Bit of a strange one here. A couple of weeks ago a rumour circulated very quickly in Telford of an attempted abduction in the local Chavda supermarket of a young girl by a couple of Poles.
The Police immediately issued a statement which was published in the local paper, the Shropshire Star, saying it was just a rumour and reassuring residents they had nothing to worry about.
Funny that because I’ve just been told today that one of the doctors at the surgery my cousin works at was actually in the supermarket at the time, that the police were called and sealed the building and that they found a young girl in the toilets with two Romanians and a bottle of hair dye which they’d already started using.
So why did the police lie and tell us that there was nothing to worry about when really we should all have been on our guard in case there were any more of them? I’d quite seriously like to know actually, I have young children that need protecting from threats like this.
Could it be anything to do with Hazel Blears’ instructions to local authorities and press that they should practice self-censorship on stories that might cause ethnic tensions?
Technorati Tags: Censorship, Police
You have no evidence that the police lied, do you? All you have is a rumour; a FOAF (friend-of-a-friend story) as it’s known. In the credibility stakes, that ranks your rumour alongside El Chupacabra, the Yeti and the idea that the US government was behind 9/11.
So, given that you have no evidence for your claim of lying by the police, did you publish this because you wanted people to think less of the police, of Romanians, or of both? And – a question I’ve asked you before, and one you’ve never actually bothered (or been able) to answer – why would you publish something you didn’t know to be true?
1. Why would a doctor lie about it to a nurse?
2. Why would my cousin lie about it to me?
Or are you saying, bearing in mind that you don’t know me, my cousin or the doctor, without evidence, that one or more of us isn’t telling the truth?
I’ve asked this before and you never bothered to answer – if you dislike blogs so much, why do you spend so much time on them?
Because each of them – like you – were passing on rumour, not fact. Unless the doctor in question actually saw the two Romanians (and how would they know they were Romanians?) in the toilet with the little girl and the bottle of hair dye, and knew, perhaps through some mind-reading act, that this was an abduction attempt. Did they? Oh, you don’t know, do you?
I’m not saying that any of you aren’t saying what you believe to be true. But anyone who’s been reading your blog – or indeed any blog – for a while knows that someone can believe something to be true, without having any evidence whatsoever for it.
In this case, a couple of minutes on Snopes.com would have spared your blushes (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/kidnap.asp) although it would have robbed you of an opportunity to demonise groundlessly the police and/or Romanians, and that would have been much less fun, wouldn’t it?
In contrast to the half-dozen questions of mine which you’ve weaseled out of answering, I’ve answered that question on here a number of times. If you can’t be bothered to look up my previous answers, they boil down to: mostly, because bloggers and their readers make me laugh. And as I’ve said in the past, I find reading yours more rewarding than most, because at least sometimes you make a very good point indeed, and make me consider something I’d not thought about before.
Up-grade the sunglass within half the time without spending more money!