ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So it doesn't occur to you that it's your behaviour which makes conflict likely, as opposed forums that favour, or political leanings?
Go on, moan about "monothought cliques" next. That'll be so cute!!
Kicking Off In Tottenham
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
So it doesn't occur to you that it's your behaviour which makes conflict likely, as opposed forums that favour, or political leanings?
Go on, moan about "monothought cliques" next. That'll be so cute!!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which I'm fairly sure is what I said before he misrepresented my post as saying things I hadn't actually said, IYSWIM.
TruXta
tired
Oh I know. I was just hammering home the point.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Innit - we all know academia's run by a bunch of pinko traitors anywayBook-reading scum!!!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That's what I was asking. WHO told the media that Duggan shot first?
elbows
Well-Known Member
You have been very rude and aggressive on this thread, and have undermined yourself in the process. Lash out at others all you like, it won't change the impression that you've made a tit of yourself here, and anything you may of had to say of substance has been lost.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
an officer in tottenham nick - as yet unidentified - whispered it unattributably in a compliant reporter's ear, in their usual smearing way. it's their oldest trick.
e2a; and Israel said - categorically - that the police had told him that. he didn't say which dibble.
I also rang a contact of mine on the Haringey Independent, who confirmed this
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
you don't even realise what a prize dick you've made of yourself here, do you?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well this is the point then. Some unnamed copper has supposedly slipped a bit of dodgy info to some journo and you're happy to buy the "cover-up" line despite the fact that:
a) If the OB knew that the shot plod radio had been hit with a police round, there's not a hope of them being able to cover it up for any length of time.
b) If they were framing Duggan (as has been suggested on another thread) wouldn't they have had the foresight not to use a police bullet?
c) If they've used a "throw-down" why are excuses being made for Duggan possibly carrying a weapon for self-defence?
There are loads of questions here but you've already gone hook-line-and-sinker down the wrongful killing path. That's because you want to. Nothing wrong with that if that's your bag, most here would agree with you.
Of course nobody here is giving space for the eminently reasonable possibility that Duggan was stopped, had a gun, and got shot, while the shot copper collected a stray round from one of his mates. That may or may not have been the case, as I said, I hope it is, or something similar, because I'd rather Duggan was not murdered by a police officer. Others here, like that Draig tit, WANT him to have been murdered by a copper so as to bolster their acab agenda. Draig and his ilk don't give a fuck about the death so long as they can make capital out of it. In fact they're revelling in the possibility that someone may have been wrongly topped by a copper. Sick.
The truth will out eventually, it always does.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure but that doesn't necessarily matter if the aim is to influence public perception while the item is at the top of the news agenda.
If it hadn't been for the riots, this wouldn't still be page one stuff and "gangsta killed in shootout" would be the only recollection most people had of the affair.
I still talk to people who think Liverpool fans pissed on the dead at Hillsborough and that JC De Menezes was "acting suspiciously" thereby providing justification for shooting him.
Unless something happens like the footage of Simon Harwood attacking Ian Tomlinson that totally undermines the initial police-media spin-job, enough mud sticks to get the job done.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
There is no mud to stick, Bernie.
They've officially said that Duggan did not discharge a weapon, and that the shot cop was hit with a police round.
Now that prat Draig reckons that whether or not the (non police) gun was fired, is a primary point to establish. Anyone with half a brain would realise that's nonsense, since coppers don't have to wait until they're shot at before they shoot a threat.
We know that the non-police weapon was not fired. They've said that. The focus should now be on whether or not Duggan could reasonably have been considered to have constituted a threat.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The mud stuck before they said that, thats the whole point.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure but this case is still at the top of the news agenda due to the riots. Do you think anyone apart from friends and family would be interested it wasn't for the riots?
Everyone else would just remember 'gangsta killed in police shootout'
That's the whole point of getting your anonymous police source spin in before the IPCC investigation has time to report.
Everyone else would just remember 'gangsta killed in police shootout'
That's the whole point of getting your anonymous police source spin in before the IPCC investigation has time to report.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
No, I have NOT! I have said clearly on the mark Duggan thread that we should wait for the full IPCC report, but there are 2 things which ARE important and can't be denied
1) tottenham OB have racial harassment form going back decades
2) The Met have form for smearing their victims, also going back decades.
these are known facts.
I don't 'want to believe' anything - christ knows which corner of the universe you plucked that out of - I am simply distrustful of these OB from considerable personal experience.
Supposedly? Are you calling C4's Mr Israel, and my contact a liar, or not? do you accept their veracity, or not? There's no 'supposedly' about it - he did.
EH? It's not clear if there was a second passenger in the car, whose the gun was, whther it was found on Duggan or not, and the only thing we know in fact (based on provisional forensic findings) is that all of the spent bullets analysed were police bullets. so you're really not making much sense here.
Frankly, i'm baffled by your post.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
'you're happy to buy the "cover-up" line despite the fact that:
a) If the OB knew that the shot plod radio had been hit with a police round, there's not a hope of them being able to cover it up for any length of time.'
you're assuming that they need bother with a convincing cover up- they know full well they do not need to bothere. You're just proving how naive you are wrt the london met, as you have done before.
a) If the OB knew that the shot plod radio had been hit with a police round, there's not a hope of them being able to cover it up for any length of time.'
you're assuming that they need bother with a convincing cover up- they know full well they do not need to bothere. You're just proving how naive you are wrt the london met, as you have done before.
