Any London left?

1…1415171920…28

Comments

  • nich
    nich Posts: 888
    Oh some news.

    It appears local gangs (or something) are now fighting back to protect their own 'turf'.

    It's all happening on twitter tonight :shock:

    Edit!

    "Millwall & Charlton fans have joined forces and are out in Eltham protecting shops."
  • Twisterboy
    Twisterboy Posts: 311
    I heard they arrested some wee ned/chav in Glasgow who was thinking of starting a riot up in Scotland.

    David
  • Holyzeus
    Holyzeus Posts: 354
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    BREAKING: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has just announced that there is no evidence that Mark Duggan opened fire at police officers before he was shot dead, according to ballistic test results, reports the Press Association.

    From the Guardian.


    Oh dear.

    Channel 4 said as much last night. Not the best timing though.

    so what. Man with gun dies by gunshot? nothing wrong in that. wtf was he doing with a gun in first place or is that allowed now?
    +1 Carry a gun, you accept any and all consequences
    Nicolai CC
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited August 2011
    Why are people encouraging this knuckle dragging buffoon?

    Places of high socio-economic deprevation were mostly the trouble spots. These are the exact same places where most ethnic minorities live. In all the photo's I've seen I've seen people of all ethnicities and people I would call mixed race - that others would class black despite the parent of another ethnicity.

    Student riots I don't think you could class by race, still I would say the moajority of images were of white people. So I guess other races can riot too.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Holyzeus wrote:
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    BREAKING: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has just announced that there is no evidence that Mark Duggan opened fire at police officers before he was shot dead, according to ballistic test results, reports the Press Association.

    From the Guardian.


    Oh dear.

    Channel 4 said as much last night. Not the best timing though.

    so what. Man with gun dies by gunshot? nothing wrong in that. wtf was he doing with a gun in first place or is that allowed now?
    +1 Carry a gun, you accept any and all consequences
    If he didn't fire the gun there is all the chance that the gun wasn't his, planeted on him or he was forced to carry it for someone else.

    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    And the timing of this is terrible.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,346
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are people encouraging this knuckle dragging buffoon?


    Because the best way to deal with knuckle dragging buffons is to laugh at them...
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    TailWindHome wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are people encouraging this knuckle dragging buffoon?


    Because the best way to deal with knuckle dragging buffons is to laugh at them...

    Acutally I find what he has written deeply offensive. I'd rather not read it and/or engage with such a dunce.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Holyzeus wrote:
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    BREAKING: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has just announced that there is no evidence that Mark Duggan opened fire at police officers before he was shot dead, according to ballistic test results, reports the Press Association.

    From the Guardian.


    Oh dear.

    Channel 4 said as much last night. Not the best timing though.

    so what. Man with gun dies by gunshot? nothing wrong in that. wtf was he doing with a gun in first place or is that allowed now?
    +1 Carry a gun, you accept any and all consequences
    If he didn't fire the gun there is all the chance that the gun wasn't his, planeted on him or he was forced to carry it for someone else.

    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    And the timing of this is terrible.

    So you really think it was planted on him FFS yes this is all planned the police are all racist and looking for an excuse to gun people down.

    They stopped the guy in a planned operation based on intelligence that he was carrying an illegal firearm, yes illegal not just carrying a gun, which you can do if you have a firearms licence, he didn't therefore had no right to or should have had any reason to carry one and therefore they stopped him.

    People are not just shot for carrying a firearm, there are strict rules when the police can use their firearms, if they felt he was threatening either them or was a threat to the public they are authorised to use force.

    No one on here was there so cannot comment, but if the police felt threatened they are within their rights to open fire, all incidents like this are investigated independently (as is happening now) so the police don't do that lightly as they are always investigated.

    It doesn't matter if the gun was his or not, he was carrying it with a loaded magazine in the gun, if he wasn't going to use it at all he would have not had the gun loaded and had the magazine separate.

    Any sane rational innocent person with nothing to hide would have in face of armed police not made any moves that were threatening and followed their instructions.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Paul E wrote:

    So you really think it was planted on him FFS yes this is all planned the police are all racist and looking for an excuse to gun people down.

    Did I say that? Was that even my point?

    My point was that there could be a number of circumstances where a person could be near or in possession of a gun (yes terrible but it can happen) and I don't want to live in a Country where police will shot you just on the basis of that alone.

    Let me give you an example. In my late teens/early twenties I had a friend (pretty straight lace - wasn't a trouble maker) he swaped his car with a friend for a week for one reason or another (not for his benefit). The friend called him back, didn't say why but he left his gun in it. Had police stopped my friend (licence plate was being monitored) should they have shot him?
    They stopped the guy in a planned operation based on intelligence that he was carrying an illegal firearm, yes illegal not just carrying a gun, which you can do if you have a firearms licence, he didn't therefore had no right to or should have had any reason to carry one and therefore they stopped him.

