# IPCC update regarding shooting of Mark Duggan



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Apologies if there is already a thread but can't see one...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/mark-duggan-police-ipcc



> Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked London's riots, did not fire a shot at police officers before they killed him, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said on Tuesday.
> ...
> The IPCC said Duggan was carrying a loaded gun, but it had no evidence that the weapon had been fired.



I suppose it remains to be seen whether Duggan pulled the gun out or not before any decisions are made on whether the police were justified to take the shot...


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## iROBOT (Aug 9, 2011)

On the day they said that he'd fired a shot and the bullet lodged in the cop cars radio, saving the coppers life.

Now he's not fired a shot..... Typical of the Tottenham police.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 9, 2011)

Does him having a gun justify killing him?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

I don't think we know at this stage whether the police were justified in shooting him.

What we do know is that the Met's partners-in-corruption at the Sun were printing shit like this immediately after Duggan was shot.



> Suspected gangster Mark Duggan, 29, fired a handgun at an armed cop, whose life was saved when the bullet hit his radio.
> The officer returned fire with his Heckler & Koch MP5 sub-machine gun - blasting dad-of-five Duggan twice in the face before slumping to the ground.



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...lfriend-to-say-The-feds-are-following-me.html

We also know that this kind of cynical smearing of the deceased and self-serving police spin *always* appears in the gutter press immediately after the police kill anyone.

Ian Tomlinson, Smiley Culture, JC De Menezes, Harry Stanley, Blair Peach, 96 people at Hillsborough ... and the rest.

It's about time that a stop was put to this pernicious practice, particularly if there is any serious intent on the part of the police to regain some credibility with the public.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Does him having a gun justify killing him?



If he was a threat - yes. And Bernie - don't compare this guy to DeMenezes. DeMenezes wasn't carrying a loaded gun.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Does him having a gun justify killing him?


     Pretty much.You either surrender immediately or they shoot you.Its not like their is any lawful reason for a civilian to be armed with a handgun in this country.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

I think my list of various cases in which the press told cynical pro-police lies about people the police had just killed, is a reasonable way to make the point I was making.

I was quite careful to state that this is a serious problem independent of whether this shooting was justifiable, which it clearly was not in the De Menezes case.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> If he was a threat - yes. And Bernie - don't compare this guy to DeMenezes. DeMenezes wasn't carrying a loaded gun.



Also De Menezes wasn't shot by armed police. Police marksmen carry only one shot at a time weaponry. The only similarities are that the police have made contradictory statements in the aftermath and seem to be incapable of apologising about it, and that the Met were in charge of the operation.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

De Menezes was shot by unarmed police?


----------



## skitr (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> If he was a threat - yes. And Bernie - don't compare this guy to DeMenezes. DeMenezes wasn't carrying a loaded gun.



What do you define as a threat? I'd read he had a gun, but was stashed in his sock. Is this justified as a threat?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

8115 said:


> De Menezes was shot by unarmed police?



Oh I get it now.  Sorry, that was a bit flippant.  Were they not trained firearms officers then?


----------



## Mation (Aug 9, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Pretty much.You either surrender immediately or they shoot you.Its not like their is any lawful reason for a civilian to be armed with a handgun in this country.


You're assuming he pulled the gun, yes? But at this stage we don't know what happened. Given that the first reports were wrong, it seems foolish to judge now whether they were justified in shooting him or not.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

Edited because I can't be arsed.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Premature to judge whether the shooting was justified, but long past time to call for an end to the Met using their dodgy press contacts to smear people they've killed and to get a bunch of self-serving lies about the circumstances into the public domain.

This cynical and dishonest practice may well have played a role in triggering these riots and it needs to stop. The Met's PR chief, about whose relationship with News International many other questions still need to be asked, should be held accountable for it.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Aug 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Does him having a gun justify killing him?



Justify, maybe not. Suggest that nothing of value was lost, very yes.


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

8115 said:


> You can blatantly compare the two cases, maybe draw different conclusions but yeah, compare them. It's not just about what is the case, but what the police believe to be the case, and that's why they opened fire on De Menezes. What the two cases may turn out to have in common is that in the De Menezes shooting, sure he was not armed, not a terrorist etc but there appeared to be an air of disorganisation and lack of control by anyone of the whole operation. Time will tell if that was the case in this situation and if it was, maybe questions need to be asked about the police's competence to use firearms.



Until the investigation comes out it's hard to compare the two cases in any meaningful way. I get the impression - and it is only an impression based on what I have read and heard so far - that what happened to Mark Duggan was quite different, a case of an officer at the front end being forced to make a split second decision and making the wrong call (rather than the more systemic issues around leadership in the case of De Menezes). But then, if you don't want to put an armed police officer in the position where he could make the wrong call and shoot you in the heart, it helps if you're not carrying a loaded illegal firearm.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> On the day they said that he'd fired a shot and the bullet lodged in the cop cars radio, saving the coppers life.


Who said that?  It keeps getting repeated, but so far I haven't seen an official statement from the IPCC or the Met stating this.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

He was armed unless a witness comes forward that he had his arms in the air going it's a fair cop guv.
It's going to turn out to be a good shoot.
 Cops stop you point guns at you make any move that's open to interpretation you get shot.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Who said that? It keeps getting repeated, but so far I haven't seen an official statement from the IPCC or the Met stating this.


It was newspapers that made those claims/assumptions. I think what people are saying here is that they think the Met leaked certain details to the newspapers so they would come to that conclusion and portray the shot guy in a bad light. Whether that actually happened, or if this was pure speculation by the tabloids...who knows!


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> It was newspapers that made those claims/assumptions. I think what people are saying here is that they think the Met leaked certain details to the newspapers so they would come to that conclusion and portray the shot guy in a bad light. Whether that actually happened, or if this was pure speculation by the tabloids...who knows!



Simon Israel the Channel 4 News reported made it absolutely clear that the Met told him there was 'An exchange of shots', pretty clear what the Met said in his words.


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> It was newspapers that made those claims/assumptions. I think what people are saying here is that they think the Met leaked certain details to the newspapers so they would come to that conclusion and portray the shot guy in a bad light. Whether that actually happened, or if this was pure speculation by the tabloids...who knows!



Remember the rumours that Mark Duggan was shot in the face? It's the other side of the same coin.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> If he was a threat - yes. And Bernie - don't compare this guy to DeMenezes. DeMenezes wasn't carrying a loaded gun.



We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

Journos make their stories police told them a man shot dead an officer injured and a fire arm recovered


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Journos make their stories police told them a man shot dead an officer injured and a fire arm recovered



Are you deliberatly stupid? The Met told Israel there was an exchange of fire, get it? An exchange of fire, ie Duggan or someone else fired and the police fired. Israel was categorical in this and in the words used. So perhaps deal with what was said rather than your pathetic attampts to shift the blame for the factual inaccuracy peddled by the police then passed on by the media.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.



A loaded gun removed from the scene according to press reports. IF that's the case - fuck him.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

No, you said Duggan had a gun, that as yet has not been proved.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Simon Israel the Channel 4 News reported made it absolutely clear that the Met told him there was 'An exchange of shots', pretty clear what the Met said in his words.


Irresponsible reporting if he didn't have a credible source.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.


 
which didn't stop a spokesman on channel four news tell krishnan guru murphy that the gun belonged to duggan. Misinformation and lies, again


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.



I can't access the full text of the IPCC statement as their website appears to have keeled over, but the Guardian's report states:

_"The IPCC said Duggan was carrying a loaded gun, but it had no evidence that the weapon had been fired."_

_http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/mark-duggan-police-ipcc
_


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Irresponsible reporting if he didn't have a credible source.



