Riots in Tottenham, London! (NO RACIST COMMENTS)

J-FRO · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:24

Whats to say this Duggan chap hadn't come into possession of a few rounds of police ammunition?

Not all police officers are saints so there is a possibility that somewhere in the country, if it is indeed true it was a police round lodged in the radio, a police officer could have been selling weapons and ammunition to criminals. It's pure speculation, and some would say a fantastic possibility more than a realistic probability, but it's nevertheless still one fact which would need to be ruled out if indeed it was a police round that "caused the police to fire upon Duggan".

hurfdurf · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:31

J-FRO said:
Whats to say this Duggan chap hadn't come into possession of a few rounds of police ammunition?

Not all police officers are saints so there is a possibility that somewhere in the country, if it is indeed true it was a police round lodged in the radio, a police officer could have been selling weapons and ammunition to criminals. It's pure speculation, and some would say a fantastic possibility more than a realistic probability, but it's nevertheless still one fact which would need to be ruled out if indeed it was a police round that "caused the police to fire upon Duggan".

lol at how far you are willing to stretch to protect the police from criticism.

Did you also try and argue that Ian Tomlinson may have easily tripped and fell on his own?

Menezes surely ignored officers warnings because of course they wouldn't shoot an unarmed man from the wrong house without at least them telling him they, the police, were about to shoot him?

Nothing was offensive about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, it was just blokes having a laugh in private right?

The fact that almost every single time someone has died anywhere near a policeman in the last ten years that the real story has turned out to be pretty much the exact opposite of the initial leaked reports suggests there's something deeply wrong somewhere.

I hope for the Mets sake it was stolen bullets.

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:49

So now the entitlment classes and their supporters have started blaming rioting and looting on the coalition budget cuts???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-suburb-flames

[TW]Fox · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:55

Trash first, pick an excuse from the next days papers.

Danthus · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:56

The ammunition that the Police have is not some special type, it does not have a Met logo on it.

This talk of "Police Issue" is disingenuous and inflammatory.

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 07:59

hurfdurf said:
lol at how far you are willing to stretch to protect the police from criticism.

Did you also try and argue that Ian Tomlinson may have easily tripped and fell on his own?

Menezes surely ignored officers warnings because of course they wouldn't shoot an unarmed man from the wrong house without at least them telling him they, the police, were about to shoot him?

Nothing was offensive about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, it was just blokes having a laugh in private right?

The fact that almost every single time someone has died anywhere near a policeman in the last ten years that the real story has turned out to be pretty much the exact opposite of the initial leaked reports suggests there's something deeply wrong somewhere.

I hope for the Mets sake it was stolen bullets.

How far are you prepared to stretch to attack the police?

Why not wait for the full investigation, while also acknowledging that if the gentleman concerned had a handgun, then he was both on the wrong side of the law (irrespective of anything else) and dramatically increasing his risk of getting shot?

Larkspeed · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:05

ok I did not read all 83 pages of this thread so if the answer to my questions are in there somewhere I apologize

I am a tad bit confused here:

One of the people interviewed said that Mark Duggan was not known for violence

The shooting took place as the officers stopped his minicab in order to arrest him in a pre planned operation.

now this is where the confusion comes in

Unless something has drastically changed since I left the UK 6 years ago I thought the only officers that could carry guns were armed response teams.

So why would you send an armed response team to arrest someone who is not known for violence?

asim18 · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:11

Someone reported asda in leyton got broken into.. either I'm blind or they've cleaned everything up already.. the curry's in the same retail park has been looted though.. on my way to walthamstow now..

Cosimo · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:12

Locky said:
I bet some Shops who are failing where hoping to be robbed to claim of the insurance.

Some of them would have to leave their doors open and the looters still wouldn't take anything. People are so picky these days.

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:13

Larkspeed said:
ok I did not read all 83 pages of this thread so if the answer to my questions are in there somewhere I apologize

I am a tad bit confused here:

One of the people interviewed said that Mark Duggan was not known for violence

The shooting took place as the officers stopped his minicab in order to arrest him in a pre planned operation.

now this is where the confusion comes in

Unless something has drastically changed since I left the UK 6 years ago I thought the only officers that could carry guns were armed response teams.

So why would you send an armed response team to arrest someone who is not known for violence?

Because 'the community' has a tendency to always talk crap about their own. It's the same mentality that leads to mothers saying 'he was a lovely boy, wouldn't hurt a fly' when their son has been killed in a car chase as he was fleeing from a double rape/murder with a confession scrawled on the wall and witnessed by CCTV

By 'not known for violence' it most likely translates as 'only violent to people outside 'the community''.

