| Topic: | Re:Re:Warped logic | |
| Posted by: | Michael Adams | |
| Date/Time: | 30/07/21 09:38:00 |
| Richard Greenhough suggested " So under the Adams' logic, when you call 999 to report that your house is being burgled, the first question they should ask is, 'Are you insured' ? If you answer 'Yes' then they may be inclined to put you at the end of the list for action." Er no. I gave four reasons why burglaries are clearly more serious ans should be prioritised over potential car thefts*. Four. Which I repeat below. The fact that you're seemingly unable to count past is hardly my fault, now is it ? To repeat quote: 1 Unlike car insurance household contents insurance isn't a legal requirement. (At which point confusion and bewilderment appears to have set in) 2 Identical replacements cars were and are being churned out in their thousands from factories every day, in the event of theft - unlike irreplaceable family heirlooms 3. Car thieves don't cause potential distress by ransacking people's homes, their drawers and cupboards 4. It will presumably come as some consolation to you to know, that the reason why the police may not be able to immediately come to your assistance in the event of assault or a burglary at 5.a.m, is because they're all fully tied up preventing a white Range Rover from being stolen a few miles away. So that's four reasons. There are probably more. But as you're clearly having trouble getting past one I'll leave it at that michael adams * What nobody appears to have addressed is the problem of what exactly the police are supposed to do if the intended thieves simply run off in all directions. If they're wearing gloves and discard any tools during the chase, what evidence exactly can the police produce in order to charge them with any offence ? |