    None of which is a reason to shoot him. How can justice by way of court be carried out if they shoot and it kills? We don't operate the death penalty here and everyone has the right to a fair trial.
    People are not just shot for carrying a firearm, there are strict rules when the police can use their firearms, if they felt he was threatening either them or was a threat to the public they are authorised to use force.

    He didn't shoot at them, they stopped the car how much threat they were under needs to be determined i.e. was he pointing it at them and did they say drop it or we'll shoot and is that even allowed?
    No one on here was there so cannot comment, but if the police felt threatened they are within their rights to open fire, all incidents like this are investigated independently (as is happening now) so the police don't do that lightly as they are always investigated.
    Police, even the armed ones, are open to mistakes and poor judgement call, bad intelligence.

    He didn't shoot, early police reports said he did.
    It doesn't matter if the gun was his or not, he was carrying it with a loaded magazine in the gun, if he wasn't going to use it at all he would have not had the gun loaded and had the magazine separate.

    Not a reason to shoot him.
    Any sane rational innocent person with nothing to hide would have in face of armed police not made any moves that were threatening and followed their instructions.
    We don't know what his mental state was.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    As I said before. Maybe he shouted at the police that if they didn't back off he was going to shoot the taxi driver (innocent party). Having made this threat if he then failed to comply with police instructions (hand on head etc) and went for the gun in his sock what are the police to do. Risk the innocent party and wait until a shot is fired or take action. This may not be what happenned DDD but it is a reason to shoot him and within the police firearm guidlines and so far would fit the facts as publically known.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    If someone is carrying a gun illegally they should be prepared to take the consequences - I'm sure I wouldn't wait for someone to shoot me if I were an armed police officer. The fact that the gun was not fired doesn't mean it wasn't used in a threatening manner.
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    You don't have to discharge a weapon at police to have them fire at you, you merely have to point it at them, that's in the rules of engagement, it's only a small step from pointing to discharging and the police officer looking down the barrel is not going to wait to see if the person does, that is allowed, they don't ask.

    Like or not that's how things are with firearms, if it's merely in the car then fine it's not being pointed at the police they don't fire.

    He was shot for a reason, he either made a move that the police thought was endangering others or he actually pointed the gun at them.

    As i said no one can say one way or another as they were not there, but those are the reasons he would have been.
  • hfidgen
    hfidgen Posts: 340
    Have to say... I much prefer this forum when the topic is actually bike related!

    The current event threads seem to turn into troll ridden shout and rant fests far quicker than the other forums I frequent. :(
    FCN 4 - BMC CX02
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    Carrying a gun does not constitute a reason to shoot him. Carry a gun plus threats to kill plus failing to comply with instruction plus going for said gun does. Let wait for the facts of this before judging. They may of been trying to protect the taxi driver.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    Sketchley wrote:
    Carrying a gun does not constitute a reason to shoot him. Carry a gun plus threats to kill plus failing to comply with instruction plus going for said gun does. Let wait for the facts of this before judging. They may of been trying to protect the taxi driver.

    exactly what I said
  • jimmypippa
    jimmypippa Posts: 1,712
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are people encouraging this knuckle dragging buffoon?


    Because the best way to deal with knuckle dragging buffons is to laugh at them...

    Acutally I find what he has written deeply offensive. I'd rather not read it and/or engage with such a dunce.

    I don't think people are "encouraging" these bigots, they are mocking them because they are hateful and stupid.
    http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6404
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Paul E wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    Carrying a gun does not constitute a reason to shoot him. Carry a gun plus threats to kill plus failing to comply with instruction plus going for said gun does. Let wait for the facts of this before judging. They may of been trying to protect the taxi driver.

    exactly what I said
    Right and this is what I said:
    If he didn't fire the gun there is all the chance that the gun wasn't his, planeted on him or he was forced to carry it for someone else.

    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    And the timing of this is terrible.

    What we know is that he didn't fire the gun. What we now need to know is why the police opened fire - especially consdiering that they orignally said shots he fired shots.

    I would rather live in a Country where you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    That sentence is open to exceptions such as threatening or taking a hostage etc...
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Can't be long until the thread feather duster is brandished in anger. Again.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Paul E wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    Carrying a gun does not constitute a reason to shoot him. Carry a gun plus threats to kill plus failing to comply with instruction plus going for said gun does. Let wait for the facts of this before judging. They may of been trying to protect the taxi driver.

    exactly what I said
    Right and this is what I said:
    If he didn't fire the gun there is all the chance that the gun wasn't his, planeted on him or he was forced to carry it for someone else.

    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    And the timing of this is terrible.

    What we know is that he didn't fire the gun. What we now need to know is why the police opened fire - especially consdiering that they orignally said shots he fired shots.

    I would rather live in a Country where you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    That sentence is open to exceptions such as threatening or taking a hostage etc...