The source was the Met who told him this in the aftermath of the shooting.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Simon Israel the Channel 4 News reported made it absolutely clear that the Met told him there was 'An exchange of shots', pretty clear what the Met said in his words.


Well unless we see a press release we won't know for sure (I presume there was a press release otherwise how could all the media outlets be informed about the incident at the same time?)


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

noodles said:


> I can't access the full text of the IPCC statement as their website appears to have keeled over, but the Guardian's report states:
> 
> _"The IPCC said Duggan was carrying a loaded gun, but it had no evidence that the weapon had been fired."_
> 
> _http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/mark-duggan-police-ipcc_



Fair dos, Channel 4 said the IPCC hadn't yet ascertained who had the gun.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Well unless we see a press release we won't know for sure (I presume there was a press release otherwise how could all the media outlets be informed about the incident at the same time?)



So, Israel is lying?


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.


oh ffs  this was "an intelligence led op". Which covers a vast amount of sins  but the idea that the police shoot an innocent man and there just happens to be an illegal gun in the minicab


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The source was the Met who told him this in the aftermath of the shooting.


Who though?  A "well informed source"?  Or an 'on the record' statement (in which case, from whom)?  Trusting an unattributable source in the Met to present an unbiased version of sensitive events like this is extremely poor reporting.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> oh ffs this was "an intelligence led op". Which covers a vast amount of sins but the idea that the police shoot an innocent man and there just happens to be an illegal gun in the minicab



So intelligence led operations don't result in innocent men being shot? Yeah ok..... tum-te-tum......


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> So, Israel is lying?


Maybe he is maybe he isn't, I don't know hence my previous comments


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> oh ffs this was "an intelligence led op". Which covers a vast amount of sins but the idea that the police shoot an innocent man and there just happens to be an illegal gun in the minicab



This is why I think there are fundamental differences between this and the De Menezes case. If the Guardian is correct and Mark Duggan was carrying a loaded firearm, then the intelligence appears to be spot on even if the arrest itself was botched.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Who though? A "well informed source"? Or an 'on the record' statement (in which case, from whom)? Trusting an unattributable source in the Met to present an unbiased version of sensitive events like this is extremely poor reporting.



Watch it on catch up. Other news outlest also carried the dsame story ie the exchange of fire. As such it was certainly info passed onto various news outlets.....


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

noodles said:


> I can't access the full text of the IPCC statement as their website appears to have keeled over, but the Guardian's report states:
> 
> _"The IPCC said Duggan was carrying a loaded gun, but it had no evidence that the weapon had been fired."_
> 
> _http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/mark-duggan-police-ipcc_


The IPCC statement does not say that, it says: "A non-police issue handgun was recovered from the scene"

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_090811_dugganupdate.aspx


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 9, 2011)

Channel 4 news is on channel 4+1 NOW

They have an ipcc spokesperson reading the statement. Not sure if it's been on TWICE yet tho


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> The IPCC statement does not say that, it says: "A non-police issue handgun was recovered from the scene"
> 
> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_090811_dugganupdate.aspx



Ah, cheers. In light of that it would be prudent for the Guardian to edit their article.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

So I was right about the gun as yet not being Duggans as yet?!


----------



## Dowie (Aug 9, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> On the day they said that he'd fired a shot and the bullet lodged in the cop cars radio, saving the coppers life.
> 
> Now he's not fired a shot..... Typical of the Tottenham police.



Nah they didn't, they were much sneakier than that. They released selective facts 'gun found' 'bullet in police radio' that led people to conclude (inc myself) and some papers to claim that there was an exchange of fire when the police/IPCC would have known all along that there wasn't. It was fairly obvious to them that letting people know there was a bullet in an officer's radio is going to lead to that conclusion as opposed to the perhaps more unlikely trained marksman accidentally shooting another trained marksman conclusion or something along those lines...

Tis very dodgy the way they did that though, with hindsight, I guess if there had been an exchange of fire then they'd have been banging on about it right from the start - the fact that they weren't doing so was perhaps a good indicator (to people who are naturally skeptical of police press releases) that things weren't as they seemed.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Watch it on catch up.


Is that a "don't know" then?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> So I was right about the gun as yet not being Duggans as yet?!


What do you want a trophy or summat?!


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Is that a "don't know" then?



I told you what Israel said. I cannot say who in the Met told him. However, as has already been said, Israel/Channel 4 were not the only ones carrying the exchange of fire story. So it would be reasonable to ponder that this was what the media were told in the aftermath would it not?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

noodles said:


> This is why I think there are fundamental differences between this and the De Menezes case. If the Guardian is correct and Mark Duggan was carrying a loaded firearm, then the intelligence appears to be spot on even if the arrest itself was botched.



I don't know about anyone else, but the only similarities I am claiming with the De Menezes case were

a) the cops shot someone
b) their mates at the Sun told a bunch of lies about what happened the next day
c) that this shit always happens when the police kill someone ... De Menezes was just one of a long list of examples ... and that it should stop.

Whether the police were justified in shooting Duggan, I'm explicitly not taking a position on.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> What do you want a trophy or summat?!



If you're offering.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> If you're offering.


Fine


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Fine



I'm getting a fine? Fuck sake that's harsh!!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Dowie said:


> Nah they didn't, they were much sneakier than that. They released selective facts 'gun found' 'bullet in police radio' that led people to conclude (inc myself) and some papers to claim that there was an exchange of fire when the police/IPCC would have known all along that there wasn't. It was fairly obvious to them that letting people know there was a bullet in an officer's radio is going to lead to that conclusion as opposed to the perhaps more unlikely trained marksman accidentally shooting another trained marksman conclusion or something along those lines...
> 
> Tis very dodgy the way they did that though, with hindsight, I guess if there had been an exchange of fire then they'd have been banging on about it right from the start - the fact that they weren't doing so was perhaps a good indicator (to people who are naturally skeptical of police press releases) that things weren't as they seemed.



I think it's less an issue of police press releases, although your point is valid and more a question of what they're briefing in their character as unattributable 'police sources' to journalists who really ought to know better by now if they aren't actively colluding.

What we've seen in the recent investigations into the Murdoch press is that the police have a *very* cosy relationship with certain sections of the media and we might, if we were cynical, want to infer the potential for some degree of mutual back scratching.

"You look the other way when we hack into victims phones or otherwise interfere with murder inquires and we'll tell a bunch of cynical pre-emptive lies spun your way about anyone you might happen to kill" ... sort of thing.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I told you what Israel said. I cannot say who in the Met told him. However, as has already been said, Israel/Channel 4 were not the only ones carrying the exchange of fire story. So it would be reasonable to ponder that this was what the media were told in the aftermath would it not?


I think it may well have been what they were told, by an unnamed source "close to events" in the Met.  I just think it is extremely poor reporting that so many news outlets chose to present non-attributed speculation as fact, particularly from a source that is extremely likely to be biased.  I am perfectly happy to reverse my position if it did actually come from a named source or an 'on the record' statement.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

noodles said:


> This is why I think there are fundamental differences between this and the De Menezes case. If the Guardian is correct and Mark Duggan was carrying a loaded firearm, then the intelligence appears to be spot on even if the arrest itself was botched.



The intelligence might be correct but was it reliable and solid?


----------



## Dowie (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know if Mark Duggan was carrying the gun they found as yet.



This tbh...

It would seem logical to conclude, if facts are taken at face value, that gun found at scene = duggan had a gun but we don't *know* that this is the case. If he did have one we don't know if he pulled it out or if it was merely found on him. I wouldn't want to try and guess/deduce anything from these releases any more.

