Half a million people march in London for Palestine

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Leviathan4
I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim ...

You accused the UK Police of a massive conspiracy to deflate the numbers in order to somehow make it easier on them. You made up a conspiracy. That's not 'explaining doubts'. You failed to provide any proof of them purposely deflating numbers. And your claim that you 'didn't say anything about the police' is proven false.

Never done anything like that...

So much pro genocide, pro WW3, and anti protest, anti peace, anti justice in here lmao. Thread should have just gone a few pages, but went 30+ lol lol.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That's my answer to your claims!!

I am explaining why I have doubts when you have made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on you.
They made a claim and i answered why we can't take your assertion as fact.

You seem to be struggling with debates.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Leviathan4
I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim ...

You accused the UK Police of a massive conspiracy to deflate the numbers in order to somehow make it easier on them. You made up a conspiracy. That's not 'explaining doubts'. You failed to provide any proof of them purposely deflating numbers. And your claim that you 'didn't say anything about the police' is proven false.

Actually the videos I am watching on crowd counting say both government (police) and activists will inflate or deflate the numbers because...politics.

originally posted by: sendhelp
So much pro genocide, pro WW3, and anti protest, anti peace, anti justice in here lmao. Thread should have just gone a few pages, but went 30+ lol lol.

Yeah, it's the way of ATS to discredit each other, it's a shame when we could be having more intelligent discussions.

originally posted by: Leviathan4
Never done anything like that...

I JUST POSTED YOUR FOUR QUOTES. You most certainly did. It would take a massive conspiracy on the part of the UK police to falsify and deflate crowd numbers on purpose. YOU ACCUSED THEM OF IT. Your posts are there for all to see. You can't deny it with a straight face. Prove your accusation that the UK police, who are highly trained professionals who have to adhere to a code of ethics, engaged in a massive conspiracy to purposely deflate the numbers of the crowds at the event in order to make their job easier.

a reply to: Leviathan4

Struggling with debates is when you try to deny making claims that are, in fact, here for all to see.

That's just dishonest.

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

This is getting tiresome.

You said, amongst other things about our Police:

"An estimation by the Police that has an interest in downplaying the event for reasons of safety and security as well as public order and for discouraging others from participating (it makes it much easier to police a smaller crowd)."

Clear as daylight.

Any comment on my own direct personal experience?

I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim made when the other poster made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on them.
They made a claim and i answered.

Yet, you don't have the same doubt, reading the sources you provided and are spreading? The 500k claim?

You immediately believe those sources, without doubt.

Why is that?

originally posted by: Leviathan4
You seem to be struggling with debates.

Nope. But you are struggling with telling the truth.
You accused them. Four times.
Prove that the highly trained professional UK police engaged in that conspiracy.
Otherwise, admit that you were just talking out of your butt.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

This is getting tiresome.

You said, amongst other things about our Police:

"An estimation by the Police that has an interest in downplaying the event for reasons of safety and security as well as public order and for discouraging others from participating (it makes it much easier to police a smaller crowd)."

Clear as daylight.

Any comment on my own direct personal experience?

I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim made when the other poster made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on them.
They made a claim and i answered.

Yet, you don't have the same doubt, reading the sources you provided and are spreading? The 500k claim?

You immediately believe those sources, without doubt.

Why is that?

Confirmation Bias.

a reply to: Leviathan4

"Never done anything like that..."

I have no more words. Quite breathtaking.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

This is getting tiresome.

You said, amongst other things about our Police:

"An estimation by the Police that has an interest in downplaying the event for reasons of safety and security as well as public order and for discouraging others from participating (it makes it much easier to police a smaller crowd)."

Clear as daylight.

Any comment on my own direct personal experience?

I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim made when the other poster made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on them.
They made a claim and i answered.

Yet, you don't have the same doubt, reading the sources you provided and are spreading? The 500k claim?

You immediately believe those sources, without doubt.

Why is that?

Confirmation Bias.

And the same can be said for the 100,000 figure which nobody can confirm is accurate.

originally posted by: sendhelp
So much pro genocide, pro WW3, and anti protest, anti peace, anti justice in here lmao. Thread should have just gone a few pages, but went 30+ lol lol.

And so much trying to shift the burden of proof!