The armed officers went in because there must have been some suspicion or intelligence that he was armed.

hurfdurf · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:14

Dolph said:
How far are you prepared to stretch to attack the police?

Why not wait for the full investigation, while also acknowledging that if the gentleman concerned had a handgun, then he was both on the wrong side of the law (irrespective of anything else) and dramatically increasing his risk of getting shot?

I want to support the Police, I'm applying to be a special as we speak. I am not even having to stretch to attack the police, the facts speak for them selves.

Why wait? Because the Police will do everything in their power to cover up any wrong doing and get away with murder if they can, and this is coming from some one who is all for shooting people who are foolish enough to carry a firearm in the UK.

Where is the accountability in the UK's police forces? No one is on the side of the public, riots like these are no surprise what so ever now the police force has completely abandoned any notion of trying to serve the public rather than themselves.

Larkspeed · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:14

Dolph said:
Because 'the community' has a tendency to always talk crap about their own. It's the same mentality that leads to mothers saying 'he was a lovely boy, wouldn't hurt a fly' when their son has been killed in a car chase as he was fleeing from a double rape/murder with a confession scrawled on the wall and witnessed by CCTV

By 'not known for violence' it most likely translates as 'only violent to people outside 'the community''.

The armed officers went in because there must have been some suspicion or intelligence that he was armed.

fair enough

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:16

hurfdurf said:
Why wait? Because the Police will do everything in their power to cover up any wrong doing and get away with murder if they can, and this is coming from some one who is all for shooting people who are foolish enough to carry a firearm in the UK.

So rather than wait for the investigation, you're just going to make up your position based on your own prejudice?

Where is the accountability in the UK's police forces? No one is on the side of the public, riots like these are no surprise what so ever now the police force has completely abandoned any notion of trying to serve the public rather than themselves.

No, riots like this are caused by scum who think they have the right to force others to accept their viewpoint as true, think they are above the law, and so on.

It is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the rioters, always.

hurfdurf · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:16

Dolph said:
The armed officers went in because there must have been some suspicion or intelligence that he was armed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Just like when they killed this chap eh

hurfdurf · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:20

Dolph said:
So rather than wait for the investigation, you're just going to make up your position based on your own prejudice?

No, riots like this are caused by scum who think they have the right to force others to accept their viewpoint as true, think they are above the law, and so on.

It is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the rioters, always.

People do not trust the investigation. The Police will investigate themselves, find no wrong doing after covering everything up, and it will take years to uncover the true events, people will get away with murder and gross incompetence.

Riots like this are caused when the people get fed up with that kind of treatment, including the scum who latch on to it just for the sake of a good time. There are many people to blame for this.

Danthus · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:21

Your potential colleagues are going to love you hurfdurf.

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:21

hurfdurf said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Just like when they killed this chap eh

In that case, the intelligence/suspicion was wrong, processes bad, and the death was tragic. It wasn't like they went out to kill a man they knew was innocent, at least not for the officers on the ground.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is always 20/20, the death of JCMD was tragic, and should have (and has) led to changes in the processes, but it was an operational error, at a time of both hightened security and pretty severe paranoia (happening only a day after a failed multiple suicide bombing attempt where one of the bombers came from the same flat/building JCMD had been seen leaving).

The met were held responsible, incidentally, your link acknowledges this.

Dolph · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:23

hurfdurf said:
People do not trust the investigation. The Police will investigate themselves, find no wrong doing after covering everything up, and it will take years to uncover the true events, people will get away with murder and gross incompetence.

So that excuses this sort of behaviour? Absolute rubbish. paranoia and disagreement does not justify violence to try and force a change of view.

Riots like this are caused when the people get fed up with that kind of treatment, including the scum who latch on to it just for the sake of a good time. There are many people to blame for this.

No, riots are caused by the scum rioting, no-one else. People are responsible for their own actions, there is no justification or exception to this that would apply in this situation.

SB118 · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:23

OldCoals said:
The ammunition that the Police have is not some special type, it does not have a Met logo on it.

This talk of "Police Issue" is disingenuous and inflammatory.

True, for all we know they could be referring to it being a 9mm round.

explicit4u · 8 Aug 2011 at 08:24

Reports on twitter saying there's people surrounding Islington police station.

EDIT:

There appears to be some confusion over what happened in Islington last night.

Despite reports on Twitter that a police officer was dragged from his car and beaten — and that Islington police station was surrounded by dozens of angry youths — the Met have just told me they're not aware of anything other than the broken police car windscreen and the group causing a disturbance.

[Guardian]