Any London left?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

(remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off)

When did this happen?

asprilla

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

(remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off)

When did this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... _Blakelock

bails87

PC Blakelock was killed in 1985, in riots on the estate where the march on Saturday night started from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwater_Farm_riot

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Since it turns out that the bullet in the radio was police issue

Was the type of bullet the police use and so was probably police issue. I know it's not a big assumption, but it's still jumping to conclusions to say that it was the police who fired that bullet.

This is the kind of chinese whispers that starts riots. Before we know it general commuting will be burning and people will be looting the commuting workshop.

Fair point, the victim could have had a coppers gun in his possession.

The rumours flying around about what happened, and the lack of official statements to clarify the situation, together with the dismissive handling of the initial protest, certainly don't seem to have helped the situation.

rick_chasey

Interesting interview on the guardian liveblog.

11.57am: Jasmine Coleman, who's pounding the streets of Brixton for us, has been chatting to young people there about the unrest — and what they believe may have fuelled it

Rianna Price, 18, who lives nearby, said she thought the violence showed the level of anger among youth in London.

I don't even think it was about Tottenham. I think they are trying to get back at police because they are cruel. They just arrest you for anything.

"I think this is more about the young people, the older people around here just get on with it."

She suggested rioters might have targeted shops that were slower to employ local people.

It's pretty difficult to get jobs around here, even if you live here. I think it's just about getting free stuff. They are in it for their own gain."

She said she thought the people involved in the disturbance came from both Brixton and elsewhere.

I don't think most people around here want to smash up the place."

And, she added, the violence would continue unless the relationship between police and young people in London improved rapidly.

I don't think the police really care - it's just about money. Until they assess the deeper issues this is still going to go on.

"The police need to use their power to empower and help people."

bails87

gtvlusso
This isn't some uninformed internet detectives saying "oo, it's 'such and such' calibre therefore it could be the police". It was the reuslts of the Met's own ballistic tests that said it "appears to be police issue".

Whether police issue means a bullet specifically issued to the police, or just a type used by the police (as well as 'civilians') I don't know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/0 ... intcmp=239

11.30 am

Thegreatgame, below, asks about the "police issue bullet" that is understood to have been found lodged in the radio of a police officer after Mark Duggan was shot last Thursday:

Can the Guardian please explain what a 'police issue bullet' is? How does one tell one 9 mm round from another? Does police issue ammunition have ER etched onto it or something??

Yes, we can. As our crime correspondent, Sandra Laville explains:

Police issue bullets are very distinct as the Metropolitan Police uses dum dum type hollowed out bullets designed not to pass through an object

.

rick_chasey

For what it's worth, my old mate when we were growing up, now a doctor, got searched by the police maybe once a month?

When me and my mates were out at the pub, maybe on our way to, maybe on our way to our bikes with him, he'd get searched. We never got searched. Only him. We're respectable, middle class. The Mail would be proud, if it wasn't for our centre left tendencies.

The only difference between us and him was that he was black and we weren't. Seriously.

When you see the resignation over his face when the police want to search him AGAIN, you see how problematic the police can be, and probably are.

Now, presumably that discrimination is a) patchy at worse and b) not exclusive to race.

So I can imagine that the police in difficult areas are not as well restrained when it comes to discriminating against poorer individuals, or poorer communities.

It may be not the case, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did.

rjsterry

Asprilla wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

(remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off)

When did this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... _Blakelock

No they didn't. It was reported that it looked as though that was what PC Blakelock's attackers were trying to do, but they didn't succeed. This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to earlier.

Confusedboy

Rioting is generally politcally motivated, and in it's roots here are to be found in the disfuntional relationship between the Met and the people it is supposed to be protecting and serving; few of my sympathies are with the Met in this case.

Looting is a different thing altogether, and occurs when a breakdown of law and order enables consumer goods to be taken away from shops with impunity and no payment. It often occurs after rioting to take advantage of the fact that the police are fully occupied elsewhere, but it is a purely opportunistic criminal activity, and nothing to do with the riot. All of my sympathies are with the Met in this case.

mrc1

All this does go to show what a pretty much impossible job any armed police officer has. They have a split second to make a decision which has huge consequences.

lastant

The Telegraph wrote:

But its tactics meant gangs of youths were free to break into stores at nearby Tottenham Hale retail park and in Wood Green, with looters forming an orderly queue in broad daylight to steal from a sports shop.

