Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'

In message <q6lcd2dgllfti9lg4fmrpp5b4525lihcud@xxxxxxx>, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 10:13:44 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <tg3ad2p17jsvagl28e6h16f22mjeiggk54@xxxxxxx>, Alex Heney
<me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:26:36 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:06:31 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:

Sadly the evidence is beginning to stack up against the IPCC being any
better than the PCA.

You mean because they are not coming up with the conclusions that you
personally think they should? (Despite them being in possession of all
available evidence and you being in possession of none?)

No, because they are not coming to the conclusions that any sensible
person would come to with the evidence that is known.

Apart from in the two recent cases of Stockwell and Forest Gate, of
course, where they came up with exactly the conclusions most sensible
people would, based on the evidence presented :-)


But you yourself said that it was unthinkable that they had announced
their conclusions in the Forest Gate case without interviewing the
officer who fired. Your precise words only yesterday were:

"I find it very hard to think why they wouldn't have.

"I can only think that the "detailed account" obtained from him was *so*
detailed they did not think a face to face interview could add anything.

"It still seems crazy."

So your claim is inconsistent with your own postings on the subject. :-p

Why?

I don't understand why you think that whether they interviewed him or
not makes any difference to whether the decision was sensible or not,
based on the evidence presented.

But that is not what *I* said. That is only your false explanation for what I said.

Read back up the thread. What I said is that the evidence is stacking up for the IPCC not being any better than the PCA. And one significant piece of such evidence is their failure to do something you yourself find it incomprehensible that they failed to do.


I can't see any inconsistency between the two statements.

I *still* think it was crazy for them not to interview him.

Then we agree.


But the decision still seems sensible, given what we have been told.

I never said it wasn't - although since it was reached without them getting evidence that it was crazy for them not to get, it is hard to defend.
--
Richard Miller
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More lies from Barrington-Coupe (Daily Telegraph 2/27)
    ... It isn't likely that W-BC would have paid to hire an ... to-face interview was indeed with JH, ... Because now you've expanded the scope of the ... evidence that JH actually died last year. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: The police force you deserve? (was: G20 Police Assault - Disgraceful!)
    ... statements made by the suspect during interview with arguments such ... Depends upon the circumstances of the offence and how the matter came to the attention of the police. ... bland if there is as yet little evidence. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... available evidence and you being in possession of none?) ... person would come to with the evidence that is known. ... So your claim is inconsistent with your own postings on the subject. ... I *still* think it was crazy for them not to interview him. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Kurt Vonnegut endorses ID on NPR
    ... > Scientists are a tribe. ... > evidence of just how sucessful the ID movement has been ... but in this morning's interview he seemed less combative. ... sides (which we see here in sharp relief) rather than the rightness or ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: racism charge
    ... solicitor doesn't know the basic outline of the allegations and evidence ... then they should probably advise a no reply interview. ... This often isn't in anyone's interests, so a certain amount of prior info is ...
    (uk.legal)