Frankly my experience of them has been of a bunch of fucking morons on a power trip. But it just seems far too easy to just scream conspiracy with no evidence stronger than most of what drjazz's threads generally contain. Whilst attempting to ignore its more likely that as seems to unfortunately be the pattern some moron decided breaking things was a good way of making there point. Much like the one already being charged for the same standard of behaviour.
"Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence."
* windows not boarded-up
* area not cleared for ages
* police allowing graffiti and crowd to build up steadily with no intervention
* police not intervening or acting to prevent incident, nor acting for some time afterwards
* police camera-men already positioned inside building
* massive metal battering-ram mysteriously appears from somewhere
* some window-smashers not bothering to conceal faces
* witnesses seeing/hearing provocateurs at event
* incident fitting in neatly with the rest of the day's 'policing timetable'
* previous events where Met seem to have left 'targets'/bait located at protest sites
versus: genuine oversights or reasons behind the above list + random window + random window-smasher = smashed RBS window.
Even if the window-smasher was 100% genuine it doesn't mean the Met. didn't cynically back off and let it happen, exactly in the right spot and at the right time with all the appropriate media in place ... they could then get on with kitting up and beating people as scheduled. The BBC seemed to switch off their live coverage at that point as well. It is completely possible to stage manage things by leaving bait in the right place, backing off and allowing a gradual escalation of vandalism with no action taken - you will get your 'moron breaking things'.
