Any fool can think of words that rhyme
Nov. 9th, 2010 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaThose of you who know me will not be surprised to learn that I'm now taking more of an interest in the coroner's inquest into the shooting of Mark Saunders than might be expected.
A week ago, one of the firearms officers was accused of hiding song titles in the evidence he gave to the coroner.
I should say first off that - if he did do that - I think it's very worthy of official reprimand. Buggering about playing word games in a court is not, in my opinion, acceptable. However, unless there's a lot more evidence which hasn't made it into the papers (always possible[*]) it looks rather unlikely that he did do it.
Since the IPCC isn't telling, people have been resorting to examining the transcript and fishing out things that look like titles. The BBC report lists the following titles: Point of No Return, Line of Fire, First Time, Enough is Enough and You Have Got to Have Faith. All of which sound, to me, like perfectly reasonable phrases to say when giving testament about a firearms incident.
Other sources list slightly more compelling evidence - phrases you'd think people would be less likely to use in every day conversation - like Fuck My Old Boots. Except, asJack of KentDavid Allen Green rightly points out, the transcript doesn't actually contain that phrase anyway. He also reproduces the list of song titles someone else has extracted from the coroner's questions, making the point that, y'know, song titles just turn up in every day conversations.
A colleague of mine maintains that the best argument against AZ8 having done this on purpose is that surely no one could think of song titles to use as answers to questions, certainly not quickly enough.
I disagree. I reckon that's doable. I claimed with some certainty that I could do it, though I realise I was really thinking of song lyrics rather than titles. However. I know it lacks the real-time element, but I think this calls for an experiment. Can we get a decent conversation going in the comments using song titles[**]?
For best results, try to use only a song title (a more strict condition than AZ8 had to fulfill) and try to use songs which are as mainstream as possible. A band name would also be useful to prove you're not just making it up.
[*] I first read about this in the Evening Standard slightly over a week ago. I was under the impression that it reported a colleague having claimed AZ8 had admitted this. However, no other reports seem to mention this so either I misremembered/misread, the Standard was making stuff up, or this key fact has mysteriously vanished.
Edit: ChrisC has dug the relevant article out for me. It said "Then it appears that a colleague claimed he had inserted song titles into his evidence which prompted the Met to review his evidence again." Which is still fairly ambiguous; did said colleague have any sensible basis for such a claim? I guess we'll have to wait and see what the IPCC say.
[**] What? You were expecting insightful political comment on this issue?
A week ago, one of the firearms officers was accused of hiding song titles in the evidence he gave to the coroner.
I should say first off that - if he did do that - I think it's very worthy of official reprimand. Buggering about playing word games in a court is not, in my opinion, acceptable. However, unless there's a lot more evidence which hasn't made it into the papers (always possible[*]) it looks rather unlikely that he did do it.
Since the IPCC isn't telling, people have been resorting to examining the transcript and fishing out things that look like titles. The BBC report lists the following titles: Point of No Return, Line of Fire, First Time, Enough is Enough and You Have Got to Have Faith. All of which sound, to me, like perfectly reasonable phrases to say when giving testament about a firearms incident.
Other sources list slightly more compelling evidence - phrases you'd think people would be less likely to use in every day conversation - like Fuck My Old Boots. Except, as
A colleague of mine maintains that the best argument against AZ8 having done this on purpose is that surely no one could think of song titles to use as answers to questions, certainly not quickly enough.
I disagree. I reckon that's doable. I claimed with some certainty that I could do it, though I realise I was really thinking of song lyrics rather than titles. However. I know it lacks the real-time element, but I think this calls for an experiment. Can we get a decent conversation going in the comments using song titles[**]?
For best results, try to use only a song title (a more strict condition than AZ8 had to fulfill) and try to use songs which are as mainstream as possible. A band name would also be useful to prove you're not just making it up.
[*] I first read about this in the Evening Standard slightly over a week ago. I was under the impression that it reported a colleague having claimed AZ8 had admitted this. However, no other reports seem to mention this so either I misremembered/misread, the Standard was making stuff up, or this key fact has mysteriously vanished.
Edit: ChrisC has dug the relevant article out for me. It said "Then it appears that a colleague claimed he had inserted song titles into his evidence which prompted the Met to review his evidence again." Which is still fairly ambiguous; did said colleague have any sensible basis for such a claim? I guess we'll have to wait and see what the IPCC say.
[**] What? You were expecting insightful political comment on this issue?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 01:59 pm (UTC)Faith No More
no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:15 pm (UTC)If you tolerate this, your children will be next.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 02:43 pm (UTC)