Mark Duggan was lawfully killed - the verdict of the inquest jury.
Link to the Beeb:-
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949
|
|
I'm slightly surprised but the jury heard all the evidence I've just seen what the media saw fit to report.
|
|
Well clearly he was a scumbag and a wrong'un that society won't miss, but based in what I saw in the press I was surprised by this verdict.
|
Diane Abbott has apparently tweeted to the effect "jury decided he did not have a gun but was lawfully killed. How can that be? I am baffled".
Maybe as a supposedly responsible person and an MP, perhaps she could try to find out, rather than thinking in public given the possibility of further disorder.
|
"...as a supposedly responsible person and an MP..."
Neither of those make me a member of the Diane Abbott fan club.
Duggan, it seems, had had the gun, but discarded it at the last minute.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 17:01
|
>> Diane Abbott has apparently tweeted to the effect "jury decided he did not have a
>> gun but was lawfully killed. How can that be? I am baffled".
"Its very easy you stupid vacuous tart, the police had sufficient justification to believe he had one and intended to use it.
Try thinking before you open your stupid gob. "
Would that be a hate tweet or an illegal sexist remark?
|
|
Alas, in areas with a high immigrant population, toads like Abbott and Vaz can get themselves elected.
Last edited by: Haywain on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 17:10
|
>> Alas, in areas with a high immigrant population, toads like Abbott and Vaz can get
>> themselves elected.
The scowly was mine.
What on earth do you mean by 'a high immigrant population'? Abbot, for whom incidentally I have little time, is Hackney north and Stoke Newington. Vaz is Leicester East.
Both are areas with large BEM populations but they're mostly settled second/third generation. Both are safe Labour seats.
|
"The scowly was mine."
Scowl away, old boy.
|
See what you've done with your intemperate attack on winsome left-of-centre media luvvies Zero? Diane Abbott's not so bad, and to be quite honest there's a closetish scent about some of the references to Keith Vaz and others.
Why should brown/foreign-origin media politicos be so disliked for being beady-eyed, self-promoting and opportunist, exactly like the far more numerous native British ones? Bit unfair chaps.
|
>> beady-eyed, self-promoting and opportunist, exactly like the far more numerous native British ones? Bit unfair chaps.
I should have added that these people are extremely able and usually very hard-working, again like their native British counterparts. If you think politics, even media politics, is some sort of pushover you don't know much.
|
>> "The scowly was mine."
>>
>> Scowl away, old boy.
Sorry but all three main parties have loons and toads in safe seats. Nadine Dorries springs immediately to mind on the Tory side. Mike Hancock was elected as a Lib Dem but lost the whip.
The idea that ethnicity has any part in it is laughable.
|
|
Again the Beeb...."The Police want to return to the values of Robert Peel...." Yeah right, where people were roughed up and no-one would complain...
|
Not surprised by the verdict.
Unless the 'gun in a sock' was a plant then I don't see much issue.
As for a guy on the 9th floor, on the other side of the road (perhaps 200ft away), at night, being able to tell that he was holding a mobile phone and not a gun, etc......
And the family/entourage abusing the jury in court after giving the verdict doesn't exactly engender a warm feeling towards them.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 18:11
|
|
They have a legal team and will fight on...clearly minted then.
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 18:13
|
>> the family/entourage abusing the jury in court after giving the verdict doesn't exactly engender a warm feeling towards them.
Takes me back to 'George Davis is innocent'. In a pig's ear he was... he was a professional robber and burglar. Just had thousands of Cockney cheeky-chappie supporters who weren't going to let strict accuracy interfere with a bit of good old London dodginess.
|
>> What on earth do you mean by 'a high immigrant population'?
What do you think he meant?
They play to their audience. They want to the votes. It's what politicians do.
If you're coming from the angle that second or third generation folk are no longer immigrants..fair enough...but you knew what he meant.
|
>> If you're coming from the angle that second or third generation folk are no longer
>> immigrants..fair enough...but you knew what he meant.
Of course I knew what he meant. As I said later all three main parties allow toads, suckers and advocates of egregious points of view to stand in safe seats.
Still no answer as to why did 'immigrants', or Vaz who unlike Dianne Abbot is remote from the action, need to come into the debate?
|
>> Still no answer as to why did 'immigrants', or Vaz who unlike Dianne Abbot is
>> remote from the action, need to come into the debate?
>>
I would have thought it was glaringly obvious...play the race card...the big bad white cops have slain the poor black boy.....stir up a bit of racial hatred..and gain a load of votes.
|
>> I would have thought it was glaringly obvious...play the race card...the big bad white cops
>> have slain the poor black boy.....stir up a bit of racial hatred..and gain a load
>> of votes.
>
Dianne Abbot was obviously off the mark as the jury were clear that Duggan had thrown the weapon away. But why bring in race and Vaz who, SKAIK, has said nothing on the subject?
Abbott's seat is safe whatever so no need for a load of vote. There is though still a legitimate cause for concern about the way the Met and other UK Police forces treat BME folks for stop/search or or documentation checks etc when driving.
|
"But why bring in race and Vaz who, SKAIK, has said nothing on the subject?"
Vaz is just another example of an MP who successfully plays the race card; his name, like Abbott, is frequently preceded by the adjective 'odious' for good reason.