Having lived in Wood Green, I do have to admit the idea of people forming an orderly queue to loot does amuse me.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

For what it's worth, my old mate when were were growing up, now a doctor, got searched by the police maybe once a month?

I think its pretty much this. In some areas the police are viewed with mistrust and contempt by the local population, and its not without good reason. I've heard so many personal anecdotes from friends and family of police interaction that they view as harassment. All were law abiding types, and the only thing that they have in common was being black/mixed race. Personally I've had broadly positive experiences with the Met (very thorough investigation into a burglary), but I suspect this is because I'm (mostly) white and have lived in the "right" areas.

jzed

IPCC statement (emphasis added):

A number of exhibits including a non police firearm found at the scene and MPS radio have been sent for forensic testing. Yesterday we supported 14 members of Mark Duggan’s family and friends whilst they went through the difficult task of viewing and formally identifying Mr Duggan’s body.

The investigation is, and will remain my priority. As an IPCC Commissioner I cannot ever have worked for the police and am entirely independent of them. My role is to oversee the investigation – which must also support the family, and address the concerns expressed by the community. To help me I have established a community reference group to ensure I am sensitive and responsive to them.

I know there are concerns that we have not provided enough support to the family in the first days – and I am very sorry if anyone should feel that. Our investigators in fact made contact with the family on Friday, met them yesterday and I have met them today. I have spoken to Mark’s mother today who told me she did not want to meet yet but would do so in the coming days.

We are interviewing key witnesses although whilst the investigation is at such a critical stage I cannot give out further bits of information until we have proven what is fact and what is rumour. There are however a number of things I would like to address.

Speculation that Mark Duggan was ‘assassinated’ in an execution style involving a number of shots to the head are categorically untrue. Following the formal identification of the body Mr Duggan’s family know that this is not the case and I would ask anyone reporting this to be aware of its inaccuracy and its inflammatory nature.

The IPCC is investigating not only the actions of the officer firing the shots but also the planning, decision making and implementation of the police operation. Our lines of enquiry include the bullets fired and any firearms used and recovered.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

When it first happened the Met (via BBC) was saying that shots were fired, an officer was hit and the victim was killed in the car.

At the same time the BBC reported that an eye witness said that both the driver (later identified as a cab driver) and the victim were placed face down handcuffed and then four shots were fired - they couldn't identify who shot the gun.

What I want to know is what happened to the cab driver? If the victim was shooting from the cab, did he know the cab driver because who just ups and has a shootout with police while in a cab and was this a chase (it wasn't).

Since it turns out that the bullet in the radio was police issue - why did one police officer shoot another - if he was killed on the presumption that he shot back/shot at an officer and he didn't (bullet in the radio wasn't from his gun) then bigger riots will follow.

On the riots themselves

The police brought it on themselves with the way they showed no regard for a communities need for answers - given that there were two accounts. Shortly after the shooting the only person calling for calm was the Local MP, the police didn't really issue a follow up report or a statement or show any real concern or interest in the Tottenham community concerns (remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off) so that was monumentally dumb. As it happened Mrs DDD was saying that by the morning there's going to be a riot - she's had to work there see and in her line of work she has come to understand those in that community.

People were portesting outside the police station (and, again, on the BBC) and a reporter said that a woman who was shouting got too close and the police pushed her back. This angered those in the crowd and the riot kicked off.

But the police will escape being criticised as always.

That attitude really gets my back up. Clearly you think the police are to blame for the riots and not the rioters? But did a policeman throw a petrol bomb, torch a car or a bus or a building? Did they loot Currys or a footlocker? Did they organise mass looting via twitter? Simply answer is no. Sure the "people" or "the community" might have a genuine grievance but last night was little more the robbery, theft and criminal damage and had nothing to do with the issue faced by the community; the rioters just wanted a free TV or new trainers. The good people of Tottenham, Brixton, Enfield etc that I know from all backgrounds would be ashamed at what was done last night in their communities and would take real issue with being associated with the rioters through it being some kind of social or political issue rather than the criminal act that it is. I believe the family of the shot guy have even gone as far as to issue a statement saying so themselves.

rubertoe

Regardless of the Met and its failings (and I have a niece and good friend whom are both employed by the police), they do a tough job, in extreme circumstances - I believe that the conflict was between the deceased and operation trident officers, so I am sure they were aware of this individual before they decided to randomly shoot him dead. without justification

What excuse is there for looting and rioting? none. its just mindless criminality and will no doubt spread like wild fire and the police will no doubt be blamed for not doing enough to get kids of the street , into work or for enflaming the situation by trying to control a rampaging mob with excessive force.

