| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Michael Robinson | |
| Date/Time: | 21/06/25 13:05:00 |
| There is no disjoint Jeremy. Your are quite right, I simply don't accept the verbal reports as credible evidence. They are hearsay, anecdotes. The "sources" are unamed people, no information about their roles and responsibilities. There are no documents supporting them. In the case of Andrew O'Sullivan, he made up a claim about the information in the Furgo report that simply wasn't correct. It is somewhat laughable that you think anyone would do this... "Dear Conway, Someone on an internet forum says he talked to someone from Conway who said Hammersmith Bridge was ok. I don't know the person on the internet forum, when he talked to the Conway person, where he talked to the Conway person, who the Conway person was, what is responsibilities were and what question he was asked. Can you confirm what he said was correct." You appear to think that it is my responsibility to disprove the hearsay and wishful thinking of others. It really isn't. I am perfectly happy to simply wait, then when information is produced from credible sources, I can read it. It makes life very easy, unlike the mental contortions of assumptions and suppositions you are indulging in. If you had read the minutes of the Hammersmith Bridge Task Force from January. you would have seen it says 'members “requested clarification on the current traffic levels around Hammersmith Bridge and the surrounding areas” to help them reach a decision'. Unlike you, I am not going to indulge in speculation or assumptions about what that report will say, or ask people wearing a Conway hard hat and hi-vis what they think. |