Personally, I really do think that if you believe that an officer deliberately shot a radio with a police issue gun and ammunition to create a cover-up, instead of using the (loaded) gun recovered from the scene, you are well into tinfoil hat territory.
In fact, forgetting about the radio and simply discharging one round from the gun recovered from the scene would have been far more practical way of doing this. Then they could say "Duggan opened fire, missed, and the bullet remains unrecovered".
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Spy, as you seem to have issues with a certain welsh poster (OK, ddraig) please do bear in mind that I am NOT HIM!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I don't know whether they're lying or not. That's not the point though. Even if some random copper has suggested, off the record, that Duggan fired, that's not necessarily indicative of a wider cover-up. In fact if the police had known that he didn't fire, it would be a fucking stupid tactic, given that it's a deception that a child would realise could not be maintained.
Don't be daft. You're not making sense!
You're trying to introduce evidence (or lack thereof) that currently doesn't exist.
At the moment we know that the bullets out were police ones, one hit a coppers radio, Duggan got popped, and there was a non-police firearm at the scene that was not discharged. That's it!
All I've done is given a possible alternative scenario to police murder, based on those facts, whilst allowing space for that not to have been the case. You're the one introducing the possibility of second passengers currently not in evidence!
Teepee
like livewire voodoo
I'm swinging towards this explanation as well. No copper would be that dumb, especially since UK OB use dumdum bullets (banned in warfare, legal for police) which your average person on the street wouldn't have access to
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Yep, sorry about that. He made a really stupid comment earlier whilst we were talking I think, then I went out and all that stuff with Faux Pas went off and I got a bit confused!
Apologies.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'm in more or less fact free speculation territory, yes, based on personal prejudice and the past record of the met. Who knows how the bullet got in the radio- I am merely speculating
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Once again, the police do not have to show that Duggan FIRED the gun. A police officer can (indeed should) shoot someone before they open fire if that person poses a threat to others.
So this notion that they've colluded to imply that he shot at them falls down on several levels. Not least because the only official police comment on the matter, is that he didn't!
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Thing is, the pattern of heavily spun media reports denigrating the deceased and implicitly justifying police actions appearing immediately whenever they kill someone, while the incident is at the top of the news agenda and long before evidence-based (often substantially less comfortable for the police) findings appear, is not at all a matter of speculation. It has happened over and over again and its effects are still felt.
People still believe that Liverpool fans pissed on and robbed corpses at Hillsborough. People still believe JC De Menezes was 'acting suspiciously' and for many people, Duggan will always be 'that gangsta who was killed after he shot that cop and hit his radio'
That's the whole point of the technique, get your spin in first while the story is on page one and frame people's perception your way, before any evidence-based findings like those of the IPCC, court case or a public inquiry can appear to spoil the pro-police PR picture you're painting.
People still believe that Liverpool fans pissed on and robbed corpses at Hillsborough. People still believe JC De Menezes was 'acting suspiciously' and for many people, Duggan will always be 'that gangsta who was killed after he shot that cop and hit his radio'
That's the whole point of the technique, get your spin in first while the story is on page one and frame people's perception your way, before any evidence-based findings like those of the IPCC, court case or a public inquiry can appear to spoil the pro-police PR picture you're painting.
No, I agree, I do not buy this collusion nonsense at all - my point was that if an officer was stupid enough to attempt a "cover up" along the lines of Duggan firing at police, then they would surely discharge a round from the weapon found at the scene into the radio or indeed into nothing at all. Hence I refuse to believe that any officer would be stupid enough to fire a police round into a police radio to try to cover this up.
That's very true, and it is a vicious cycle. The other side of the same coin - i.e. stuff like the rumours going round Tottenham on Friday, Saturday that Duggan was "executed" with two rounds to the face - doesn't perhaps encourage the police to be open and honest. Which then leads to public distrust. Which then leads to rumours of "executions" and so on.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Yep, quite. Which is why I think that the Met's PR chief should be held accountable for this practice. He's either making it happen or letting it happen. Either way he's doing the police and the public no favours.
He's got a lot of tricky questions to answer about the whole News International corruption scandal too ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/phone-hacking-spotlight-dick-fedorcio
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
They aren't supposed to need encouragement, they are supposed to be open and honest regardless. And with- in recent events, let alone history- the mets reputation for getting away with murder and being on the take?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The gun attributed to Duggan is apparently a starter pistol bored out to take live ammo,. Even the most dick-headed of coppers would be aware of the likelihood of the fucker cooking-off in his hand if he fired a shot from it, and forensics would very easily establish whether or not it had been fired, if the OB decided to lie about that point.
It's quite likely that the shot that hit the radio was, as is now being accepted, a discharge from the weapon of the same officer who executed Duggan.
I wouldn't be surprised if the armed police involved eventually go for the "accidental discharge" line in order to ensure that the worst that could be faced would be a manslaughter charge. Of course, any rigourous investigation of the possibility of accidental discharges from an MP5 would turn up the information that they're not prone to mechanical problems, and that the usual cause of accidental discharges is "user error", generally with the safety, and not keeping the trigger finger on the trigger guard rather than the trigger.
Similar threads