Sewinman

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When it first happened the Met (via BBC) was saying that shots were fired, an officer was hit and the victim was killed in the car.

At the same time the BBC reported that an eye witness said that both the driver (later identified as a cab driver) and the victim were placed face down handcuffed and then four shots were fired - they couldn't identify who shot the gun.

What I want to know is what happened to the cab driver? If the victim was shooting from the cab, did he know the cab driver because who just ups and has a shootout with police while in a cab and was this a chase (it wasn't).

Since it turns out that the bullet in the radio was police issue - why did one police officer shoot another - if he was killed on the presumption that he shot back/shot at an officer and he didn't (bullet in the radio wasn't from his gun) then bigger riots will follow.

On the riots themselves

The police brought it on themselves with the way they showed no regard for a communities need for answers - given that there were two accounts. Shortly after the shooting the only person calling for calm was the Local MP, the police didn't really issue a follow up report or a statement or show any real concern or interest in the Tottenham community concerns (remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off) so that was monumentally dumb. As it happened Mrs DDD was saying that by the morning there's going to be a riot - she's had to work there see and in her line of work she has come to understand those in that community.

People were portesting outside the police station (and, again, on the BBC) and a reporter said that a woman who was shouting got too close and the police pushed her back. This angered those in the crowd and the riot kicked off.

But the police will escape being criticised as always.

That attitude really gets my back up. Clearly you think the police are to blame for the riots and not the rioters? But did a policeman throw a petrol bomb, torch a car or a bus or a building? Did they loot Currys or a footlocker? Did they organise mass looting via twitter? Simply answer is no. Sure the "people" or "the community" might have a genuine grievance but last night was little more the robbery, theft and criminal damage and had nothing to do with the issue faced by the community; the rioters just wanted a free TV or new trainers. The good people of Tottenham, Brixton, Enfield etc that I know from all backgrounds would be ashamed at what was done last night in their communities and would take real issue with being associated with the rioters through it being some kind of social or political issue rather than the criminal act that it is. I believe the family of the shot guy have even gone as far as to issue a statement saying so themselves.

I suppose the rioters would say (rightly or wrongly) - no, they murdered someone.

asprilla

Sewinman wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When it first happened the Met (via BBC) was saying that shots were fired, an officer was hit and the victim was killed in the car.

At the same time the BBC reported that an eye witness said that both the driver (later identified as a cab driver) and the victim were placed face down handcuffed and then four shots were fired - they couldn't identify who shot the gun.

What I want to know is what happened to the cab driver? If the victim was shooting from the cab, did he know the cab driver because who just ups and has a shootout with police while in a cab and was this a chase (it wasn't).

Since it turns out that the bullet in the radio was police issue - why did one police officer shoot another - if he was killed on the presumption that he shot back/shot at an officer and he didn't (bullet in the radio wasn't from his gun) then bigger riots will follow.

On the riots themselves

The police brought it on themselves with the way they showed no regard for a communities need for answers - given that there were two accounts. Shortly after the shooting the only person calling for calm was the Local MP, the police didn't really issue a follow up report or a statement or show any real concern or interest in the Tottenham community concerns (remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off) so that was monumentally dumb. As it happened Mrs DDD was saying that by the morning there's going to be a riot - she's had to work there see and in her line of work she has come to understand those in that community.

People were portesting outside the police station (and, again, on the BBC) and a reporter said that a woman who was shouting got too close and the police pushed her back. This angered those in the crowd and the riot kicked off.

But the police will escape being criticised as always.

That attitude really gets my back up. Clearly you think the police are to blame for the riots and not the rioters? But did a policeman throw a petrol bomb, torch a car or a bus or a building? Did they loot Currys or a footlocker? Did they organise mass looting via twitter? Simply answer is no. Sure the "people" or "the community" might have a genuine grievance but last night was little more the robbery, theft and criminal damage and had nothing to do with the issue faced by the community; the rioters just wanted a free TV or new trainers. The good people of Tottenham, Brixton, Enfield etc that I know from all backgrounds would be ashamed at what was done last night in their communities and would take real issue with being associated with the rioters through it being some kind of social or political issue rather than the criminal act that it is. I believe the family of the shot guy have even gone as far as to issue a statement saying so themselves.

