Half a million people march in London for Palestine

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

That's an assertion.
Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

That's an assertion.
Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

Their training says otherwise.

The London Police Service procedure on Fair and Impartial Policing leads with a statement of commitment to internal and external fairness and equity in its dealings with members of the public and with its employees.

www.londonpolice.ca...

So now the ball is in your court.

Prove they deviated from their policy and training.

ETA: LOL gotta watch my Londonds! I will try and find a MET link


Here’s 2016 Guardian article from the UK. Most of the Western World’s police forces have this type of training and as a body their policy is stated.

Ya there are some bad eggs like any occupation.

The College of Policing on Thursday launches new guidelines for police on stop and search and also warns that an officer should consider if a bias is affecting his or her decision every time before making a stop. If they think prejudice is playing a part, they should not use the power.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Leviathan4

Apart from what I posted about my own direct professional experience, which you continue to conveniently ignore?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

Apart from what I posted about my own direct professional experience, which you continue to conveniently ignore?

I'll call you on that. Tell me which crowd counting method the police use so we can figure out how reliable the method/calculations are. I'm not disputing police have the best intentions, rather if they are doing it correctly.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

Apart from what I posted about my own direct professional experience, which you continue to conveniently ignore?

I'll call you on that. Tell me which crowd counting method the police use so we can figure out how reliable the method/calculations are. I'm not disputing police have the best intentions, rather if they are doing it correctly.

How would he know tht? He already stated that his working relationship with the police put him in a porition to vouch fro their even handedness and professionalism

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

Apart from what I posted about my own direct professional experience, which you continue to conveniently ignore?

I'll call you on that. Tell me which crowd counting method the police use so we can figure out how reliable the method/calculations are. I'm not disputing police have the best intentions, rather if they are doing it correctly.

How would he know tht? He already stated that his working relationship with the police put him in a porition to vouch fro their even handedness and professionalism

So he's not in any position to know whether or not their crowd counting methods are accurate or not.

a reply to: quintessentone

Call me out on what?

I have never posted about which counting method they use. Just my experience of their professionalism and lack of bias.

Not my obsession with counting methods.

I'll leave that to you.

a reply to: quintessentone

No, I m not, never claimed to be?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

No, I m not, never claimed to be?

Your claim that they are professional etc. was in direct reply to their crowd number estimate as most likely being reliable. Is that not correct?

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

That's an assertion.
Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

Their training says otherwise.

The London Police Service procedure on Fair and Impartial Policing leads with a statement of commitment to internal and external fairness and equity in its dealings with members of the public and with its employees.

www.londonpolice.ca...

So now the ball is in your court.

Prove they deviated from their policy and training.

ETA: LOL gotta watch my Londonds! I will try and find a MET link


Here’s 2016 Guardian article from the UK. Most of the Western World’s police forces have this type of training and as a body their policy is stated.

Ya there are some bad eggs like any occupation.

The College of Policing on Thursday launches new guidelines for police on stop and search and also warns that an officer should consider if a bias is affecting his or her decision every time before making a stop. If they think prejudice is playing a part, they should not use the power.

www.theguardian.com...

That's a circular argument. Now you take it further. They are biased and independent because of their training.

You need to have proof and not what the college of policing suggests for stop and search practises...which is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

Apart from what I posted about my own direct professional experience, which you continue to conveniently ignore?

Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

No, I m not, never claimed to be?

Your claim that they are professional etc. was in direct reply to their crowd number estimate as most likely being reliable. Is that not correct?

No their professionalism and unbiased nature is the default here, if you allege they are not it is up to you to provide some evidence

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

That's an assertion.
Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

Their training says otherwise.

The London Police Service procedure on Fair and Impartial Policing leads with a statement of commitment to internal and external fairness and equity in its dealings with members of the public and with its employees.

www.londonpolice.ca...

So now the ball is in your court.

Prove they deviated from their policy and training.

ETA: LOL gotta watch my Londonds! I will try and find a MET link


Here’s 2016 Guardian article from the UK. Most of the Western World’s police forces have this type of training and as a body their policy is stated.

