Tariq Mir Statement is not UK Police Document: BBC Urdu

[batmannow]

I used to think BBC still had some journalistic ethics left in this day and age of chasing page views and adverts.

Really sad to see the shoddy reporting done by BBC which has huge consequences.

That's a starting script , which will make Pakistani establishment comming into a huge trap ?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Trust me , these Brits aren't interested in ALTAF Hussain , they are more greedy about **** nucks & ports of Karachi & gawadar ?

Please no conspiracy theories. this topic is very very serious.

What explanation? I asked you to match MET letterhead with actual one which you didn't and also why MET is involved at all? Forger should have known this before making up a fake document.... couldn't they fake LP or SY logos?

Sneaker bhai jaan

It was the local police station where Tariq was taken for questioning.

SLY is covering other aspects.

 

[Spectre]

These are confidential records, of course they'd deny them. Even then, they didn't deny the content, just the ownership. They were very careful with their wording, considering legal reasons.

When confidential documents not related to state security are leaked modus operandi of the police is to not comment they can't outright deny the ownership or content as this Denial of ownership would be then sited by defendant in court. The whole chain of custody can be questioned and refuted.

With regards to national security their are exceptions but this case is not being investigated by MI5 so this doesn't apply.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with standard police procedures followed everywhere. In the interest of brevity - "Police cannot lie".

 

[Gazi]

Look bhai jaan

This is not the first time BBC report has given a damning report about MQM.

The past reports are still out there and MQM could not sue.

So daal may bohot kala kala hai.

So what if they dont???

THey didnt DAMAGE MQM that much either.

Their Support Base is still intact so what is the point wasting their Legal Team on something that has no effect on them at the time when they already have their Hands full.

 

[Sneaker]

I did compare it and found no difference... besides that Met Police has also written this motto in different fonts so it's authenticity must not be challenged. The question which matters is the copy-paste of Met logo on ordinary letter or whether it's a genuine letter from the archives...

See how a met letterhead looks like

https://secretmanoeuvresinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/chris-robson-letter-001.jpg

 

[FaujHistorian]

So what if they dont???

THey didnt DAMAGE MQM that much either.

Their Support Base is still intact so what is the point wasting their Legal Team on something that has no effect on them at the time when they already have their Hands full.

It is not just about support base. PPP has that too and so does IK.

 

[That Guy]

Why would they even Comment on a Content????That would be like Revealing Information of a case under investigation of a document that doesnt even Belong to them on the first Place.

Investigation. The document claims to be their property, so they would technically have the right to comment and deny it's content.

 

[batmannow]

Please no conspiracy theories. this topic is very very serious.

Belive me I am dam serious , just wait for the story unfolds

 

[That Guy]

When confidential documents not related to state security are leaked modus operandi of the police is to not comment they can't outright deny the ownership or content as this Denial of ownership would be then sited by defendant in court. The whole chain of custody can be questioned and refuted.

With regards to national security their are exceptions but this case is not being investigated by MI5 so this doesn't apply.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with standard police procedures followed everywhere. In the interest of brevity - "Police cannot lie".

This isn't actually true. There are many times that such leaks are denied, yet turn out to be real. The most recent example of what I'm talking about is the Saudi leak, they deny the authenticity of the leak, and don't appear to be investigating, yet we know they are.

Such investigations happen in secret, not in the public domain. I believe India once had to deal with such an event once in the past, though I can't remember when.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Belive me I am dam serious , just wait for the story unfolds

ok

 

[pkuser2k12]

What explanation? I asked you to match MET letterhead with actual one which you didn't and also why MET is involved at all? Forger should have known this before making up a fake document.... couldn't they fake LP or SY logos?

I did compare it and found no difference... besides that Met Police has also written this motto in different fonts so it's authenticity must not be challenged. The question which matters is the copy-paste of Met logo on ordinary letter or whether it's a genuine letter from the archives...

waiting for MET to comment on the paper below that is pre interview briefing not a letter .they will comment on this letter like they comment earlier

 

[Sneaker]

Sneaker bhai jaan

It was the local police station where Tariq was taken for questioning.

SLY is covering other aspects.

All the discussion is not required when MET themselves have denied, clearly..
'MQM leader's confessional documents not property of London police' - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[batmannow]

Investigation. The document claims to be their property, so they would technically have the right to comment and deny it's content.

Nice inshights sir !
Hope you will post mortem it without bias ?

 

[Gazi]

Investigation. The document claims to be their property, so they would technically have the right to comment and deny it's content.

In such a way that Information Doesnt got Revealed Commenting on a content would be like revealing the Information of a case and they are not Pakistan Police to make such a Mistake.

 

[Spectre]

This isn't actually true. There are many times that such leaks are denied, yet turn out to be real. The most recent example of what I'm talking about is the Saudi leak, they deny the authenticity of the leak, and don't appear to be investigating, yet we know they are.

Such investigations happen in secret, not in the public domain. I believe India once had to deal with such an event once in the past, though I can't remember when.

I am not aware of the Saudi Leak incident but Sir from someone who knows a thing or two about UK police procedures trust me Police cannot lie to press about either content or ownership of the evidence. They can obfuscate, give half truths, misleading statements etc which they can later justify but outright denials contradicts the chain of custody and that evidence would be thrown out of court.