[user104658]

OK so to play Keanu Reeves in the 1998 smash hit "Devil's Advocate"... To an extent, I can see where Alf is coming from here, although I maintain my earlier opinion that its a bit odd that he's willing to jump to conclusions in one situation and then insist on evidence in another (we call this LT dissonance).

I do generally prefer to wait for a more complete story before blowing the horn of judgement.

Not doing so would indeed make me a hypocrite because I do insist on waiting for the full facts before conceding that an attack is for example, Islamic terrorism related, even when it seems like the most likely scenario. And there are some very important reasons for that.

Logically speaking I can't think of any decent argument for that not being applied at all times so... Yes... Unless there is video or witness statement then it's foolish to assume that we have the whole and accurate story. That's not saying that we don't. Again I'm just applying the same logic as above; it being wrong to say "this is obvz Islamic terrorism!" on the basis of a couple of Web articles.

I do also feel that Alf has backed himself into a corner here and is lashing out like an ol' dog being poked with a stick. It's not a very comfortable situation all round.

Also to Alf... I guess all I can say there is, I conceded that it's fair to reserve judgement in the absense of concrete evidence, in any and all cases, and I just hope that you'll be more inclined to apply that philosophy to other news stories in future, and not declare or imply that things are "obviously the case", having had a taste of the flipside.