I suspect that Vaz might be taking a lower profile for a few days after revelations that one of the Romanian incomers he was greeting at Luton Airport was, shall we say, rather less than a wholesome individual.
|
>> There is
>> though still a legitimate cause for concern about the way the Met and other UK
>> Police forces treat BME folks for stop/search or or documentation checks etc when driving.
>>
Yes...and there always will be.........because it's an impossible conundrum to solve.
If you want your cops sat in the nick swilling tea and just stopping the odd white granny for their figures, then personally I think that wrong.
If you want them out there at all hours of the day, in the high crime areas, stopping young men, then there *will* be a noticeable number of young black men stopped, particularly if you are targeting some crime, such as street robbery. I have no real idea why BEM folk live in most of the high crime areas or why a number of young men of some demographics are up all hours...but that's the way it is.
In my experience, if you stop someone and you soon work out they are not up to anything..then you have a polite interaction with them and send them on their way...if however they are obnoxious and give you a load of mouth..the outcome is somewhat different..and so the merry go round continues.
|
Reminds me of when me and Danny were up to no good and an occifer from Camberwell nick was questioning us.
Danny gave the occifer 'a load of mouth' and the occifer nicked him and let me go.
(*_*)
|
>> Danny gave the occifer 'a load of mouth' and the occifer nicked him and let
>> me go.
>>
>> (*_*)
It's the way it is...same in other areas really..
|
I must have a horseshoe face (lucky!) as I've been 'pulled' quite a few times in my short life, and let orf, driving round the wrong side of a traffic island, speeding, jumping a road-works red light.
Born on the 13th see - lucky for some :)
|
>> >> Diane Abbott has apparently tweeted to the effect "jury decided he did not have
>> a
>> >> gun but was lawfully killed. How can that be? I am baffled".
>>
>> "Its very easy you stupid vacuous tart, the police had sufficient justification to believe he
>> had one and intended to use it.
>>
>> Try thinking before you open your stupid gob. "
>>
>>
>> Would that be a hate tweet or an illegal sexist remark?
Oo-er!
Last edited by: Roger on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 18:32
|
>> I'm slightly surprised but the jury heard all the evidence I've just seen what the
>> media saw fit to report.
>>
Why are you surprised?
He was a violent gang leader, he used guns, he went out and obtained a gun, he had the gun with him at the very least until shortly before he died, he resisted or tried to prevent his arrest, he died.
So what.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. He chose his own destiny.
I'm thankful some cop isn't dead instead.
|
Only civilian witness was (according to the Beeb) 100-150 metres away.
Once again, while I don't doubt the findings of the inquest and the nature of the victim, it leaves a bad taste that the Police meet together to make their statements - a whiff of Hillsborough that I wish they would get rid of.
It's up to the jury to decide when to believe statements that may conflict to a degree, not for those involved to 'get their stories straight'.
|
>> Only civilian witness was (according to the Beeb) 100-150 metres away.
>>
>> Once again, while I don't doubt the findings of the inquest and the nature of
>> the victim, it leaves a bad taste that the Police meet together to make their
>> statements - a whiff of Hillsborough that I wish they would get rid of.
>>
>> It's up to the jury to decide when to believe statements that may conflict to
>> a degree, not for those involved to 'get their stories straight'.
>>
I mostly think you are right.
The only bit I'd argue is it's a seemingly accepted practice on the defence side of things for defendants to lie their heads off and no one will investigate/deal with it.
On the prosecution side, you rightly take an oath and if you lie you commit perjury and that is right and proper.
It is quite common for witnesses to get slight/some detail wrong, it's a normal human trait...so no doubt the thinking is to ensure the flow remains correct and an unnecessarily complicated chain of evidence isn't forthcoming, that process evolved.
In this day and age, what with taped and video interviews of suspects etc...I suspect your thoughts are the way forward.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 23:02
|
|
It would appear that helmet-cams (oo-er) will be the norm from the middle of this year.
|
So he was lawfully killed for carrying a gun?
What on earth was he going to do with it, scratch his balls?
How can the family (notice it's an aunt doing all the shouting and at least one 'family member' took very special care not to be recognised) complain?
|
|
I'm just waiting for the redtops to report it in such an inflammatory manner to facilitate Riot 2.0
|
>> I'm just waiting for the redtops to report it in such an inflammatory manner to facilitate Riot 2.0
>>
www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25662956
|
>>Riot 2.0
>>
Riots don't happen when it's cold and wet outside. And the extent of the original one had very little to do with Duggan and everything to do with a chance to do a bit of looting on a long, light summer night.
|
>> How can the family (notice it's an aunt doing all the shouting and at least
>> one 'family member' took very special care not to be recognised) complain?
>>
The family solicitor Marcia Willis Stewart did a good job of shouting.
Perhaps she should go on a few presentation courses.
As she did not introduce herself and stood there with arms crossed I assumed she was another of the relatives.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25660534
The rentamob with several raising their hoodies did their bit too
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25658504
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25658501
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25364523
Is this the same aunt seen earlier on steps in front of the mob ?
|
>> You live by the sword, you die by the sword. He chose his own destiny.
>>
>> I'm thankful some cop isn't dead instead.