Given that policeman in hospital, saved by radio... actually turned out to be the result of a trained marksman screwing up then for all we know the gun at scene could turn out to belong to the mini cab driver who's cab happened to be searched after the incident.... (I'm not saying that is what has happened as it would seem very unlikely but we don't know for sure anything other than a gun was found at the scene).


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 9, 2011)

skitr said:


> What do you define as a threat? I'd read he had a gun, but was stashed in his sock. Is this justified as a threat?


  A "community leader"claims it was wrapped in a sock so wasn't ready to fire.Which even if true depending on what sort of hand gun it was it might well fire anyway.It seem's to have been some sort of converted fire arm.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I'm getting a fine? Fuck sake that's harsh!!


If it were up to me you'd be sent to the work house, but apparently we all have "human rights" nowadays


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

Also, how does a policeman shoot another policeman if everything is generally under control and one person makes a split second error of judgement?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Does him having a gun justify killing him?


I'm not convinced yet that the gun was on his person, rather than simply in the car


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

8115 said:


> The intelligence might be correct but was it reliable and solid?



As others have said, there's not enough information out there, but if I were I betting man I would put my money on "yes". Despite the usual "nice guy" protestations, it _appears_ to me at this stage that he was carrying a gun for protection after his mate got stabbed.


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2011)

8115 said:


> Also, how does a policeman shoot another policeman if everything is generally under control and one person makes a split second error of judgement?



Don't know. Any ballistics experts on here care to shed any light on this?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I think it may well have been what they were told, by an unnamed source "close to events" in the Met. I just think it is extremely poor reporting that so many news outlets chose to present non-attributed speculation as fact, particularly from a source that is extremely likely to be biased. I am perfectly happy to reverse my position if it did actually come from a named source or an 'on the record' statement.



Would it be unreasonable for the various news outlets to report what they were told as happened? Israel did not specify an unnamed source. He said it was what he was told by the Metropolitan Police.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

8115 said:


> Also, how does a policeman shoot another policeman if everything is generally under control and one person makes a split second error of judgement?


By making a split second error of judgement?  By the situation becoming generally out of control?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Ricochet?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> He was armed unless a witness comes forward that he had his arms in the air going it's a fair cop guv.
> .


This hasn't been proven yet. it's worthwhile pointing out that Duggan, AFAIK, had NO criminal record. 'rumours' of gang connections are not enough, or that it was possible for him to access the gun quickly enough to constitute the sort of threat that justifies a shooting


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> AFAIK


!


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Would it be unreasonable for the various news outlets to report what they were told as happened? Israel did not specify an unnamed source. He said it was what he was told by the Metropolitan Police.


Would you believe everything an unnamed source at the Met told you in relation to the controversial shooting in the face of a young black man in North London?

I think journalists have a duty to hold public organisations properly to account and should be able to a) recognise and b) not rely on, spin.  This doesn't look so far like it happened in this case, but again I'm happy to be corrected if this information was released officially to the press.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Would you believe everything an unnamed source at the Met told you in relation to the controversial shooting in the face of a young black man in North London?
> 
> I think journalists have a duty to hold public organisations properly to account and should be able to a) recognise and b) not rely on, spin. This doesn't look so far like it happened in this case, but again I'm happy to be corrected if this information was released officially to the press.



If Israel said an 'unnamed souce in the Met' i'd agree with you. He didn't say this however, he said the Metropolitan Police. That would, understandably imho, lead me to think it was the official view at the time.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

Fundamentally it doesn't really matter whether Duggan had a gun in his possession, whether he threatened a police officer with a gun, or didn't have a gun at all. The Met Police have yet again dealt with the killing of a young black man during a police operation by lying as their initial response to questions. That's the fundamental problem. There is no trust in the Metropolitan Police not because they aren't working hard enough to make links with various communities in London, not because there are groups of hardened criminals creating discontent, not because "community leaders" are fomenting unrest, but because the Met continue to treat us like idiots every time there's a possibility that they may have screwed up.

I'm not even saying they messed up the arrest of Duggan. I don't know. I'm not going to speculate because that doesn't help. What I know for a fact is that they bloody lied yet again and don't seem to feel that they have done anything wrong by doing so.

That's what fuels the anger. Not the shooting so much. It's the complete refusal of the Met Police to treat Londoners, especially black or working class Londoners, as rational thinking beings.


----------



## iROBOT (Aug 9, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> On the day they said that he'd fired a shot and the bullet lodged in the cop cars radio, saving the coppers life.
> 
> Now he's not fired a shot..... Typical of the Tottenham police.





lighterthief said:


> Who said that? It keeps getting repeated, but so far I haven't seen an official statement from the IPCC or the Met stating this.



I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts after this.....Sorry if I'm repeating previous posts.

This is an article from the day after the shooting...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/05/man-shot-police-london-arrest

*A father of three died instantly after an apparent exchange of fire whenpolice attempted to arrest him in north London, it emerged on Friday.*
*A police marksman escaped with his life when a bullet lodged in his radio during the confrontation that ended in the death of Mark Duggan, 29. The Scotland Yard firearms officer was taken to hospital and later released.*
*The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating the fatal shooting, said the bullet and a non-police-issue handgun found at the scene had been sent for forensic tests.*
*IPCC investigators believe two shots were fired by an armed officer. A spokesman for the IPCC said that at around 6.15pm on Thursday officers from Operation Trident, the Metropolitan police unit that deals with guncrime in London's black communities, with officers from the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a minicab to carry out a pre-planned arrest.*
*"Shots were fired and a 29-year-old man, who was a passenger in the cab, died at the scene," said the spokesman. Photographic and forensic examination was continuing, and a search for CCTV footage was continuing, the spokesman said. A postmortem examination would be carried out as soon as possible.*
*IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: "Fatal shootings by the police are extremely rare and understandably raise significant community concerns."*

I'd presumed all the information above came from the Police.

(I live about a mile up the road....so of local interest to me, at the time)


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 9, 2011)

The thing is if shots are fired it can take a while to work out what the hell happened.Witnesses all see different things.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 9, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> The thing is if shots are fired it can take a while to work out what the hell happened.Witnesses all see different things.



2 shots were fired, it wouldn't have taken long for the plod who fired the shots to know he was the only one who fired......


----------



## 8115 (Aug 9, 2011)

How rare is rare?  I mean, how often do they get the guns out and how often does someone die?

Everything is just idle speculation at the moment, I reckon it was chaos, time will tell though.

Do they do IPCC and inquest concurrently?


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> 2 shots were fired, it wouldn't have taken long for the plod who fired the shots to know he was the only one who fired......


I think it may well have taken a while for the plod who fired the shots to know he was the only one who fired, if indeed that conclusion could be reached at the scene at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> !


by all i have read, duggan had spent time on remand, butn had no record. do _you_ know anything more?


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> 2 shots were fired, it wouldn't have taken long for the plod who fired the shots to know he was the only one who fired......


Well he will know he fired other cops may think it was Duggan who had fired and of course as soon as shots are fired everyone wants to know what happened and probably the first report over the radio gets reported up the chain of command.And that's what the press get.
  I think its cock up rather than conspricy


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> by all i have read, duggan had spent time on remand, butn had no record. do _you_ know anything more?


No I don't! My "comment" was in relation to you arguing against making speculations by making a speculation yourself!


