Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Here's hoping you are consistent in that approach to all sides involved....;)

Oops - obviously not....

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

What you mean some people who have an axe to grind with the Police don't always tell the whole truth??.... :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yawn, some people never change.
Go back and read my post, I said "In my view".
You know fine well what I meant, and simply because I accuse some of you of stating facts where there are very few, any opinion of mine whatsoever which I choose to share is automatically deemed hypocrisy?

You should learn to read statements as they were written, not how you choose to read them, and learn to separate fact from fiction.

I stand by my original statements.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

Obviously yes, as mentioned in my last post. Another CF member who's so blinded by partiality that he can only read what he wants to.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

If you think the phrase "in my view" renders what followed as something other than "conjecture", you should perhaps learn to read a dictionary.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I don't know the facts, as I said. I was asking you a simple question like an intelligent adult, and in reply you toss your toys out the pram. I don't know why I even bother.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

*yawns*
I wasn't stating facts Chris, I was stating a view - which I'm entitled to have without forfeiting my stance of basing conclusions on facts. I've stated I have no final verfict because I don't have the facts.

Why is this complexity so far beyond you? Its not complex Chris, it really isn't.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Correct, you were stating your view. You are entitled to do so. You are entitled to indulge in conjecture, which is what your view amounts to.

And I am entitled to point out that you have indulged in conjecture less than half an hour after you criticised someone else for doing the same thing.

This, too, is not complex.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

In my view, more likely & probably. Key words there Chris.
It makes all the difference.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

We need to get Laurie Penny on here, she'll set you all straight besmirching her completely peace loving, non-violent protesters fighting for what's right for us all.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

No, it makes no difference. These are the very essence of a conjecture, which may be described:

You acknowledge that what you say is unproven and you acknowledge that you believe it to be true.

QED.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Chris, perhaps I should explain a few things. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with opinons and conjecture. That's what we're here to discuss.
I was criticising basing final conclusions on anectodal evidence and conjecture. As some CF members appeared to be doing. There is a big difference, when I state conjecture (as I do all the time) I do take care to state "in my view" or the equivalent.
As for the meadows case, I have not even looked into it, this was why I was asking Derek for a link, I was just feeling a bit lazy this morning - still haven't had a chance to search for it.
But, from the limited information I do have, I do find it rather suspect that her testimony (assuming it to false) wasn't put to bed that same evening, as the media maintained a heavy presence there at that time.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------

Okay, had a wee peak on the internet to find some more references to this story.

Here is the original account:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...ester-hospital

Another version:
http://studentbroadleft.org.uk/2010/...alfie-meadows/
What I can discern from this is that if the Susan Meadows' account is the work of an overactive imagination, then surely the police are going to charge her for slander.
Right?
But yet so far I've heard nothing of the sorts. This just doesn't add up to me. If the police choose not to press charges then I think there is probably a good reason. Any suggestions?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I have a suggestion. :wavey:

You can't charge someone for slander. It's a civil matter. And as it is not possible in law for a public institution to sue for either slander or libel, don't expect to see the Met taking her to the County court either.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Is slander a criminal offence?

Regardless I'd imagine the police have better things to do than drag everyone who lies to them through the courts.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Not even to set an example for others?
If I made a public, slanderous accusation against the police, don't you think I'd get charged? There is also such a thing as wasting police time, as the IPCC were looking into this case, Susan Meadows will be in serious trouble if it can be shown that she was lying.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

And then there would be the cries from the usual suspects of "police intimidation*" and "restriction of free speech" - lose/lose for the Met....

*where have I heard that phrase in this thread?:erm: