Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35142281)

Paranoia comes to mind as your views become more outlandish as you seek to prove your views are based reality, no idea as to which reality.

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142289)

Each time I've made some "outlandish" claim as you put it, I've provided a link or some reference. Aside from bickering, what are you doing?
If you are so convinced you are right, then go get your *rse on Google and find some data that supports your case and link it here. I'm here to learn too, if you have contradictory data I'd be interested to hear of it.
I'm not arguing for the sake of it, or for cheap "my side vs your side" point scoring like this is some sort of game.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142294)

providing evidence via a link is ok if you use an impartial source ,unfortunately most of the links you provide are picked to suit your agenda

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142263)

Noone said it was the police's fault. I never said that and noone else here has either. It was the fault of the vandals as it was destruction of property whether at the hands of a mob or after pub closing time.

Did anyone ever claim the law changes if there is a group of people all committing the same crime? No.
Did anyone say it was the police's fault ? No.

However, it seems to be that it was put there with the full knowledge of what would happen, there is a difference.

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142209)

As idiotic as the truth?

If you think the police would never leave a van in the middle of a demonstration as a PR stunt, you have much to learn about how the authorities police this country. Everybody knows it was left there on purpose, all part of the PR battle - and make no mistake, there IS a PR battle at work.

There was an in depth discussion online somewhere about that van. The conclusion was that it wasn't even in service, older model (possibly stripped out of anything of any value) and something wrong with the ID on it (iirc).
Yes, there is evidence that would suggest it was left there on purpose.
If I can find some relevant links I'll post them.

---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------



Ah, so it was. Apologies Masque. That'll teach me to type and work at the same time :doh:

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142302)

Firstly, thats your opinion. Secondly, I don't have an agenda.
If I see evidence that indicates one way or the other, I'll support it.
Thirdly, its my understanding that none of the links I've given are partial to one side or the other - so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

If you have a good explanation for how the weathered "police aware" sticker came to be on that vehicle, then I'm all ears. I did come across anti-police sites during my internet searches, but I deliberately omitted them due to their obvious bias against the police.

It's my impression that you don't have an explanation, and that perhaps even if you knew I were right you simply would refuse to swallow your pride and reverse your stance.
If so (not saying it is, but if it is) then you're no better than the politians whose "party politics" got us into this mess in the first place.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35142304)

Strange - your earlier post sounds very much like someone is saying it's the police's fault.....

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142311)

you obviously missed #953

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142313)

I don't understand the source of the confusion, but I'll try a different approach.
I'll use an example. Say hypothetically I own a shop and I want the shop window to get broken to claim insurance (or for whatever reason).
So, I take a £50 and leave in just inside the glass but in full view from outside.
Saturday night comes along, streets are packed with drunken idiots and hey presto the window gets broken and the £50 note stolen. Who's committed the crime, me leaving the £50 or the thief that broke the window and stole it?

C'mon guys, this isn't rocket science. Why are we even arguing about the silly pedantics? Clearly the vandals are still to blame for smashing the van, but I believe that it was most likely the intended outcome all along - based on the available evidence.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35142237)

I dont know is it. I was not there was you ?. I would need to be there to make a valid assessment.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35142142)

So yes i KNOW what a riot is like.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142243)

At todays price a new basic model sprinter starts at £19,000 ,that particular model i.e extra long ,high roof ,3.5t is £29,975 +vat + modifications specific to use ,the 5 ton version is £35,000

merc link

so yes they did wreck a £30,000 vehicle

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35142245)

i'm sure a policeman will be along soon with a wildly fantastic and believable explanation .

the sign looks very dated and there is rust running from the rear windows ,is this how expensive vehicles are cared for -or is it how an old scrapper looks ?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142251)

which they would have to pay to replace it or do you think these things are free :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142313)

I don't understand the source of the confusion, but I'll try a different approach.
I'll use an example. Say hypothetically I own a shop and I want the shop window to get broken to claim insurance (or for whatever reason).
So, I take a £50 and leave in just inside the glass but in full view from outside.
Saturday night comes along, streets are packed with drunken idiots and hey presto the window gets broken and the £50 note stolen. Who's committed the crime, me leaving the £50 or the thief that broke the window and stole it?

C'mon guys, this isn't rocket science. Why are we even arguing about the silly pedantics? Clearly the vandals are still to blame for smashing the van, but I believe that it was most likely the intended outcome all along - based on the available evidence.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------



#953


THAT is your explanation ? I'm clearly wasting my time if you have come to the conclusion that I think anything is possible.
I base my conclusions on evidence, and that thereby rules out all other possibilities which do not have supporting evidence. Therefore your argument is null and void.

With regards to what information the government and police feed to the the general public, I do keep an open mind - but not so open that my brains fall out.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142316)

Absolute rubbish ,you have now entered so far into into the realms of fantasy land you have got lost on your way back to reality
Why would the police bother to encite a riot with all the trouble that goes with it ,and why would they risk a whistle blower grassing them up and it all comming out it's just ridiculous

but i'm sure that you will have invented a perfectly plausible(in your eyes)answer

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142326)

I suppose you think it was parked there with no number plates on aswell :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by punky (Post 35142260)

I've heard some really stupid whiny excuses from some really study whiny students but to say that it's the police's fault that a police van was destroyed by a baying mob is really up there.

I don't think even truthers are that stupid or had that much front.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142262)

Why would anyone get disciplined because a bunch of morons chose to wreck a van ? the sticker may have been on the van from a breakdown who knows ,who cares ,it's irrelevant ,just because the van was parked there doesn't mean the morons have the right to wreck it ,well not in the reak world but in the world of FB and Sparkle anythings possible :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35142319)

There is no way on this Earth that that van was worth anything even close to thirty thousand pounds.

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 35142327)

You clearly are lacking in a certain department, everyone knows the number plate was removed by the vandals. Get your evidence to back your conjecture or accept defeat ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142311)

you obviously missed #953

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35142329)

But there was no reason for a old scrapped police van to be there. Any ideas why they would have put it there?

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------



Broken down? What next, it was Doctor Who's new TARDIS design? Progressed from the Police Box to a riot van. :D

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35142333)

i'm surprised you believe it after all it is a fact