Students Rioting in London.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Aye no surprises there then, I on the other hand will await the facts before deciding a verdict.

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Maybe, but it just doesn't add up to me. The media could've interviewed that ambulance driver within minutes, and if she'd made up the story she'd have been made a fool of in front of the nation. Seems a rather risky ploy to me.
In my view, it seems more likely that if her testimony wasn't put to rest that very same evening (as it involved so many other people), then anything that's come out since has probably more to do with witness intimidation than anything else.

Oops - obviously not....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

As I said earlier, you're not above the use of anecdote and conjecture yourself, so it's a bit rich you complaining that the police are doing it.

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

Originally Posted by Derek

The investigation stated clearly her claims were 'disproved'. Pretty strong language for an official report.
I'd imagine she lied because:

• Her son was in hospital and she was upset
• She is a left-wing loon ball with a hatred of the police who thinks violence against property and the state is OK
• Her poor, ickle son could never be involved. It must have been the big, bad Police who injured him

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

As I said earlier, you're not above the use of anecdote and conjecture yourself, so it's a bit rich you complaining that the police are doing it.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Oops - obviously not....

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.

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Derek

Either witness intimidation by the big, bad Police or Alfie coughed to being involved in the rioting and she felt silly enough after her 'kettling' of Scotland Yard incident to slip away quietly and not spout more lies and untruths that get exposed as being fiction.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

*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.

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Maybe, but it just doesn't add up to me. The media could've interviewed that ambulance driver within minutes, and if she'd made up the story she'd have been made a fool of in front of the nation. Seems a rather risky ploy to me.
In my view, it seems more likely that if her testimony wasn't put to rest that very same evening (as it involved so many other people), then anything that's come out since has probably more to do with witness intimidation than anything else.

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

[Ignitionnet]

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is believed to be true and has not been disproven

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

QED.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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/

Only after the intervention of an ambulance worker did Alfie receive urgent medical treatment for the stroke he suffered after receiving his injury. The ambulance worker said, “If he hadn’t, Alfie would have been transferred and he could have died.”

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?

I have a suggestion.

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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?

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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?