Given just how problematic your reasoning is, I hope you change your mind here. Let me explain.

I don't understand your reasoning. First you claim to be evidence based, and then say wild claims without back up. Okay. I'm sorry but I'm a math major. So let's analyse the claims:

1) my claim is that these attacks happen, and secondarily that they're common in specific areas

2) your claim is that they don't happen

Now my claim is what a logician would call an existential claim. A single anecdote obviously means that it is true, and yes, for an existence proof a single example is enough. This is exactly the approach every constructionist proof follows. And there are some beautiful and important constructionist proofs and I assure you they are quite valid. It doesn't prove the extent of the problem, but it does prove the claim is true. Of course a number of anecdotes does prove the extent of the problem, in the sense that it provides a lower bound. No need for statistics (but read on). Regardless, a single anecdote logically rejects your claim. Many anecdotes, and we both know that there are a great number such anecdotes, even if you count just in trustworthy papers, prove my claim. Again, no need for statistics.

So your supposed scientific view is really bullshit.

Then, your whole argument and it's conclusion is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance". There is a claim A, and you say you destroy the arguments supporting A, and then conclude that (not A) must be true. Logic only allows a claim that "A or (not A)" is true, in that situation. It doesn't matter whether you successfully countered those arguments in ironclad logic, since (not A) NEVER follows. The conclusion closest to your thesis that you can possibly achieve is "we don't know if these things happen or not".

But your arguments have yet more problems than merely the method you claim to be using for deciding the truth, and the logical fallacy used in reaching your conclusion. Your arguments don't actually imply a difference. As a statistician would say, they contain zero information. This means that you could be saying 100% the literal truth and your thesis could be true or false, you could be entirely lying about everything and your thesis could be true or false. Your arguments are not a distinguishing factor in rejecting or accepting the claim that you make. So why make them ?

Your arguments are merely rhetorical, and devoid of meaning. They only appear related. Even worse: the criticism of anecdotes, given your claim, actually attempts to point out a flaw where there is none. It is a direct attempt to deceive. Maybe you're deceiving yourself and this is simply an error, maybe not.

And of course, the other details. First of all, we were all talking here about London, not Leicester. Apparently there are a few other cities that are really also part of London where this also happens. I'm glad to hear Leicester is not one of them.

As for the conspiracy, see [1], for example. Given that logically, a positive claim can be proven by giving a single positive example, while a negative claim (like your "not a conspiracy") cannot be proven by any amount of evidence. Note that anecdotes DO prove a positive claim. If the claim is that something happens, a single such anecdote obviously proves this to be the case. You claim to be evidence-based, and we both know what logic says in this case.

The truth is that while there is a conspiracy to hide these facts, it is not that powerful or well organised at all. It is just a bunch of idiots protecting their reputation under direction of their management. The truth is far worse: these things, like the new normal of attacks on the police and firefighters in almost every instance are banal, trivial, and well known. Life adapts. The police force is no exception. No newspaper reports that tide rose today just like every time it did before. No newspaper reports that there were -once again- "mild" riots in East London (because they happen essentially every week, most are "mild" compared to the worst incidents). It is almost understandable, in a horrible way. Is calling this a conspiracy reasonable ? I can see good arguments for and against.

It's like those car torchings in France. They started in 2011 I believe. And now, you never read about them. One might conclude they've stopped, but they haven't. They are now simply a constant of life in certain cities [2] (at this point, almost all cities above a certain size, any city non-French people might know by name has this problem according to the article). As the linked article puts it "That’s because of a longstanding French tradition that sees youths in certain parts of cities torching scores of cars". Banal, trivial, and a fact of life. Also, a conspiracy, obviously, in the sense that there are groups of people working together to both commit these things and to hide them. It is however not a conspiracy in the James Bond sense. There is no dark villain behind the scene petting a cat while organizing these things as a single actor.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10460158/Police...

[2] https://www.thelocal.fr/20170406/is-the-famous-french-tradit...