>>
FULL marks WP.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 9 Jan 14 at 10:10
|
|
It's being twisted into another "innocent man with an umbrella or wooden leg mistaken for a gunman and mown down by 20 cops" story, but it seems pretty clear that Westpig's summary is correct.
|
|
His aunt spoke very well on the radio this morning.
|
|
Sir Bernard, the Police Commissioner, is meeting community leaders. Is this to tell them that should there be any future rioting, looters will be shot on sight?
|
>> Is this to tell them that
>> should there be any future rioting, looters will be shot on sight?
I hope so!
|
>> It's being twisted into another "innocent man with an umbrella or wooden leg mistaken for
>> a gunman and mown down by 20 cops" story, but it seems pretty clear that
>> Westpig's summary is correct.
Seems he may be no loss as far as society as a whole is concerned, but is that really the point?
Any more than his family's assertion that he was a nice lad.
Either way we need to have confidence that the police are doing their jobs properly.
It's all very well for the widely quoted senior officer to say Duggan was a gang leader who used guns to maintain control of organised crime activity but he had not been convicted of any of that. It has also been claimed that there was little definite intelligence recorded to support the characterisation of him as a dangerous gangster. If he was alive he could be suing for libel based on what has been alleged.
The argument as to whether he was an evil gangster or a Boy Scout is irrelevant except to the extent that the police might have had reason to think he was dangerous.
I don't think we can see the wood for the trees here.
When I say confidence needs to be restored in the police that is exactly what I mean. We need a rule of law that society as a whole supports, or we will really will have every high profile arrest being questioned offensively and unspeakable outlaws being made martyrs.
For what it's worth I think there was an error made, but that is not necessarily the same as unlawful killing, let alone "execution". Once the inquest has given its verdict in full he attention needs to go to preventing further events of this kind.
|
The other issue, not covered at inquest, is the the Met's appalling handling of the aftermath.
First of all they failed to quickly and professionally inform Duggan's family of his death. They discovered the facts by the grapevine. Subsequent statements contained factual innacuracies and tried to big up Duggan's role from small time crook to 'gangster'.
Then all the officers involved refuse to be interviewed by the independent complaints commission. Unbelievably, it has no powers to compel. Before finally giving a statement the two officers who were armed were allowed to confer. Even then their accounts of seeing a firearm differ from what they later said in court.
Much the same background as the De Menezes shooting in 2005. Nothing seemed to have been learned and it's no surprise that assertions of a cover up got legs in the local community.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Jan 14 at 10:02
|
The essence of the "lawful killing" defence is as I understand it that if someone reasonably believes that he is being threatened by someone with a gun, he is entitled to take exactly the same action as if the gun were real.
Every sensible person would agree with that principle ?
But the difficulty is in determining what action would then be reasonable.
If a known gangster with a record of firing at police is cornered, and reaches into his bag, it is reasonable to assume he is going for his gun.
But if a little old lady reaches into her bag, and it turns out she was getting out a tube of polo mints, it would be unreasonable to shoot her.
So the nature of the "intelligence" seems to be crucial. It's easy to see how chinese whispers can magnify things:
We hope they don't have weapons of mass destruction.
They could have WMD.
They may have WMD
They probably do have WMD
They have WMD
|
"They" did have and they used, WMD. It probably got moved, temporarily, to the Ba'athists next door.
The police probably knew, but couldn't prove, the deceased had fired weapons before. Omertà .
They knew he had at least one firearm in the cab.
He left the cab.
People with guns carry them to use.
He got taken out before he could turn a weapon on the police.
Seems fair enough to me.
|
>.
>> People with guns carry them to use.
>> He got taken out before he could turn a weapon on the police.
>> Seems fair enough to me.
It's not fair at all until he actually does, or is immediately about to turn a weapon on the police, or at least that the police believe that is the case.
I'm not attacking the police here, but I don't think they are supposed to get their lethal retaliation in first, or at least not before there is an immediate risk to life. That is what has been alleged by the family and their supporters.
Now I don't think that is what happened - why would the police want to bring a world of trouble crashing on themselves? But suggesting that precautionary plugging is OK will only give more ammunition (sorry) to those claiming this was an "execution".
The sooner the helmet cameras come in, and the officers involved in incidents like this are prevented from collaborating on their statements, the easier it will be for the police to do their jobs without fear or favour.
|
|
If he had a gun on him, and the police might reasonably anticipate that, waiting for the gun to appear might be the last thing the officers saw on this earth. IIRC, Duggan got out of the cab. Sitting still, hands raised, might have saved his bacon. The jury heard the full story: they seemed to think the police acted lawfully.
|
>>The jury heard the full story
The point is that the 'full story' may have been quite heavily revised before being presented in court (not just the cops who may have collaborated on their statements and refused to answer IPCC questions, but also the guy watching from 100m away).
The most unbiased observer was probably the taxi-driver IMO.
|
|
PS: I agree with the last paragraph. The Met fail to understand that collusion (writing up a story) and obstruction (of the IPCC) creates suspicion. More to come on this from the Coroner, I believe.
|
>> and obstruction (of the IPCC) creates suspicion.
I need to correct you there. It is not an obstruction, albeit the IPCC are spinning that line.
