Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.