I suppose the rioters would say (rightly or wrongly) - no, they murdered someone and I really fancy some new trainers.

Fixed that for you.

Headhuunter

Sewinman wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When it first happened the Met (via BBC) was saying that shots were fired, an officer was hit and the victim was killed in the car.

At the same time the BBC reported that an eye witness said that both the driver (later identified as a cab driver) and the victim were placed face down handcuffed and then four shots were fired - they couldn't identify who shot the gun.

What I want to know is what happened to the cab driver? If the victim was shooting from the cab, did he know the cab driver because who just ups and has a shootout with police while in a cab and was this a chase (it wasn't).

Since it turns out that the bullet in the radio was police issue - why did one police officer shoot another - if he was killed on the presumption that he shot back/shot at an officer and he didn't (bullet in the radio wasn't from his gun) then bigger riots will follow.

On the riots themselves

The police brought it on themselves with the way they showed no regard for a communities need for answers - given that there were two accounts. Shortly after the shooting the only person calling for calm was the Local MP, the police didn't really issue a follow up report or a statement or show any real concern or interest in the Tottenham community concerns (remember last time this happened said community cut an officers head off) so that was monumentally dumb. As it happened Mrs DDD was saying that by the morning there's going to be a riot - she's had to work there see and in her line of work she has come to understand those in that community.

People were portesting outside the police station (and, again, on the BBC) and a reporter said that a woman who was shouting got too close and the police pushed her back. This angered those in the crowd and the riot kicked off.

But the police will escape being criticised as always.

That attitude really gets my back up. Clearly you think the police are to blame for the riots and not the rioters? But did a policeman throw a petrol bomb, torch a car or a bus or a building? Did they loot Currys or a footlocker? Did they organise mass looting via twitter? Simply answer is no. Sure the "people" or "the community" might have a genuine grievance but last night was little more the robbery, theft and criminal damage and had nothing to do with the issue faced by the community; the rioters just wanted a free TV or new trainers. The good people of Tottenham, Brixton, Enfield etc that I know from all backgrounds would be ashamed at what was done last night in their communities and would take real issue with being associated with the rioters through it being some kind of social or political issue rather than the criminal act that it is. I believe the family of the shot guy have even gone as far as to issue a statement saying so themselves.

I suppose the rioters would say (rightly or wrongly) - no, they murdered someone.

I agree with Sketchley. Everyone is so quick to point the finger at the police! The rioters may believe that the police murdered someone, however what is the basis for this supposition? Rumour? Was there a court case with evidence provided etc? I do not know the facts but on one side we have the authorities claiming that this Duggan chap was a known gangland figure whith links to gun crime. On the other hand we have the rioters who believe, based on supposition and rumour, that he was "murdered" and set about destroying the neighbourhood!

In any case, as pointed out by the very coherent and intelligent sounding local MP, the rioters were NOT the Tottenham community. Any of them were youths from outside Tottenham creating trouble. In the same way that thugs at footy matches are/were generally not supporters, they were rent-a-mob idiots out for a fight.

Lets face it, the "community" in this are the people and families whose homes have been destroyed and looted. Shopowners who now have no way to earn a living. The rioters are NOT the comminity and are entirely to blame for the consequences of their actions....

gtvlusso

bails87 wrote:

gtvlusso
This isn't some uninformed internet detectives saying "oo, it's 'such and such' calibre therefore it could be the police". It was the reuslts of the Met's own ballistic tests that said it "appears to be police issue".

Whether police issue means a bullet specifically issued to the police, or just a type used by the police (as well as 'civilians') I don't know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/0 ... intcmp=239

11.30 am

Thegreatgame, below, asks about the "police issue bullet" that is understood to have been found lodged in the radio of a police officer after Mark Duggan was shot last Thursday:

Can the Guardian please explain what a 'police issue bullet' is? How does one tell one 9 mm round from another? Does police issue ammunition have ER etched onto it or something??

Yes, we can. As our crime correspondent, Sandra Laville explains:

Police issue bullets are very distinct as the Metropolitan Police uses dum dum type hollowed out bullets designed not to pass through an object

.

Like I say:

Very easy to make a hollow point head by yourself - drill out a normal head! In fact there is no law against anyone owning heads, it is the actual bullet - primer, casing, powder that are restricted by firearms law.

So, my informed guess would be that someone has illegally obtained hollowpoint (9mm amunition is infact illegal for domestic use) or drilled out a set of standard 9mm heads and reloaded them (very easy to do with the right tooling).