Police Officers do not have to speak to the IPCC..and..there's a very good reason why they do not. I think it would be incredibly foolish if an officer did speak to the IPCC.
Let me give you an example. As a very young in service PC, I went to New Covent Garden after a night shift, with all my colleagues, and we all went on the beer. Some fellow in there was anti-police and became an ass. The landlord told us to go into the Lounge Bar (which was more plush and wasn't usually opened in the mornings)..and the ass became worse, thinking we had better treatment.
He got to the point where it kicked off, he got nicked, he complained of assault, by off-duty cops.
We all got investigated.
My turn with the Det Sergeant from Complaints had him promise me 'this isn't going anywhere, the landlord backs you all up, the bloke's got form, but we need to know what went on'.
I gave a full and frank statement, as did my colleagues. None of us had done wrong, why wouldn't we?
Two weeks later, we were all told, it was being investigated further, the Chief Inspector had overruled the junior investigating officers, there had been Press coverage...(nothing ever came of it, it was all pants, but it was stressful nevertheless).
I learnt my lesson. For the next 27 years, if anyone thought I'd done wrong, they'd have to prove it....just as it is for the rest of society, inc the crooks.
|
>> I learnt my lesson. For the next 27 years, if anyone thought I'd done wrong,
>> they'd have to prove it....just as it is for the rest of society, inc the
>> crooks.
But you're not the rest of society or the crims. You're the Police.
As such you have considerable powers over the rest of us including arrest, detention etc. Subject to authorisation by warrants etc you can search our houses and seize stuff. You can even use firearms to kill.
The quid pro quo for that is a proper system of professional discipline and independent handling of complaints. A requirement to answer questions is not uncommon in other professions including financial services and some branches of medicine/health. The same should apply to the Police.
|
I think the verdict is correct. The man was a gun dealer. He may have thrown one gun away, but it is reasonable to pressume that a dealer may have more than one gun and, glimpsed very quickly, a mobile phone can resemble a gun.
Contrast with the two Woolwich soldier murderers. They were not known gun dealers, and when they approached the Police clearly holding swords (but the Police had no reason to presume more) they were not killed but taken out. If they were known gun dealers holding swords, it would have been reasonable for the Police to assume they would have a gun, and I suspect they would have been shot dead.
|
>>They were not known gun dealers, and when they approached the Police clearly holding swords they were not killed but taken out.
I was always under the impression that the police used deadly force (other than the 'headshot' scenario of De Menezes) to 'take down' the target, not to kill.
This generally means a shot to the chest which will almost invariably incapacitate (and possibly kill).
What they do not try to do is 'wing' their targets by shooting a limb.
Duggan was unlucky, the Woolwich guys were lucky as I see it.
|
|
I very much dislike the thought that families and friends of people like Duggan seem to think that if they shout loud enough and long enough for continuing inquests and inquiries, they will eventually succeed in a verdict finally being reached that suits their personal agenda.
|
>> I very much dislike the thought that families and friends of people like Duggan seem
>> to think that if they shout loud enough and long enough for continuing inquests and
>> inquiries, they will eventually succeed in a verdict finally being reached that suits their personal
>> agenda.
Their first line of attack will presumably be to get the coroners proceedings reviewed my a more senior court. That is their right and no amount of shouting will make any difference to the judges called on to hear the case.
There are also issues, already highlighted in this thread with the Met's handling of the incident and the processes of the IPCC. Those seem to me to be real and not limited to the Duggan case. Azelle Rodney's death was very similar.
It's also true to say that there have been a significant number of cases, Hillsborough and bloody Sunday at the forefront, where those shouting long and loud about injustice, have been proven right.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:20
|
>> It's also true to say that there have been a significant number of cases, Hillsborough
>> and bloody Sunday at the forefront, where those shouting long and loud about injustice, have
>> been proven right.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 9 Jan 14 at 21:34
|
>> Duggan was unlucky, the Woolwich guys were lucky as I see it.
Spot on Lygonos. Firearms officers are trained to incapacitate, which carries a high risk of causing death. A pistol is not a precision instrument.
I have to say that over the years I have quite often been horrified and disgusted by the way firearms officers apparently behave, and the incredible carp contained in some of the subsequent police accounts. Not always, but quite often. Sometimes they take hours to deal with a rampaging mad dog, sometimes they cruelly murder some gun-waving inadequate who appears more or less harmless (no sane person would see Mark Duggan as one of those).
I know, I know, 'You have to have been there to really know etc etc'. These are just impressions, but they are strong impressions.
|
>>
>> Then all the officers involved refuse to be interviewed by the independent complaints commission.
...and quite right too. If I was still serving, I'd tell them to sod off as well.
You go in to work, day in day out and try to do your best. You get involved in something whereby someone dies, an outfit comes along that is not your employer and is going to do their very best to try to catch you out with something..so do you waive your right to silence or do you exercise the right that everyone else has..(i.e. any suspect for an offence is told they do not have to say anything) and decide to keep your own counsel. Let's think about it for a 'nanosecond'.
>> Unbelievably,
>> it has no powers to compel.
See above. Why should it?
>> Before finally giving a statement the two officers who
>> were armed were allowed to confer.
Been an accepted and expected practice for many decades. If it changes, they would/should comply. Until it does, it's the way it is done.