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

What appears clear cut from a distance will have been anything but especially with one officer off to hospital and a fatalitly.
Arrest  appears to have gone to Ratshit approaching a target from bothsides while armed never a terribly bright idea.
 Marks challenged panics doesn't think there police makes  a move to get his gun or makes a move that is anything than what he was ordered to result BANG.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> No I don't! My "comment" was in relation to you arguing against making speculations by making a speculation yourself!


ah. sorry if I expressed myself clumsily. I was referring to the fact that whilst there have been many accusations in the national news media that Duggan was a gang member and a criminal, all that is known for certain, from all my researches, is some time spent on remand.
Hope that clears it up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> The thing is if shots are fired it can take a while to work out what the hell happened.Witnesses all see different things.


 
well there is two in the dead man and one in the police radio- all police issue rounds. He shot his own damn radio after the fact imo. And for all those who want to say 'why would he so clumsily try a cover up' let us not forget that the metropolitan police released a statement proclaiming NO CONTACT at all between themselves and Tomlinson untill video proved otherwise. They are used to getting away with really crap lies and sloppy coverups.


----------



## Paris Garters (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> ah. sorry if I expressed myself clumsily. I was referring to the fact that whilst there have been many accusations in the national news media that Duggan was a gang member and a criminal, all that is known for certain, from all my researches, is some time spent on remand.
> Hope that clears it up.


and that being the case, what the fuck made the BBC think it was in the interests of unbiased journalism to use a photo of Duggan holding up index and middle finger- as if pretending it was a gun- during their coverage of the story yesterday.  I mean, you see little kids do that, and even if he had a record for gun crime it would be an irresponsible image to use IMO, if not more so actually. Fucking media.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Well he will know he fired other cops may think it was Duggan who had fired and of course as soon as shots are fired everyone wants to know what happened and probably the first report over the radio gets reported up the chain of command.And that's what the press get.
> I think its cock up rather than conspricy



If it was a one-off, then I might buy that, but the media reports a bunch of police-spun lies *every time* they kill someone and that's what sets the public perception of the event.

It only gets unpicked afterwards if there's a big fuss about it and/or actual footage contradicting the police version appears (like the footage showing it was a cop that killed Ian Tomlinson rather than violent demonstrators, as the police spin initially tried to imply) and even then many people still continue to let their views be coloured by the initial impression made.

There are still people who think Liverpool fans pissed on the dead at Hillsborough or that JC De Menezes was 'wearing a bulky jacket and acting suspiciously' because the initial media reports said those things. I think it's reasonable to surmise that that's precisely the effect that this appallingly cynical PR practice is meant to achieve. You can see it in this thread. People saying: 'ah well, they may have been mistaken about him opening fire, but we know he was a gangsta and he had a gun so fuck him'

No we don't know he was a "gangsta", we don't really know that it was his gun yet either.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised if both things were true, but we can't trust the cops or their pals in the media to tell the truth about anyone the cops have killed.

I'd suggest keeping an open mind until someone with a bit more credibility than an "anonymous police source" says it.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 10, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Justify, maybe not. Suggest that nothing of value was lost, very yes.


Not true, for a start not true of his kids and family.

I personally know several people that now carry handguns for self defence due to the circles they move in or the way they make their money. This doesn't make them bad or evil people, more a victim of circumstance (i.e. some bad or evil people that may take advantage of them if they weren't armed). The saddest thing is how they matter of factly handle the weapons, like it's no more thing to carry than a mobile phone.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 10, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Well he will know he fired other cops may think it was Duggan who had fired and of course as soon as shots are fired everyone wants to know what happened and probably the first report over the radio gets reported up the chain of command.And that's what the press get.
> I think its cock up rather than conspricy



Don't buy this for a second.

Post JCDM (and even with the thoughts of the Met and Sun's relationship in the current spotlight), of all the immediate priorities and concerns the police will have following an incident like this, is to ensure the TRUTH is revealed, and if the truth is in doubt, NOT to "err on the side of an accusatory tone towards the 'villian'". If you are going to leak negative details to the media regarding the suspect/victim, then they need to be simply irrefutable.

I'm firmly of the view that a man carrying a gun, imitation, loaded or otherwise, has very few reasons to afford himself sympathy in the wholly likely scenario he runs into the OB and comes off worse, though the Met have right royally fucked it up again.

And, truth is, they didn't need to.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Well he will know he fired other cops may think it was Duggan who had fired and of course as soon as shots are fired everyone wants to know what happened and probably the first report over the radio gets reported up the chain of command.And that's what the press get.
> I think its cock up rather than conspricy





likesfish said:


> What appears clear cut from a distance will have been anything but especially with one officer off to hospital and a fatalitly.
> Arrest appears to have gone to Ratshit approaching a target from bothsides while armed never a terribly bright idea.
> Marks challenged panics doesn't think there police makes a move to get his gun or makes a move that is anything than what he was ordered to result BANG.



Sorry - these aren't squaddies and it wasn't any prolonged shoot out - they are (we are led to believe) highly trained officers who, as part of that training, are taught to be conscious of the the number of rounds they have fired - I'm sure agricola will correct me if I'm wrong on this. The firearms officer who had the bullet lodged in his radio didn't, I'm quite sure, take his gun with him to hospital. So an entirely straightforward job to know whether his gun had been fired even without ballistics - how many rounds left in the magazine? The rest of them know whether they've fired or not and, if so, how many times.

Any yet still the Guardian report is one of "an apparent exchange of fire" - an *exchange* of fire means only one thing - Duggan fired too. Why was this "apparent"? And to whom?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Irresponsible reporting if he didn't have a credible source.



Hearsay.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2011)

I wonder if the gun Duggan supposedly had has his DNA and prints on it?


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 10, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I wonder if the gun Duggan supposedly had has his DNA and prints on it?


Dunno, could do if it was his rather that a 'rental', but that doesn't mean he handled it at the time.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

Don't know enough science for DNA, but if it was (as reportedly stated by a "community leader") cached in a sock, then I doubt there'd be prints.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

I am a little surprised that such media savvy people as yourselves would put so much faith in tabloid tittle tattle moments after an event when experience and evidence suggests that most of it is bullshit.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2011)

It's happened enough in the USA that cops carry a little gun to plant on people they have killed. I wonder if the practice is spreading over here.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I am a little surprised that such media savvy people as yourselves would put so much faith in tabloid tittle tattle moments after an event when experience and evidence suggests that most of it is bullshit.



What faith? By whom?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 10, 2011)

Jesus fucking christ. The inability of some people to see what is staring them in the face is jsut breathtaking.
The cops telling journos self-serving bullshit and smearing the victim every time they kill or assault people in dubious circumstances is standard practice - and the media always faithfully report it.
Its not just the odd occasion - it is deliberate policy.
Whoever does these breifings to hacks is not some plod having a quiet word out of the side of his mouth, it will be their press officer (i.e. spin doctor), they will be well known  to the journos and its his fucking job to lie.
If off the record breifings are  coming from the government people always (and rightly) cry bullshit - so why not the (even less accountable and equally corrupt) police force?

As for Duggan - who knows? We cant believe the cops. But if he had waved a gun at them and they popped him - then why lie about it? Most people would accept that as justification. So that suggests some dubious circumstances - like shoot to kill on  the slimest of pretexts.

Remember stephen waldorf -   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Waldorf gunned down by cops in 1983 becasue they mistook him for an escaped prisoner -



> "DC Finch opened fire, shooting twice at the passenger-side rear wheel of the Mini, then four times at Waldorf himself. Detective Constable John Jardine then ran up to the back of the Mini, and fired five shots at Waldorf through the rear window. During the shooting, Purdey jumped out of the car to escape, and Waldorf attempted to follow him, even though he had already been hit several times, and ended up slumped across the driver's seat. Detective Contable John Jardine then fired twice at Waldorf through the open driver's door. Finch, meanwhile, had made his way round to the driver's side, where he leaned into the car, aimed his revolver between Waldorf's eyes and said, "Okay, cocksucker," before pulling the trigger. Finding that he had already used all his ammunition, Finch then pistol whipped Waldorf until he lost consciousness.[1][2][3]
> Hit five times and severely wounded in his head, abdomen, and liver, the handcuffed and unconscious Waldorf was then hauled by his arms onto the pavement. Stephens, screaming and protesting, was also dragged from the vehicle.[4] Stephens was taken to hospital and treated for injury."