I don't think the Met Police need more incompetence PR right now, so it is interesting to see the way that they have released that data; as it can be interpreted in different ways.

it could indeed be the same type of bullet, but may not be fired from the same weopon. Only casings will show that and when the firearms team inspect the clip contents of each pistol.

I do feel very sad for the victims and for the victims of the riots - awful situation.

Guess we will wait and see on the full results.

rick_chasey

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

Have I missed something?

What's happened?

rick_chasey

IPCC is already being critical of the Met about the way it handled the family of the guy shot dead on Thursday.

gtvlusso

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

This is true!

They do not have a great record in hindsight and it appears to be getting worse :-s

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

I think it's more of a suggestion to not jump to conclusions based on the small bits of information available.

bails87

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

Have I missed something?

What's happened?

bails87 wrote:

Not that the police would put out a false version of events to make themselves look good.

*cough* Forestgate *cough* Menezes *cough* Tomlinson *ahem* ooo, excuse me.

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

Have I missed something?

What's happened?

There's the obvious case of Menezes - guy who got shot dead for no good reason and the subsequent botch of the aftermath (ah I realise that was 6 years ago..)

There's the case where the police arrested two people on terrorism charges in a house raid, shooting one guy I think in the shoulder. They had nothing to do with it, but police leaked a story about underage p0rnograhpy to the press, only for that to be false too.

Then there's stories of systemic corruption with regard to police being bribed in return for leaking NOTW - serious enough that its 2 most senior officers resigned over the matter.


etc etc.

The met aren't covering themselves in glory.

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's the obvious case of Menezes - guy who got shot dead for no good reason and the subsequent botch of the aftermath (ah I realise that was 6 years ago..)

There's the case where the police arrested two people on terrorism charges in a house raid, shooting one guy I think in the leg. They had nothing to do with it, but police leaked a story about underage p0rnograhpy to the press, only for that to be false too.

Then there's stories of systemic corruption with regard to police being bribed in return for leaking NOTW - serious enough that its 2 most senior officers resigned over the matter.


etc etc.

The met aren't covering themselves in glory.

That's it is it?

Hardly a compelling case to blanket mistrust the Police is it.

bails87

I wouldn't instantly disbelieve anything they say, but a bit of caution with regards to the original police's version of events wouldn't be foolish.

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's the obvious case of Menezes - guy who got shot dead for no good reason and the subsequent botch of the aftermath (ah I realise that was 6 years ago..)

There's the case where the police arrested two people on terrorism charges in a house raid, shooting one guy I think in the leg. They had nothing to do with it, but police leaked a story about underage p0rnograhpy to the press, only for that to be false too.

Then there's stories of systemic corruption with regard to police being bribed in return for leaking NOTW - serious enough that its 2 most senior officers resigned over the matter.


etc etc.

The met aren't covering themselves in glory.

That's it is it?

Hardly a compelling case to blanket mistrust the Police is it.

Eh?

Serious corruption?

Shooting people dead who have nothing to do with anything criminal and appearing to cover it up afterwards?

It's enough to make me think twice about believing a police report about a shooting, especially when the locals get angry about it, and I'm hardly the tinfoil brigade.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

gtvlusso - you're giving the Met the benefit of the doubt?

In spite of what's happened over the past 4 years?

Have I missed something?

What's happened?

There's the obvious case of Menezes - guy who got shot dead for no good reason and the subsequent botch of the aftermath (ah I realise that was 6 years ago..)

There's the case where the police arrested two people on terrorism charges in a house raid, shooting one guy I think in the shoulder. They had nothing to do with it, but police leaked a story about underage p0rnograhpy to the press, only for that to be false too.

Then there's stories of systemic corruption with regard to police being bribed in return for leaking NOTW - serious enough that its 2 most senior officers resigned over the matter.


etc etc.

The met aren't covering themselves in glory.

That may well be true. But does it justify breaking in to a Currys superstore and stealing all the stock? Or setting fire to building? or burning a bus? It doesn't, and furthermore will such behaviour bring about a change for the better? Probably not, and ironically the only change that this is likely to cause is a reduction in the cuts being applied to the police so they can deal with civil unrest.

As for the rioters in Brixton and other parts of London, please feel free try and justify that on the Met's past performance or the shooting in Tottenham. This copycat looting is simply criminals looking north and thinking I'll have some of that and has nothing to do with the Met or the shooting.