Imagine this poster who comes and says we need to take the number given by the police for granted because they are unbiased and independent. And then they want to disprove their assertions when you challenge them...

originally posted by: quintessentone
And the same can be said for the 100,000 figure which nobody can confirm is accurate.

It is the official figure by the unbiased trained professionals who worked crowd control and who are trained in how to count crowds and who actually worked the crowds that day. It's a hell of a lot more accurate than some muslim dude in India with an agenda and no access to crowd information, and it's a hell of a lot more accurate than two 'anti-colonizing' socialist rags that have an agenda and that also don't have access to crowd information.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

This is getting tiresome.

You said, amongst other things about our Police:

"An estimation by the Police that has an interest in downplaying the event for reasons of safety and security as well as public order and for discouraging others from participating (it makes it much easier to police a smaller crowd)."

Clear as daylight.

Any comment on my own direct personal experience?

I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim made when the other poster made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on them.
They made a claim and i answered.

Yet, you don't have the same doubt, reading the sources you provided and are spreading? The 500k claim?

You immediately believe those sources, without doubt.

Why is that?

Confirmation Bias.

And the same can be said for the 100,000 figure which nobody can confirm is accurate.

god you are hard work.

I have zero reason not to trust the Met police on this, as I stated earlier, it is absolutely not in their interests to get it wrong, they are subject to oversight from the home office and ultimately the elected home secretary. Get it wrong, get caught out lying and you are fired from your job. No way are they gonna risk that over soemething so minor.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Leviathan4
Never done anything like that...

I JUST POSTED YOUR FOUR QUOTES. You most certainly did. It would take a massive conspiracy on the part of the UK police to falsify and deflate crowd numbers on purpose. YOU ACCUSED THEM OF IT. Your posts are there for all to see. You can't deny it with a straight face. Prove your accusation that the UK police, who are highly trained professionals who have to adhere to a code of ethics, engaged in a massive conspiracy to purposely deflate the numbers of the crowds at the event in order to make their job easier.

The quotes are my answers to you who has made a range of claims and the burden of proof is on you and not on me.

I am explaining why I have doubts when you have made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

You have to prove your claims.

I am not the one who has to disprove your assertions

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

This is getting tiresome.

You said, amongst other things about our Police:

"An estimation by the Police that has an interest in downplaying the event for reasons of safety and security as well as public order and for discouraging others from participating (it makes it much easier to police a smaller crowd)."

Clear as daylight.

Any comment on my own direct personal experience?

I am explaining why I have doubts about the claim made when the other poster made repeated claims that we need to accept these numbers because the police are independent and unbiased.

The burden of proof is on them.
They made a claim and i answered.

Yet, you don't have the same doubt, reading the sources you provided and are spreading? The 500k claim?

You immediately believe those sources, without doubt.

Why is that?

Confirmation Bias.

And the same can be said for the 100,000 figure which nobody can confirm is accurate.

That poster killed their own argument, citing the intention of the police to "downplay the event", is to discourage more from showing up.

Weren't those numbers given AFTER the event? Ergo, it kills the person's argument.

a reply to: FlyersFan

"It is the official figure by the unbiased trained professionals..."

burden of proof is on you for the unbiased and independent professionals...

Still nothing

originally posted by: Leviathan4
Imagine this poster who comes and says we need to take the number given by the police for granted because they are unbiased and independent. And then they want to disprove their assertions when you challenge them...

I already gave the proof that they are unbiased and professional and know what they are doing. It's part of their job and if they don't do their job correctly they are fired.

You can't say the same about your three 'sources'.

Source 1 - a muslim dude in India pulling the number 500,000 out of his butt because he has no access to crowd information and because he's biased.

Source 2 - a socialist anti-colonizing protester also with no access to crowd information and biased.

Source 3 - a socialist anti-colonizing rag with bias and agenda.

originally posted by: Leviathan4
"It is the official figure by the unbiased trained professionals..."

burden of proof is on you for the unbiased and independent professionals...

Still nothing

ALREADY GAVE IT. You fail to acknowledge the fact that they are.

You can't say the same about your three 'sources'.

Source 1 - a muslim dude in India pulling the number 500,000 out of his butt because he has no access to crowd information and because he's biased.

Source 2 - a socialist anti-colonizing protester also with no access to crowd information and biased.

Source 3 - a socialist anti-colonizing rag with bias and agenda.