Waldorf - who somehow survived - was subsequnelty smeared as a thief by the tabloids. The two cops were cleared of all charges.

The same old shit for decades. Get a fucking grip people.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Maybe getting a grip could be defined as waiting for more evidence before believing any old shit?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 10, 2011)

And 'Any Old Shit' = Statements by the cops after they've killed somebody.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

like the 'old shit' tottenham OB put out about duggan shooting first?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

The ability of the tabloids to smear people on behalf of the police has another effect too. Remember the way the trial of Delroy 'Robocop' Smellie collapsed?

Even Detective Boy thought the guy was out of order if I recall correctly, but the trial collapsed because the victim was too scared of tabloid smears to testify.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 10, 2011)

Has anyone got an audio/video link of Simon Israel saying on Channel 4 that the Met claimed there was an exchange of fire with Duggan?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> like the 'old shit' tottenham OB put out about duggan shooting first?



If you have anything more than hearsay to back it up then it's not shit, is it?

But so many people with so many grudges on all sides makes it really difficult to know what is true and what's not.

Misquotes, misunderstandings, questions asked from poor sources before information is available. People gossip to appear in the know even if they know fuck all.

You have to keep as impartial as you can... even though it's hard given the police's record... because each incident must be treated on it's own circumstances.

So yeah. Just 'cos you want to believe it doesn't make it true.

And worse... spreading it as if it's true is counterproductive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

sunlight crests the hill of golgotha and his holiness speaks


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

It's pissing down here.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If you have anything more than hearsay to back it up then it's not shit, is it?
> 
> But so many people with so many grudges on all sides makes it really difficult to know what is true and what's not.
> 
> ...



A tad difficult to be impartial, when as Simon Israel Channel 4 News jouirno said the Met Police told him that there was 'an exchange of fire'. This is palpably, demonstrably and as a result of forensic tests as part of the IPCC investigation provably factually incorrect. A lie if you will. As such 'neutral' is already out of the window when we know the lie/untruth/factual inaccuracy/incorrect statement already having been made by the police.



> And worse... spreading it as if it's true is counterproductive.



I take it you're referring to the Met and their claims of an exchange of fire with this remark also?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A tad difficult to be impartial, when as Simon Israel Channel 4 News jouirno said the Met Police told him that there was 'an exchange of fire'. This is palpably, demonstrably and as a result of forensic tests as part of the IPCC investigation provably factually incorrect. A lie if you will. As such 'neutral' is already out of the window when we know the lie/untruth/factual inaccuracy/incorrect statement already having been made by the police.



Don't you ever feel the need to question why you so readily believe this guy?

You've already decided that there's no chance that it was a misquote, a misunderstanding, an employee with a grudge, a lie, journalistic spin, gossip, hearsay or a combination of some or all of these.

That's a lot of assumptions.



> I take it you're referring to the Met and their claims of an exchange of fire with this remark also?



someone's claims... we dont know who.

After all... to someone who couldn't quite see the incident a few shots might sound like an exchange.

If you asked that person they would tell you a different story.

It's like that old tale about the blind men and the elephant...

.. you must know it.

Keep it in mind. We are the blind men. Step back and use your other senses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm not convinced yet that the gun was on his person, rather than simply in the car



I've yet to be convinced that the gun was ever in the car.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> Also, how does a policeman shoot another policeman if everything is generally under control and one person makes a split second error of judgement?



Contrary to popular belief, accidental discharges happen easily, especially in adrenalin-fuelled situations. All you need is to forget to set the safety, or do the far too common thing of putting your trigger finger on the trigger rather than the trigger-guard, and then even the energy transmitted through your body getting out of a police car, or moving violently can cause an involuntary squeeze. Bear in mind that the trigger pull on an MP5 carbine can be set as low as about 7lb, and as high as about 25lb. Even at the upper limit, that's not too much of an effort unless you have ickle baby hands.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A tad difficult to be impartial, when as Simon Israel Channel 4 News jouirno said the Met Police told him that there was 'an exchange of fire'. This is palpably, demonstrably and as a result of forensic tests as part of the IPCC investigation provably factually incorrect. A lie if you will.



(from the other thread)

But if it's true it's a lie/mistake by one unnamed officer, Fed. Not _necessarily_ indicative of a Met cover-up.

Some unnamed copper supposedly slips a bit of dodgy info to some journo and people are happy to buy the "cover-up" line despite the fact that:

a) If the OB knew that the shot plod radio had been hit with a police round, there's not a hope of them being able to cover it up for any length of time. They'd be absolutely fucking stupid to deliberately lie that he'd been shot by Duggan, as there's no way on earth they they could hope to maintain the deception.

b) If they were framing Duggan wouldn't they have had the foresight not to use a police bullet?

c) If they've used a "throw-down" why are excuses being made for Duggan possibly carrying a weapon for self-defence?

There are loads of questions here but U75 goes hook-line-and-sinker down the wrongful killing path. That's because they want to. 

Of course nobody here is giving space for the eminently reasonable possibility that Duggan was stopped, had a gun, and got shot, while the shot copper collected a stray round from one of his mates. That may or may not have been the case, as I said, I hope it is, or something similar, because I'd rather Duggan was not murdered by a police officer. Others here, WANT him to have been murdered by a copper so as to bolster their acab agenda. They don't give a fuck about the death so long as they can make capital out of it. In fact they're revelling in the possibility that someone may have been wrongly topped by a copper. That's sick.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

It's not sick. It's just that otherwise they'd be wrong. And they can't be wrong.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> <snip> Of course nobody here is giving space for the eminently reasonable possibility that Duggan was stopped, had a gun, and got shot, while the shot copper collected a stray round from one of his mates. <snip>



Excuse me chum, but I have been quite clearly giving space to that possibility.

I'm not suggesting a 'cover up' either, although I can see that's easier to argue with than what I am saying ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's not sick. It's just that otherwise they'd be wrong. And they can't be wrong.



What's so wrong about wanting facts rather than narratives?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> (from the other thread)
> Of course nobody here is giving space for the eminently reasonable possibility that Duggan was stopped, had a gun, and got shot, while the shot copper collected a stray round from one of his mates. That may or may not have been the case, as I said, I hope it is, or something similar, because I'd rather Duggan was not murdered by a police officer. Others here, WANT him to have been murdered by a copper so as to bolster their acab agenda. They don't give a fuck about the death so long as they can make capital out of it. In fact they're revelling in the possibility that someone may have been wrongly topped by a copper. That's sick.



It's not as black and white (pardon the pun) as murder or not murder.  When someone dies and the police are involved there's a whole gamut of possibilities from blameless through negligent to manslaughter and even murder, and plenty of others I haven't mentioned.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Excuse me chum, but I have been quite clearly giving space to that possibility.



Apologies for generalising, but I cut and pasted that from a post I made on another thread. Where you hadn't.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's so wrong about wanting facts rather than narratives?



