I can't understand Sid's logic either. He says one thing in one sentence then contradicts himself in the next!
My earlier post;
"Max, I am saying that I don't believe, as Shy seems to, that remote area crime will neccesarily increase just because of air cover reductions. If remote area crime does increase, it will be because of many factors and imho air coverage reduction would be placed fairly low on the list."
My last post;
"I have said that air cover for rural areas has in fact increased and crime in those areas is more likely to increase due to other factors, rather than this perceived reduction of air support."
Contradiction