>> Even then their accounts of seeing a firearm differ
>> from what they later said in court.
That can easily happen, your memory plays tricks on you.
>>
>> Much the same background as the De Menezes shooting in 2005. Nothing seemed to have
>> been learned and it's no surprise that assertions of a cover up got legs in
>> the local community.
Usually by those that want to see that.
>>
>>
|
>> Usually by those that want to see that.
Those are always there and the Met don't seem able to behave in a way that does not positively pander to them.
Cover ups go back to Red Lion Square and before. Any Pavlovian reaction amongst the public is entirely understandable.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Jan 14 at 13:37
|
>> Those are always there and the Met don't seem able to behave in a way
>> that does not positively pander to them.
The Met has tried to pander to people like that and is now reaping the negative benefit. It spends more time trying to pander than it does kicking the backsides of those that need it.
Police Force or Police Service?
What's it there for?
|
|
If this had been the US there would have been no discussion,
|
>> If this had been the US there would have been no discussion,
>>
Like this:
tinyurl.com/msttr67
|
>> >>
>> >> Then all the officers involved refuse to be interviewed by the independent complaints commission.
>>
>>
>> ...and quite right too. If I was still serving, I'd tell them to sod off
>> as well.
>>
>> You go in to work, day in day out and try to do your best.
>> You get involved in something whereby someone dies, an outfit comes along that is not
>> your employer and is going to do their very best to try to catch you
>> out with something..so do you waive your right to silence or do you exercise the
>> right that everyone else has..(i.e. any suspect for an offence is told they do not
>> have to say anything) and decide to keep your own counsel. Let's think about it
>> for a 'nanosecond'.
Exactly the train of thought followed by career criminals?
I'd like to understand that better. Does the IPCC interview take place under caution? Can it be used in evidence to prosecute? Surely the pressing need is to find out as soon as and therefore as accurately as possible what actually happened?
>> >> Unbelievably,
>> >> it [IPCC] has no powers to compel.
>>
>> See above. Why should it?
I appreciate that may not coincide with the best interests of the individual officer, but if that is the case a way needs to be found to deal with that.
>>
>> >> Before finally giving a statement the two officers who
>> >> were armed were allowed to confer.
>>
>> Been an accepted and expected practice for many decades. If it changes, they would/should comply.
>> Until it does, it's the way it is done.
Clearly not always the best way to the truth.
Under the current procedures I'm sure I'd be keeping schtum and getting my story straight too, so I don't blame the officers involved.
There's a parallel here with aviation and alleged hospital negligence. Sometimes it's more important to understand what has happened than to punish the people involved, and whilst there will inevitably be consequences for police, pilots or doctors who cock up, a degree of immunity or protection could be a worthwhile price to pay to get that understanding.
The current practices seem designed to leave the police looking guilty, while the real villains are disingenuously playing the victim.
|
>> The current practices seem designed to leave the police looking guilty, while the real villains
>> are disingenuously playing the victim.
>>
Well at least that's one more that's seen the light.
|
|
So I guess the question is what system should we have ? One that has both the police and an independant element to it?
|
>> Exactly the train of thought followed by career criminals?
Oh yes. Ironic isn't it.
>>
>> I'd like to understand that better. Does the IPCC interview take place under caution?
That would depend on what they were investigating and what they thought your role was in it...so not necessarily. However, what they wouldn't be doing is assuring you you would not be prosecuted for anything, because at that stage they wouldn't know.
>> Can
>> it be used in evidence to prosecute?
Yes. Of course. If anyone is suspected of having committed an offence, you have to caution them and tell them they don't have to say anything. Up until that point, you can ask anyone questions to firm up your knowledge on the matter.and if necessary go towards the path of prosecution. There might be evidence that could be argued in court shouldn't be used if gained not under caution, but the investigator can use that knowledge to aid the prosecution or introduce it another way.
>> Surely the pressing need is to find out
>> as soon as and therefore as accurately as possible what actually happened?
I'd agree in general..but if I was that individual officer..I'm not going to stitch myself up to a system that is quite prepared to have a witch hunt..and indulge all the world's armchair lawyers, expert in hindsight.
|
I can quite see that anyone suspected of a crime would be entitled not to incriminate themselves. As I understand the situation, all of the officers involved, not merely those who were armed, refused to answer questions from the IPCC. So, I think the actions of the police involved was an obstruction. Clearly the IPCC is hamstrung if they have no power of compulsion for actors involved in the events, or their seniors.
No doubt WP will correct any misunderstanding I may have.
|
|
Diane Abbot has just been interviewed on Sky News by Kay Burley, who didn't hold back with her questioning of the MP. Abbot kept repeating her belief that she was "startled" at the jury's decision along with many others, giving yet again the impression that there are those who seek a verdict that suits their agenda rather than, perhaps, the truth.
|
"Diane Abbot has just been interviewed on Sky News"
Good job I didn't see it - I've only just finished my lunch ;-)
|
And so the merry roundabout goes on.
And as for the "There would be no discussion if this was the US" comment from madf above, I think you'll find they have almost exactly the same issues/investigations as we do here when the Police shoot someone.
Not taking part in the investigation?