Giving narratives in the guise of facts.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet - the story that duggan had shot at cops and the copper had been saved by his radio was all over the media - I heard it on radio 5 and thought 'that sounds like bullshit'. It was listed as coming from 'police sources' - i.e. the police press officer. Why are you disputing this? Its .. wierd. Suggesting that the channel 4 reporter would _lie _as to where he'd got his info from? Why on earth would he do that?  He would be sacked for pulling a stunt like that.  You're mental.

Then you have the FACT that the police routinely release bullshit stories exonerating themselves and smeering the victim to the (willingly complicit) media whenever they assault or kill somebody  in dubious circumstances - case after case after case going back years. Its clearly their standard operating practice after such incidents. And look at the demonstably corrupt relationship between the Met and News International.

Now it may well be that Duggan was a gangsta type and pulled a gun on the cops.
However I am NOT going to take that on the say so of proven and habitual liers. In the meantime _suspecting _that  how Mr duggan met his death was may well turn out to be an  incident of police malpractice  is an utterly  reaonsable and rational postion to take in the light of what we already know. (otherwise - why would the cops lie about it in the first place?)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Apologies for generalising, but I cut and pasted that from another thread. Where you hadn't.



No probs.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's so wrong about wanting facts rather than narratives?


Isn't that the point though - some of us are content to await facts, whilst others seem very happy to believe speculation from a media too lazy to investigate beyond unoffocial spin?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Kizmet - the story that duggan had shot at cops and the copper had been saved by his radio was all over the media - I heard it on radio 5 and thought 'that sounds like bullshit'. It was listed as coming from 'police sources' - i.e. the police press officer. Why are you disputing this? Its .. wierd. Suggesting that the channel 4 reporter would _lie _as to where he'd got his info from? Why on earth would he do that?  He would be sacked for pulling a stunt like that.  You're mental.
> 
> Then you have the FACT that the police routinely release bullshit stories exonerating themselves and smeering the victim to the (willingly complicit) media whenever they assault or kill somebody  in dubious circumstances - case after case after case going back years. Its clearly their standard operating practice after such incidents. And look at the demonstably corrupt relationship between the Met and News International.
> 
> ...



Do you realise how many assumptions you made in that post?

It may well turn out to be true. But it will have been by total accident.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Kizmet - the story that duggan had shot at cops and the copper had been saved by his radio was all over the media - I heard it on radio 5 and thought 'that sounds like bullshit'. It was listed as coming from 'police sources' - *i.e. the police press officer.*



There is absolutely no suggestion that this was an official statement by a "police press officer", and Israel won't name his source. This suggests that he's either heard it from a private source who he doesn't want to drop in the shit (and could well have got it wrong), or he's telling porkies.




			
				Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> Suggesting that the channel 4 reporter would _lie _as to where he'd got his info from?



Nooooooooooooooo never!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Sure, but what the police say in 'official statements' isn't the primary issue here. Or at least I don't think it is. It's what they say when they anonymously brief the media that's at the core of the problem.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

No it's not. It's not the core of any problem.

It's thinking it's the core of the problem that is the core of the problem!

I think most folk are prepared to wait for more certain facts.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, but what the police say in 'official statements' isn't the primary issue here. It's what they say when they anonymously brief the media that's at the core of the problem.


No it's not, as this is as it ever was.  It's the media being lazy.  If a claim can't be substantiated it's opinion, not fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> (from the other thread)
> 
> But if it's true it's a lie/mistake by one unnamed officer, Fed. Not _necessarily_ indicative of a Met cover-up.




Absolutely.

But guess what?

If that's the case then it's taking place within a culture that facilitates cover-ups.




> Some unnamed copper supposedly slips a bit of dodgy info to some journo and people are happy to buy the "cover-up" line despite the fact that:
> 
> a) If the OB knew that the shot plod radio had been hit with a police round, there's not a hope of them being able to cover it up for any length of time. If they knew that the copper was hit by a police round they'd be absolutely fucking stupid to lie that he'd been shot by Duggan as there's no way on earth they they could hope to maintain the deception.




Disinformation doesn't need to be permanent, Spy. It just needs to introduce doubt.




> b) If they were framing Duggan wouldn't they have had the foresight not to use a police bullet?
> 
> c) If they've used a "throw-down" why are excuses being made for Duggan possibly carrying a weapon for self-defence?




Because his mates, like good mates anywhere, would make excuses for him/attempt to justify stuff by reference to his situation, perhaps?




> There are loads of questions here but U75 goes hook-line-and-sinker down the wrongful killing path. That's because they want to.




Show me these hooks, lines and sinkers, please.




> Of course nobody here is giving space for the eminently reasonable possibility that Duggan was stopped, had a gun, and got shot, while the shot copper collected a stray round from one of his mates. That may or may not have been the case, as I said, I hope it is, or something similar, because I'd rather Duggan was not murdered by a police officer. Others here, WANT him to have been murdered by a copper so as to bolster their acab agenda. They don't give a fuck about the death so long as they can make capital out of it. In fact they're revelling in the possibility that someone may have been wrongly topped by a copper. That's sick.



People have accepted that it might have been a legit shot, unfortunately for the Met, the disinformation that has got into the system (regardless of how it got there) has made a cover-up more believable.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> There is absolutely no suggestion that this was an official statement by a "police press officer", and Israel won't name his source. This suggests that he's either heard it from a private source who he doesn't want to drop in the shit (and could well have got it wrong), or he's telling porkies.
> 
> Nooooooooooooooo never!



No it wasn't an offical statement. Its an off the record briefing to the press - which will almost certinaly be the press officer or whoevers job it is to brief the press in such cases. Same as Ali Campbell used to do. It wasn't just channel 4 - it was pretty much every media outlet reporting the story. Same as when the bullshit came out abourt De Menzies, Tomlinson etc etc.

And of courses journalists lie - but a crime correpsondant wouldn't for a major news operation wouldn't  name their source as 'the metropolitan police' when it was sheer fabrication or from the bloke at the corner shop. To what end? It would be proffesional suicide. Such a job depends on having reliable sources within the police.   Its a stupid argument anyway - all the other media reported the same fucking story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Giving narratives in the guise of facts.



The one has nothing to do with the other, you oddball.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

The problem I refer to is the consistent pattern of reports appearing in the immediate aftermath of the police killing someone that frame the incident in terms that suit the police, which very often involves smearing the deceased, while it's at the top of the news agenda and before any evidence-based account (from e.g. the IPCC) is available. It's blindingly obvious that some degree of collusion is going on here, even if it's partly passive (i.e. the cops can trust papers like the Sun to smear anybody that they might happen to kill as a matter of editorial policy)

This is incredibly offensive to the family and friends of the deceased and causes deep, long-lasting resentment in the wider community. Ask anyone who knew any of the Hillsbourgh victims what they think about it ...

It's part of the wider pattern of corrupt dealings between the cops and the gutter press and it's long past time that it was stopped.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The one has nothing to do with the other, you oddball.



This ^ is not a violentpanda post.

He is not that dumb.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> This is incredibly offensive to the family and friends of the deceased and causes deep, long-lasting resentment in the wider community. Ask anyone who knew any of the Hillsbourgh victims what they think about it ...



Come on, man, joined up thinking.

What effect might it have on the families of police officers to know that they are hated and despised purely because of the uniform they wear?

Show some evidence that you have perspective? How can you complain about a gutter environment when you are unwilling to look out of it?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> No it wasn't an offical statement. Its an off the record briefing to the press - which will almost certinaly be the press officer or whoevers job it is to brief the press in such cases. Same as Ali Campbell used to do. It wasn't just channel 4 - it was pretty much every media outlet reporting the story. Same as when the bullshit came out abourt De Menzies, Tomlinson etc etc.
> 
> And of courses journalists lie - but a crime correpsondant wouldn't for a major news operation wouldn't  name their source as 'the metropolitan police' when it was sheer fabrication or from the bloke at the corner shop. To what end? It would be proffesional suicide. Such a job depends on having reliable sources within the police.   Its a stupid argument anyway - all the other media reported the same fucking story.



