Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Kicking Off In Tottenham

Duggan's family have been told an inquest it not likely to happen due to sensitive evidence.

Inquest staff probably have no experience of dealing with sensitive evidence.
 
Duggan's family have been told an inquest it not likely to happen due to sensitive evidence.

Inquest staff probably have no experience of dealing with sensitive evidence.

The "sensitive evidence" probably being "we know the cops murdered him, but in line with long-standing Home Office policy, we refuse to allow any trial for murder of serving policemen, because they'd be found guilty, and we can't have that".
 
Yep - sounds like there's some details they really don't want outing.

It may not be "shoot to kill", but I suspect it's something along the lines of permission to use maximum necessary force to detain Duggan. From there to firing a "pre-emptive" bullet into him wouldn't be much of a stretch.
 
It may not be "shoot to kill", but I suspect it's something along the lines of permission to use maximum necessary force to detain Duggan. From there to firing a "pre-emptive" bullet into him wouldn't be much of a stretch.
you mean the police want to obscure the fact that they obtained permission, if you like, to shoot him before they went out to arrest him, if that is the case?
 
you mean the police want to obscure the fact that they obtained permission, if you like, to shoot him before they went out to arrest him, if that is the case?

Yeah, except obviously no Met honcho worth his head-tit would word it as plainly as that. "Plausible deniability" and all that jazz. I really can't, on the basis of the evidence so far produced, think of any other reason that there'd be a need, or even a desire, to deny an inquest on Duggan's death.
 
I really can't, on the basis of the evidence so far produced, think of any other reason that there'd be a need, or even a desire, to deny an inquest on Duggan's death.

Er, isn't there a fairly open question over what it was they were after Mark Duggan for - and how they knew they were after him for whatever it was?
 
Er, isn't there a fairly open question over what it was they were after Mark Duggan for - and how they knew they were after him for whatever it was?

Of course. What it all suggests is that there is somewhere a confidential informer whose identity they want to conceal.
 
I was pretty suprised by the half-hour review on radio 4, didn't catch the name of it.

Saying without saying iykwim that the IPCC is set up to not enable arrests of police

and the dignified reserve of the family getting their point across despite everything- fucked over.
 
Guardian said:
A man has been formally accused of passing an illegal firearm to Mark Duggan before he was fatally shot by police.

Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, 30, appeared at Snaresbrook crown court on Friday to face a charge of "selling or transferring a prohibited firearm" to Duggan last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/15/man-charged-gun-mark-duggan

Commentary on how Mark Duggan's inquest may never happen, due to lack of power to decide whether or not to hear intercept evidence, too.
 
Commentary on how Mark Duggan's inquest may never happen, due to lack of power to decide whether or not to hear intercept evidence, too.
so basically everyone gets penalised EXCEPT the OB whose trigger-happiness (and subsequent smearing of Duggan) caused the whole bloody riot in the first place
 
police chase and car crash? I think there needs to be more than that for people to be really angry enough about it, I know police spin etc but this doesn't sound too dodgy, I think most people will reckon that the people in the Audi nicked it and panicked when they saw the police and had a crash. No real reason for people to come out to a demo or something like that which would put enough people together in one place for something to start.
 
People being killed joyriding is a classic riot starter - from Meadow Wells in 1991 to Hartcliffe in 1992 and then the 2005 french riots were kicked off by similar. Because a lot of people view it as indicative of how the police operate locally (little care for them, their safety etc). of course a lot of people say good, tough luck for the thieving scrotes - but they are not the people who come out.
 
I tend not to side with the police on much but it can be tricky assuring the safety of people tearing around in stolen car tbf.

Was this a joyriding case - can't see that it says the car was stolen (just mentions driving while disqualified).
 
hmm.. all the relevant conditions are in place.... will be gauging peoples responses later when out n about in the manor...

It's Monday that a lot of the benefit cuts kick in if I'm not mistaken*. The pan would seem to be on the stove and the gas lit.

* - feel free to correct me - I'm often mistaken
 
I tend not to side with the police on much but it can be tricky assuring the safety of people tearing around in stolen car tbf.

Was this a joyriding case - can't see that it says the car was stolen (just mentions driving while disqualified).
That was in response to tom's post about people maybe not being bothered if they thought the dead blokes had nicked it.

There may not be the sort of estate dynamic here as in meadow wells and hartcliffe and dublin 1995 (and i don't mean the football) mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom