Students Rioting in London.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Masque

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.

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 Sparkle

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.

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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 Sparkle

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

you obviously missed #953

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

you obviously missed #953

#953

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

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 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.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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

So, you don't know what a riot is then?

Originally Posted by Sirius

So yes i KNOW what a riot is like.

Which is it?

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 ?

Oh, it was most definitely a scrapper.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

I rather suspect that vehicle was replaced something ago. Besides, what do you think the Metropolitan Police Service do with their old vans?

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.

like i said you haven't read the post you have chose to see what you want to see ,now read it properly ,ok then i'll walk you through it .I don't care what the explanation it is not relevant to anything apart from conspiracy therorists such as yourself you will choose to disbelieve anything that is official simply because it is official ,as far as you are concerened the truth is what you want it to be regardless of facts and evidence
I suppose you think it was parked there with no number plates on aswell

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Holy Moses, you think it takes a major operation to "accidentally" leave a van in the middle of an ensuring police kettle ?

You clearly haven't even bothered to check the facts, for if you had you'd already know the "kettle" actually closed in around the stationary vehicle, which could have moved at any time. Everything was monitored from the air, they saw the van there and did absolutely nothing. Yet one protester gets a little too cocky and a couple dozen officers in riot gear in so called "snatch squads" have no problem going in and grabbing him/her.

No major operation was necessary, all it took was one call to the driver to do another job, he's got the keys. Van isn't moving.
Then the kettle closes in, seemples *squilche*

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

doesn't matter ,that's what it's going to cost to replace it but since you appear to think it's ok to wreck a police van because it's old then i'll tell the police to get the cost of replacing it off you will i ?

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

you obviously missed #953

Oh please, it had broken down?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

A) who said it was an old scrapped van
B) no-one said it had broken down ,i said it was possibly there as a result of a previous breakdown and just hadn't been removed ,i also said (if you even bother to read any of the posts properly)that it was irelavent why the van was there

any way this is now getting boring i'll leave you two conspiracy theorists to think up some more outlandish theories
i'm off to have a life

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

I see, you're just being a windup.
If you find any evidence which explains why the "police aware" sticker was there, and why the vehicle looks like a scrapper I'd be interested to hear it.

In all fairness, I always keep an open mind. It is possible that there is a perfectly logical explanation for the mystery van, i.e. maybe a protester capped the exhaust and the driver couldn't start the engine, who knows.
If and when new contradicting information becomes available, I'll be happy to take it onboard.

But, after weighing in all the facts as they are available now, and considering how the MET has been unusually quiet on explaining how the van came to be there, I think the most probable explanation is that the van was deliberately left in the kettle as a PR stunt.