Isn't your assumption tank empty yet?


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)




----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Don't you ever feel the need to question why you so readily believe this guy?
> 
> You've already decided that there's no chance that it was a misquote, a misunderstanding, an employee with a grudge, a lie, journalistic spin, gossip, hearsay or a combination of some or all of these.
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions.



Given the same story, ie the exchange of fire was reported on radio and other media in the aftermath of the shooting it's reasonable to believe, that as Simon Israel made perfectly clear that it what the Metropolitan Police, not an unnamed source, not a QT chat, but the Metropolitan Police made clear to him that there was an 'exchange of fire'. Entirely reasonable to deduce therefore that this came from the Metropolitan Police as opposed to some inside contact?!


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> (from the other thread)
> 
> But if it's true it's a lie/mistake by one unnamed officer, Fed. Not _necessarily_ indicative of a Met cover-up.
> 
> ...



No, i'm not saying, and haven't said anywhere at all, that there's a cover up. What Simon Israel said was absolutely clear, The Metropolitan Police, not some source within, or an unnamed insider, but the Metropolitan Police. As Kaka Tim had also said this was all over the media. As such it's clear that the media were given the same story. SImply a case of an unattributable source or a big fuck up by the Met?
I think it eminently possible that he could have been shot after the correct procedures have taken place. But what we do know is that factually inaccurate information was given to the press as fact. Not an auspicious start......

Who wants him to have been murdered, the only person who wanted hyim dead was the officer who pulled the trigger. Personally i'd rather he was still alive.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Repeating yourself without once questioning your assumptions.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Repeating yourself without once questioning your assumptions.


Mauybe it needs repeating for it to sink in with some....

You have zero evidence Israel is wrong, lied, prevaricated, assumed, conspired or even passed on a made it up. Have you any reason, evidence to introosuce doubt to what Israel said? Of the two 'protagonists' Simon Israel and The Metropolitan who has a reputation for lying? Which of the two is under investigation for bribery, whicjh of the two has a member about to be tried over the death of someone, which of the two pulled the trigger....? Take yor time now....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Come on, man, joined up thinking.
> 
> What effect might it have on the families of police officers to know that they are hated and despised purely because of the uniform they wear?
> 
> Show some evidence that you have perspective? How can you complain about a gutter environment when you are unwilling to look out of it?



Not really clear what you're arguing here (as is so often the case with your posts)

Are you saying it's OK to smear people the police have killed because some people hate the police?

If not, what are you saying?

Or is this just another of your bizarre non sequiturs?


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Mauybe it needs repeating for it to sink in with some....
> 
> You have zero evidence Israel is wrong, lied, prevaricated, assumed, conspired or even passed on a made it up. Have you any reason, evidence to introosuce doubt to what Israel said? Of the two 'protagonists' Simon Israel and The Metropolitan who has a reputation for lying? Which of the two is under investigation for bribery, whicjh of the two has a member about to be tried over the death of someone, which of the two pulled the trigger....? Take yor time now....


No-one's suggesting Simon Israel (or the rest of the media) weren't briefed, just that as far as I can tell it wasn't done officially, in which case it's opinion or speculation and should not have been reported as fact. But as before, if the source can be identified, I will happily stand corrected. Can you identify Simon Israel's named, attributable source?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> There is absolutely no suggestion that this was an official statement by a "police press officer", and Israel won't name his source. This suggests that he's either heard it from a private source who he doesn't want to drop in the shit (and could well have got it wrong), or he's telling porkies.
> 
> Nooooooooooooooo never!


as a mastter of interest, if you had to, absolutely had to, whose honesty would you trust more - Israel or a tottenham OB?
I'm honestly just curious, as it happens.


----------



## iROBOT (Aug 11, 2011)

The one thing I find confusing is why was the killer cop was admitted to hospital? Duggan was killed "instantly" his gun (I've read but cant recall where) was in a sock....Where did this cop get his injuries from and by whom?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> No, i'm not saying, and haven't said anywhere at all, that there's a cover up. What Simon Israel said was absolutely clear, The Metropolitan Police, not some source within, or an unnamed insider, but the Metropolitan Police.



But what does that mean? It wasn't an official statement, nobody is suggesting that, so who said it to him and why, under what circumstances?




			
				Streathamite said:
			
		

> as a mastter of interest, if you had to, absolutely had to, whose honesty would you trust more - Israel or a tottenham OB?



It's not a question of trusting one or the other. The only official police statement on this aspect is that Duggan *did not* fire a gun.

So taking Israel at his word, someone has told him that there was an exchange of gunfire. Is it likely that the Met have leaked this information in the full knowledge that they'd be exposed as liars in double-quick time as soon as the weapons had been examined, or is it more likely that Simon Israel's source simply wasn't in possession of the facts when he made the statement shortly after the event?

A copper (radio) was shot. Do you think that the OB immediately realised that he'd taken a police round but decided to say Duggan shot him anyway, knowing full well that an examination of the round (which one can guarantee would take place) would show that it came from a police weapon? Or could it be that in the immediate aftermath of the gunfire it was erroneously assumed that Duggan had popped the copper and that's what "someone" told Israel, before the facts were established?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> <snip> Is it likely that the Met have leaked this information in the full knowledge that they'd be exposed as liars in double-quick time as soon as the weapons had been examined <snip>



If you ignore the wider context, that's a plausible argument although I can still see a clear reason why the Met might want to *knowingly leak an untrue version of events before the facts were available, in order to frame the event favourably in the public mind*.

They had no reason to suppose it'd kick off massive riots that kept the IPCC findings on page one. They could reasonably have expected most of the public never to even notice that the initial version of events was actually untrue.

I don't think you've as yet really engaged with that interpretation, as opposed to the 'cover up' interpretation.

In the wider context of something like this happening (as far as I can recall) *every single time* the cops kill anyone, over a period of decades though, you can't really blame people for being suspicious that deliberate spin is occurring.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 11, 2011)

https://twitter.com/#!/hollieclemence/status/101662489623793665


> PR exclusive on CO19 cops involved in Mark Duggan shooting, who say they 'never once' said they were fired at here: http://t.co/UKPbeXd



Looks like Police Review is running that story, but funnily enough I'm not a subscriber.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> No-one's suggesting Simon Israel (or the rest of the media) weren't briefed, just that as far as I can tell it wasn't done officially, in which case it's opinion or speculation and should not have been reported as fact. But as before, if the source can be identified, I will happily stand corrected. Can you identify Simon Israel's named, attributable source?



I wouldn't know who the Met press officer was, not my remit frankly. However, Israel made it clear as I said, the Metropolitan Police. You, unlike me, don't think the fact he didn't say a 'police source', and 'unnamed source in Scotland Yard' or a 'Source at the Met'. He was straightforward and clear, the Metropolitan Police. As a journo i'd hope he would be clear if it was an un-named source, he was most clear, even stopping to say clearly to Guru-Murthy what they told him instead of simply carrying on. You clearly don't think this is of importance, I do.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Mauybe it needs repeating for it to sink in with some....
> 
> You have zero evidence Israel is wrong, lied, prevaricated, assumed, conspired or even passed on a made it up. Have you any reason, evidence to introosuce doubt to what Israel said? Of the two 'protagonists' Simon Israel and The Metropolitan who has a reputation for lying? Which of the two is under investigation for bribery, whicjh of the two has a member about to be tried over the death of someone, which of the two pulled the trigger....? Take yor time now....