Fine, you're under arrest for suspicion of murder/conspiracy.
Next.
|
>> Not taking part in the investigation?
>>
>> Fine, you're under arrest for suspicion of murder/conspiracy.
>>
>> Next.
>>
Based on what?
|
>> Not taking part in the investigation?
>>
>> Fine, you're under arrest for suspicion of murder/conspiracy.
Not relevant if the individual officer has fully complied with any criminal investigation by police and/or CPS queries...but has chosen to ignore a body that investigates police conduct.
|
>>Not relevant if the individual officer has fully complied with any criminal investigation by police and/or CPS queries
Tell that to the HGV driver arrested after a fatal RTA without any evidence of fault.
|
Ultimately the IPCC is (to use that hateful phrase) 'unfit for purpose' as it is hamstrung in its ability to confirm good practice and/or highlight failings.
Either it should have more powers of compulsion, have its remit/methods changed, or probably both.
|
>> Ultimately the IPCC is (to use that hateful phrase) 'unfit for purpose' as it is
>> hamstrung in its ability to confirm good practice and/or highlight failings.
>>
>> Either it should have more powers of compulsion, have its remit/methods changed, or probably both.
Well we seem to have figured that out in an afternoon. What's taking the authorities so long?
|
>> >> Ultimately the IPCC is (to use that hateful phrase) 'unfit for purpose' as it
>> is
>> >> hamstrung in its ability to confirm good practice and/or highlight failings.
>> >>
>> >> Either it should have more powers of compulsion, have its remit/methods changed, or probably
>> both.
>>
>> Well we seem to have figured that out in an afternoon. What's taking the authorities
>> so long?
>>
Well, there are lots of high up police chiefs including one in London who might have to tell the truth - including crime statistics.
That would destroy their credibility.
So it will not happen.
(They admit they lie,, the only question is By how much? Double or treble any admissions is my view)
Last edited by: madf on Thu 9 Jan 14 at 17:45
|
>> >>Not relevant if the individual officer has fully complied with any criminal investigation by police
>> and/or CPS queries
>>
>> Tell that to the HGV driver arrested after a fatal RTA without any evidence of
>> fault.
I don't know what you mean.
If you are saying that the lorry driver should not be arrested in a blanket arrest policy in fatal accident scenarios, then I 100% agree... it's just I'm having trouble working out the relevance.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25663495
This will be a wonderful aid to any police officer...shame they don't all have one...the costs will just have to be borne.
|
But can the helmet-cam be turned off for those deniable excursions up dark alleys to drub and sometimes rob innocent drug dealers and gangsters? That's what the bien-pensant public will want to know.
I foresee the odd incomprehensible legal wrangle over the admissibility or otherwise of some of the footage... sorry guv it got lost when we were hosing down the squadroom so to speak...
|
|
That should have been a requirement years ago.
|
>> That should have been a requirement years ago.
>>
Money
|
|
Well - invest to save springs to mind.
|
>> Well - invest to save springs to mind.
>>
Total agreement here...and don't spend on the some of the crap do they fork out on.
|
I read in another column that they were sure that the man's family would miss him.
The rest of the UK would not mis the gangster/drug dealer/man of violence that Mark Duggan was.
|
|
I'm going to have to chip in here…. all officers do take prt in the IPCC investigation. they make statements just like any other witness. The issue is: if the IPCC want to 'interview' officers then shouldn't they have to declare why? If the officer is under some sort of suspicion then why shouldn't they be afforded the same protections that the law provides for everybody else?? To be under some level of suspicion, from an investigating authority, with a likelihood of prosecution, must warrant the same rights as everyone else. If those rights aren't there then we're happy to treat officers completely differently to everybody else are we? Yes I'm sure plenty of people out there would be happy with that but it's the lack of protection and fact that statements are made that leaves officers unprepared to submit to an investigative interview that may lead to some judicial process. If they are suspected of wrongdoing then arrest them and follow due process. None of them will argue with being treated in that way. But just like everyone else, they are at liberty to have the decision to arrest tested later.
|
What a difference between this fellow and Diane Abbott
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25702948
I've always thought he comes across well.
Wouldn't mind him being my MP, which is more than I can say about his predecessor.
|
>> What a difference between this fellow and Diane Abbott
Yes, he's OK and coming on well. But as I have said, these are very able people, not to be trifled with. They are members of the 'political class'.
I would include Diane Abbott though. Everyone's different, everyone has their niche in the mediatized political environment being promoted at present. But she and David Lammy are two of a kind really, a kind I have some acquaintance with. I doubt very much that Diane Abbott would share a platform with the Duggan claque. But I suppose her 'feminine' populist sympathies annoy people. They annoy me a bit but no one's perfect.
|
>> But I suppose her 'feminine' populist
>> sympathies annoy people. They annoy me a bit but no one's perfect.
>>
She's an unpleasant rabble rouser..as was Bernie Grant....David Lammy comes across completely differently...and is more appealing to a much wider audience..which let's face it, is what's needed.
|
She's not really that unpleasant. Nor was Bernie Grant.
You have to see these people in context Wp. Their discourse isn't meant to appeal to you but to a different audience. Politics is showbiz up to a point. In fact it's hard to identify a point at which it stops being showbiz... perhaps when you give your crimper a hereditary earldom for moving your parting to the correct side of your head.
|
>> She's not really that unpleasant. Nor was Bernie Grant.