Ya there are some bad eggs like any occupation.

The College of Policing on Thursday launches new guidelines for police on stop and search and also warns that an officer should consider if a bias is affecting his or her decision every time before making a stop. If they think prejudice is playing a part, they should not use the power.

www.theguardian.com...

That's a circular argument. Now you take it further. They are biased and independent because of their training.

You need to have proof and not what the college of policing suggests for stop and search practises...which is irrelevant.

The whole discussion going on here that we should accept police crowd numbers because of their professionalism, training etc. of which does not address if the methods they use are actually accurate. Even engineers calibrate their instruments for accuracy and that should be the first question we ask an engineer when they throw out numbers.

I will post this article which shows just how inexact crowd counting is and then I'm out of this discussion.

Let's take the 1995 Million Man March, as it was named, in Washington, DC, National Mall...organizers estimated a million people, the park authorities estimated 400,000...what was the real count? It was 669,000 estimated by an independent source.

www.cnbc.com...

Believe it or not, crowd counting is a contentious issue because the numbers vary so much because of many different factors.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

No, I m not, never claimed to be?

Your claim that they are professional etc. was in direct reply to their crowd number estimate as most likely being reliable. Is that not correct?

No their professionalism and unbiased nature is the default here, if you allege they are not it is up to you to provide some evidence

The assertion you mean...

Why are we still arguing crowd size? I thought socialist Democrats are for the underdog/minority. Why the need to make it seem a majority, rather than minority?

ATTENTION...please read before posting further....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!


Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.

POSTING BANS will be issued against those who find this concept hard to follow.




These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Leviathan4

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Leviathan4

'I have strong doubts of the assertions made the UK Police are unbiased and independent therefore we should accept the numbers given at face value."

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion of your 'strong doubts".

Otherwise, it's just your uncorroborated "assertion".

No because I haven't asserted anything.
Someone else did without any evidence.

Someone else said it's the default position to say the Police is unbiased and Independent. So like an axiom....

The default position is that the police are law abiding, independent, impartial and honest.

Is that the case? Not always, but the onus is on the accuser to prove otherwise.

That's an assertion.
Someone claimed the Police are unbiased and independent. Then they should provided the proof.

Furthermore they claimed because they are unbiased and independent we must accept their estimates at face value.

Two major assertions.
No proof at all given.

Their training says otherwise.

The London Police Service procedure on Fair and Impartial Policing leads with a statement of commitment to internal and external fairness and equity in its dealings with members of the public and with its employees.

www.londonpolice.ca...

So now the ball is in your court.

Prove they deviated from their policy and training.

ETA: LOL gotta watch my Londonds! I will try and find a MET link


Here’s 2016 Guardian article from the UK. Most of the Western World’s police forces have this type of training and as a body their policy is stated.

Ya there are some bad eggs like any occupation.

The College of Policing on Thursday launches new guidelines for police on stop and search and also warns that an officer should consider if a bias is affecting his or her decision every time before making a stop. If they think prejudice is playing a part, they should not use the power.

www.theguardian.com...

That's a circular argument. Now you take it further. They are biased and independent because of their training.

You need to have proof and not what the college of policing suggests for stop and search practises...which is irrelevant.

The whole discussion going on here that we should accept police crowd numbers because of their professionalism, training etc. of which does not address if the methods they use are actually accurate. Even engineers calibrate their instruments for accuracy and that should be the first question we ask an engineer when they throw out numbers.

I will post this article which shows just how inexact crowd counting is and then I'm out of this discussion.

Let's take the 1995 Million Man March, as it was named, in Washington, DC, National Mall...organizers estimated a million people, the park authorities estimated 400,000...what was the real count? It was 669,000 estimated by an independent source.

www.cnbc.com...

Believe it or not, crowd counting is a contentious issue because the numbers vary so much because of many different factors.

And yet we must accept the numbers given by the UK Police at face value because it pleases those who argue there is no much support for ceasefire and peace regardless of what's happening all over the world.

It's one of the most bogus claim ever made and a further demand we should disprove their assertion....