    1. if you are carrying an illegal firearm you must be doing it for a reason, 99% of the time that will be a criminal reason, not always but mostly
    2. if stopped and you don't threaten the police then you don't have to worry about being shot, just worry about being thrown in prison for a long time for being a naughty boy


    There was that incident of the lawyer (I think) who was holed up in his flat with a shotgun which was legally owned btw and he was in a state after splitting with with partner, there was a stand off and he started to wave it out of the window at the police and they shot him there was an investigation and it was found that the police acted within the rules of engagement.

    Slightly different as he was not in a right state of mind which made him potentially more dangerous but the rules stayed the same.
  • jzed
    jzed Posts: 2,926
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    especially consdiering that they orignally said shots he fired shots.
    ...

    DDD - I haven't actually seen any statement where the police said he did fire shots at them, I may just have missed them. Can you point me to them.
  • garnett
    garnett Posts: 196
    Obviously none of us is in full possession of the facts but it seems possible the police may have made a mistake and could have shot the guy outside their guidelines for when and when they can do so.

    As some have said, if I was a policeman in that situation I would think it "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

    Everyone makes mistakes. If your actions (carrying a gun, mixing with violent criminals etc) bring you into contact with violent organisations (Police armed response unit) then you have to accept any mistakes could potentially have more serious repercussions.
  • Greg T
    Greg T Posts: 3,266
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.
    ...

    You are doing this on purpose right . . .

    Simply... Simply ....

    It's a gun. Why would anyone carry a gun - it's not normal - it's not all right to carry handguns.

    Is it OK to off someone just because they carry a handgun - no it's not - but it's not simply carrying a handgun like you are caught with a knock off DVD.

    We don't know what happened but you have to try quite hard to get plod to open fire.

    You are two for two....
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • garnett
    garnett Posts: 196
    Greg T wrote:
    Is it OK to off someone just because they carry a handgun - no it's not - but it's not simply carrying a handgun like you are caught with a knock off DVD.
    Good point well made.
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    Garnett wrote:
    Greg T wrote:
    Is it OK to off someone just because they carry a handgun - no it's not - but it's not simply carrying a handgun like you are caught with a knock off DVD.
    Good point well made.

    Seconded
  • deptfordmarmoset
    deptfordmarmoset Posts: 3,118
    You are two for two....

    Excuse my ignorance but I didn't understand that phrase. The rest made perfect sense to me.
    Looking for a cycling buddy?
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    deptfordmarmoset wrote:
    You are two for two....

    Excuse my ignorance but I didn't understand that phrase. The rest made perfect sense to me.

    I think it's a cricket thing
  • Coach H
    Coach H Posts: 1,092
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Places of high socio-economic deprevation were mostly the trouble spots. These are the exact same places where most ethnic minorities live..

    How is there socio-economic depravation? The library service for one must be first class and open 24hr per day. How else would these poor unfortunates manage to interact with social media but with free internet service at the library.

    No I've got something wrong there, they are using mobiles with a better spec than I can afford as a wage earner and tax payer for 25 years

    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

    I'll be the first to dust off the earlier parts of the thread.
    Coach H wrote:
    OK, so I think we can all agree that the start point for the riots and looting was the Police shooting.

    I’m not going to debate if there is a real link but it was the kick off point.

    Now I am going to annoy some woolly jumper Liberals here but; if you give the Police guns, at some point they will shoot people with them FACT. Whether this is justified or not is not in question in my argument. If you give someone a tool don’t expect them not to use it and sometimes they will use it in a way you wouldn’t want them to.

    So the only solution, to my mind, is for EVERY individual with feet on the ground in the UK to agree that when a Police Officer blows his whistle and wags his finger at you, you will stop doing whatever it is has caused this officer to blow his whistle. That way the Police will not need to have guns and they will not shoot anybody.

    Expand this worldwide and everything turns to roses!! Surely no-one would stand against this.
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • deptfordmarmoset
    deptfordmarmoset Posts: 3,118
    Paul E wrote:
    deptfordmarmoset wrote:
    You are two for two....

    Excuse my ignorance but I didn't understand that phrase. The rest made perfect sense to me.

    I think it's a cricket thing

    Ah, I would have thought 0 for 2...
    Looking for a cycling buddy?
  • Wrath Rob
    Wrath Rob Posts: 2,918
    Baseball. Two pitches, two strikes with no hits. Third strike and you're out.

    DDD, got to say you're starting to spout more crap these days. My prediction is that you;ll come back with a long post justifying your single point of view, that it is somehow OK to carry a hand gun and not expect the full wrath of the law. However, as Sketchley said,l the facts are not yet known so jumping to conclusions is exactly why we find ourselves in situations such as this.
    FCN3: Titanium Qoroz.
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    Greg T wrote:
    It's a gun. Why would anyone carry a gun - it's not normal - it's not all right to carry handguns.
    I thought simply possession of an unlicensed firearm was a strict liability offence.

Categories