>>
>> You have to see these people in context Wp. Their discourse isn't meant to appeal
>> to you but to a different audience. Politics is showbiz up to a point.
I despise all that.
|
>> I despise all that.
Perhaps. But there are people who do it. Perhaps there have to be people who do it.
|
>> >> But I suppose her 'feminine' populist
>> >> sympathies annoy people. They annoy me a bit but no one's perfect.
>> >>
>> She's an unpleasant rabble rouser..
She is useless in her chosen career. She does not play the political part at all well (hence her fall from grace in her party) she does not play the community part well either, her coloured constituents consider her a social climbing whitey and her white constituents consider her a rabble rouser, despite the fact she ineffectual in that role.
Pity really, she is actually a nice person when you remove her from the political cess pit.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 12 Jan 14 at 19:23
|
"Angry relatives are a threat to justice" is the title of an article by Theodore Dalrymple in today's Sunday Telegraph.
Link:-
tinyurl.com/oh9twbq
|
"she is actually a nice person………………"
That's not the conclusion that my son came to when he witnessed her and her loud-mouth cronies breeze into a London pub.
|
>> "she is actually a nice person………………"
>>
>> That's not the conclusion that my son came to when he witnessed her and her
>> loud-mouth cronies breeze into a London pub.
Having met her outside of a pub scenario, in a semi social scenario, thats the conclusion i came to.
Most people breezing into London pubs are loud mouthed.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 12 Jan 14 at 22:01
|
"Most people breezing into London pubs are loud mouthed."
I took it, Z, that my son was speaking relatively ;-)
|
For fans of Ms Abbott, there's a lovely portrait of her in this article about MPs and their tax-payer funded vanity.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10571654/These-portraits-of-MPs-will-be-pieces-of-history.html
|
Not a bad likeness actually, but the expression is a bit dead... she's usually fairly animated and quite often cheerful or laughing. The Thatcher portrait is unkind, the Blair one extremely good.
Diane Abbott isn't so bad. She has to cope with having typecast herself as black Labour left, hence the claim to be 'baffled' by the Duggan inquest jury verdict. She hasn't got a great political brain but she's very far from being a 'stupid tart' and loudmouth. More like a genial political TV luvvie. I don't get the impression that Michael Portillo, who does have a political brain, is uncomfortable being paired with her on the Brillo Pad show.
You have to remember that whenever any race issue arises in the media hacks will be ringing her up for her comments. These things being complex, it would be surprising if she got a bullseye every time.
|
>> For fans of Ms Abbott, there's a lovely portrait of her in this article about
>> MPs and their tax-payer funded vanity.
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10571654/These-portraits-of-MPs-will-be-pieces-of-history.html
>>
>>
I hope that's an op-ed piece and not 'news'.
This spend is just part of the cost of maintaining parliament and its records. Must cost millions to keep the Palace of Westminster weather tight and heated, never mind the skilled stuff with keeping a listed building in a proper style.
The quarter million headline cost of portraits has been accrued over a considerable period of time. The annual average is £14k. Seems reasonable to me for capturing a bit of history in a way the camera cannot.
|
|
Wont stop the family "aunties" claiming he was a saint.
|
The inquest and IPCC both agree he was lawfully killed but diverge on whether he 'threw' the gun.
I don't for a minute think he was a saint but I'm still uneasy.
|
>> The inquest and IPCC both agree he was lawfully killed but diverge on whether he
>> 'threw' the gun.
>>
>> I don't for a minute think he was a saint but I'm still uneasy.
Carry a gun and you stand a good chance of getting shot. Its a pretty good rule of thumb anywhere in the world
|
|
Gonna side with the Zed on that one - the only possible unease with this, would be if the gun was planted, and that 'version' appears the least credible of all.
|
>> Gonna side with the Zed on that one - the only possible unease with this,
>> would be if the gun was planted, and that 'version' appears the least credible of
>> all.
Until the whole thing's reviewed again when 'new evidence' emerges c2036.
|
>> I don't for a minute think he was a saint but I'm still uneasy.
>>
About what?
|
>> About what?
The sort of things that arouse unease about any case where police shoot and kill. Maybe too much 20/20 hindsight but there was enough doubt for some aspects of the Duggan inquest to be majority decisions.
There are a string of cases from Steven Waldorf to Azelle Rodney.
|
What sort of things?
And it was a majority decision , that's why they have them.
As far as I'm concerned there are much bigger things to worry about fixing in this world before worrying about some gun-carrying scumbag getting shot.
|
>> What sort of things?
Reading this thread from the beginning should give you some clues. See Manatee's contributions lest you should think others are in a leftie's luvvie fest.
|
I wasn't enquiring as to what was in this thread, I was asking after your unease.
How do you know its unease if you can't actually tell me what that unease consists of?
|
>> How do you know its unease if you can't actually tell me what that unease
>> consists of?
And the reasons are amply summarised by Manatee's posts. I wasn't going to post a lengthy reiteration of them before retiring last night nor before I go to work this morning.
If you really need it to understand the issue I'll try and get round to it tonight.
|
>>If you really need it to understand the issue I'll try and get round to it tonight.
