Translate: "throughout the West(ern wold) there is not a situation that began like this (51 children handcuffed on the bus, petrol cans, a psychopath who wants to get to the airport) that ended up without a single gunshot wound and only one wounded"

Actually that article is more like a comedy, mocking other countries' police (US, France, Israel and Russia) if they had been in the same situation.
The article describes the fact as they were told by a friend of ours at the bar, with lack of professionality and proper terms, lots of praise for the Carabinieri and the acknowledgement that the story ended up well only because (we) the Italians never follow the rules or do what they're told. Despite this, it's a very pleasant reading

Congratulations on your alternative readings! It's not everybody's to read that website.

Irish Stones · 25-03-2019 09:10AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Are we sure no one was hurt, in video they smash door and as kids leap from bus he drives off and into the side of other vehicles, possibly trapping people between the bus they just leapt from and other vehicles.

Apparently the only injured persons are a couple of Carabinieri who smashed the bus windows with their fists.

At the ceremony of those men with our President of the Republic, two of them had bandages on their hands.

School Bus set on Fire in Milan

Comments