No, don't bother. My point is made, I think, and I certainly understand the "issue".
So easy to cast aspersions isn't it, just to throw in doubts and uneasiness; so much more time consuming, late at night, before work etc. etc. to actually say what you meant. So much easier to write "uneasy" and then 4 more posts dodging the issue.
|
>> >>If you really need it to understand the issue I'll try and get round to
>> it tonight.
>>
>> No, don't bother. My point is made, I think, and I certainly understand the "issue".
I'm not sure what that point is except that you are being either obtuse or verging on bullying. If the latter you're wasting effort in directing your remarks at me.
The reasons for my unease have already been covered in this thread, particularly posts on 09 Jan between 09:46 and 14:08 involving primarily Manatee, Westpig and me.
As a start point there are enough mistaken/unlawful shootings by the Met including Cherry Groce, Steven Waldorf, Azelle Rodney and of course DeMenezes to create a degree of scepticism.
Shooting first and confirming the existence of weapons later is another.
I'm not saying that Duggan was a saint, he wasn't, but neither had he got convictions for the 'gangster' label police briefings attempted to pin to him. Again there's a trend here with exaggeration; early accounts re DeMenezes suggested criminality on his part.
However good the complaints process it's liable to be seen as suspect when individual officers can refuse to answer questions and those who do participate are allowed to collaborate on their accounts. I know WP has explained this from the officer's perspective but other professions. with far less power than the police, are required to co-operate with professional complaint processes.
Added together those points make me uneasy.
Other's mileage may vary.
|
>>or verging on bullying
Oh don't be silly. Really, I hardly thought you were that sensitive or, indeed, that ridiculous.
To help...(from Wikipedia)
"Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as;
actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person."
=============================================
Now, to the point.....
It having been investigated, then I assume that your issue must be with that process. Because presumably any unease with the incident should have been dealt with by that process.
>> individual officers can refuse to answer questions
Can they? Do they have to give a reason or can they just say that they don't want to answer?
>>and those who do participate are allowed to collaborate on their accounts.
That seems plain wrong. I haven't seen WP's explanation, I shall try and find it.
I don't know why you couldn't just have said that in the first place.
|
I know WP has explained this from the officer's perspective but other professions.
>> with far less power than the police, are required to co-operate with professional complaint processes.
To clarify.
A police officer, like anyone else, has to co-operate with a criminal investigation.. and.. is obliged through their employment to co-operate with any internal police management investigation (as any employee would with any company they are employed by).
Where the water is muddied is when the IPCC steps in. They are an outside body of the police and if not overseeing outright criminality (and using police officers with police powers to ensure compliance) then why would a serving police officer want to go out of their way to comply with an organisation that has become politicised, has high profile people who seem to want to make a name for themselves, seems to want to 'nail somebody for something' and most definitely is not there for the average cop who genuinely makes a mistake... when they don't have to?
I wouldn't.
I tried to do it right. If someone thinks I didn't, then prove it. It would be news to me, but I'm not going to help them on their way, especially when I know there's plenty of pitfalls sat there waiting, daily.
|
>> And the reasons are amply summarised by Manatee's posts. I wasn't going to post a
>> lengthy reiteration of them before retiring last night nor before I go to work this
>> morning.
Do you generally trust the British Police and the way they do things..or generally not?
I'm happy to say they don't always get it right and sometimes there is criminality involved from within... because sadly that's what happens when human beings are involved.
However, I'm also happy to state that the vast majority do their utmost to get it right.. and IMO we have one of the most open policing systems in the world, with an incredibly robust complaints system (too robust really, in some respects... if you have an army of people available to investigate minor internal infractions, but none available to investigate some crime, then there's something wrong)
So what is it to be? Do you see problems all the time?
|
I agree with Westpig.
(don't get used to it).
The UK Police may have their faults, but they and the service they provide are better than most and at least as good as any other police force I've been in contact with.
|
>> The UK Police may have their faults, but they and the service they provide are better than most and at least as good as any other police force I've been in contact with.
Yes, likewise. But I agree with Wp quite often. Even with you sometimes FMR.
|
>>
>> How do you know its unease if you can't actually tell me what that unease
>> consists of?
>>
I think that's what unease is, isn't it - something troubling you that you can't put your finger on?
|
I think that's what unease is, isn't it - something troubling you that you can't put your finger on?
Works for me, I too am suspicious/uneasy but I'd struggle to itemise exactly what. Call it one's spidey sense if you like.
|
>> I think that's what unease is, isn't it - something troubling you that you can't
>> put your finger on?
>>
>> Works for me,
And that explanation works for me as well. However I am perfectly at ease with what went on here. I don't think any case has been under as much ongoing scrutiny as this one, its been examined at least twice from two different directions, and both have come up with the same conclusion. As a backstop even if events were not quite as those accepted, no miscarriage of justice has been carried out, the bloke was a known scumbag.
|
bloke was a known scumbag.
No dispute about that! To be honest though, any legal killing verdict will always inspire some unease here. And arguably, should do elsewhere as if one was totally happy with a legal killing, you might as well have a Judge Dredd style judiciary/police.
|
Mark Duggan was Lawfully Killed - Bromptonaut