That's very childish comparing one person with an entire force made up of thousands of people.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Everyone knows journo's are full of shit... except when they report something you want to be true...


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They had no reason to suppose it'd kick off massive riots that kept the IPCC findings on page one. They could reasonably have expected most of the public never to even notice that the initial version of events was actually untrue.
> 
> I don't think you've as yet really engaged with that interpretation, as opposed to the 'cover up' interpretation.



A bloke was shot dead by armed police. That's massive news on it's own, disregarding the subsequent riots. There is no way in the world that the OB would have had any reasonable expectations that the event wouldn't be scrutinized to the Nth degree, and that "the public wouldn't notice" that they'd been telling porkies!

The riots haven't kept the IPCC investigation on page one. Sure they've supplemented public interest, but even without them, Duggan's killing would have been huge news.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If you have anything more than hearsay to back it up then it's not shit, is it?


Are you being purposefully inane here? It is a FACT that an officer in Tottenham Ob told C4s Mr Israel, AND at least one local rag journo, that duggan shot at cops, necessitating them returning fire, and we now know this to be 100% untrue.
They lied. AGAIN.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/hollieclemence/status/101662489623793665
> 
> Looks like Police Review is running that story, but funnily enough I'm not a subscriber.



Can't access that but there was a report a couple of days ago saying that the shot copper denied saying that he was shot by Duggan.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It is a FACT that an officer in Tottenham Ob told C4s Mr Israel, AND at least one local rag journo, that duggan shot at cops, necessitating them returning fire, and we now know this to be 100% untrue.
> They lied. AGAIN.



That's not a fact, Jez.

All Israel has said is that a Met source told him there was an exchange of gunfire. Not "Tottenham OB", he hasn't said who it was.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> There is absolutely no suggestion that this was an official statement by a "police press officer", and Israel won't name his source. This suggests that he's either heard it from a private source who he doesn't want to drop in the shit (and could well have got it wrong), or he's telling porkies.
> 
> Nooooooooooooooo never!


right; this goes to spy and kizmet.
cards on table time, no bullshit; do you believe Simon Israel, and my local journoe mate, were telling the truth or fibbing. One or t'other please.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> That's not a fact, Jez.
> 
> All Israel has said is that a Met source told him there was an exchange of gunfire. Not "Tottenham OB", he hasn't said who it was.


I may have got the OB location askew, but he DID say that a met officer had told him that Duggan had fired first


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Are you being purposefully inane here? It is a FACT that an officer in Tottenham Ob told C4s Mr Israel, AND at least one local rag journo, that duggan shot at cops, necessitating them returning fire, and we now know this to be 100% untrue.
> They lied. AGAIN.



It would be a fact if you could name the tottenham ob that said it.

If you can't then you are very stupid to call it a fact.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> right; this goes to spy and kizmet.
> cards on table time, no bullshit; do you believe Simon Israel, and my local journoe mate, were telling the truth or fibbing. One or t'other please.



I don't think either is telling you the truth.

But that's cos neither know the truth.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I wouldn't know who the Met press officer was ...



Or if it was a press officer at all.



> However, Israel made it clear as I said, the Metropolitan Police.






			
				Streathamite said:
			
		

> I may have got the OB location askew, but he DID say that a met officer had told him that Duggan had fired first



Which could mean anyone from Tim Godwin to Constable Dibble who Israel had a beer with last week.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's very childish comparing one person with an entire force made up of thousands of people.



No, i'm positing a rather obvious point. You aren't convinced of the voracity of the claim by Israel because he hasn't defined his source. You think it's justy na journo doing a bad job. I am asking the obvious point who is more believable, especially at present.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Everyone knows journo's are full of shit... except when they report something you want to be true...



Do they? Projecting much?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Or if it was a press officer at all.
> 
> Which could mean anyone from Tim Godwin to Constable Dibble who Israel had a beer with last week.



I note that the Metropolitan Police have not refuted Israels remarks. I note no one in the Met has suggested Israel is repeating unsubstantiated rumours or for commenting on an unidentified source. Nor, might I add, has the IPCC who are investigating the killing.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> right; this goes to spy and kizmet.
> cards on table time, no bullshit; do you believe Simon Israel, and my local journoe mate, were telling the truth or fibbing. One or t'other please.



I don't know.

I certainly believe you when you say that a Journo mate has told you what he did, and I think it's likely that Israel was told what he said he was. The issue though is whether the person giving them the information was acting on behalf of the Met (unlikely, given that they pretty quickly said that Duggan didn't shoot), whether he did so in the knowledge that it was bullshit, or whether he simply gave an account that he believed at the time but turned out to be incorrect.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> It's not a question of trusting one or the other. The only official police statement on this aspect is that Duggan *did not* fire a gun.


that was an IPCc statement, not a Met one. different thing entirely.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I note that the Metropolitan Police have not refuted Israels remarks.



How could they if they don't know who said it?



> Nor, might I add, has the IPCC who are investigating the killing.


Although they have categorically stated that Duggan did not discharge a weapon.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that was an IPCc statement, not a Met one. different thing entirely.



Fine. Want another razor blade to split that hair with?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I certainly believe you when you say that a Journo mate has told you what he did, and I think it's likely that Israel was told what he said he was. The issue though is whether the person giving them the information was acting on behalf of the Met (unlikely, given that they pretty quickly said that Duggan didn't shoot), whether he did so in the knowledge that it was bullshit, or whether he simply gave an account that he believed at the time but turned out to be incorrect.


Israel did specifically say that it was a Met officer who told him that, IIRC, ditto my mate (tbh, the events of the past few days have so overwhelmed me I can't be entirely sure of my memory on the former, but I have high regard for the honesty of the latter).
apart from that, however, those are good, fair points you've made.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't think either is telling you the truth.
> 
> But that's cos neither know the truth.


well, you're 100% wrong, and i'd bet the farm on it.
are you REALLY this gullible and naive to uncritically trust an organisation with the rcord for dodginess and mendacity as the Met?
sheesh, there's one born every minute....


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It would be a fact if you could name the tottenham ob that said it.
> 
> If you can't then you are very stupid to call it a fact.


bollocks - the met have a record for smearing people via unattributable press briefings that's as long as yer arm.
Personally, I'd trust simon Israel over them any day, but I do agree that that doesn't prove diddly, either way.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Fine. Want another razor blade to split that hair with?


fairy snuff
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the met themselves made no effort to acknowledge or correct their earlier misinformation


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> How could they if they don't know who said it?



But they could clearly say that such a statement was unsubstantiated and not official, they haven't. It would be eminently sensible for the Met, not to mention totally understandable in the context, to clearly refute the veracity and question provenance of such a statement would it not?



> Although they have categorically stated that Duggan did not discharge a weapon.



Yes, 4 days after the comments about an exchange of fire had been broadcast by several media outlets....


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I guess the point I was trying to make was that the met themselves made no effort to acknowledge or correct their earlier misinformation



Well again, was it official MET misinformation (no) or was it erroneous information given by someone who just happens to be a Met Copper who didn't have the facts?

That's the job of the IPCC and we have to assume that the Met fully cooperated with them since we now officially know that plod was shot with a police bullet and that Duggan did not shoot.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> But they could clearly say that such a statement was unsubstantiated and not official, they haven't. It would be eminently sensible for the Met, not to mention totally understandable in the context, to clearly refute the veracity and question provenance of such a statement would it not?



Yes, you'd have thought so.

But I don't think the lack of such a statement is necessarily indicative of a deliberate attempt to mislead. There's no question that it was an unofficial comment otherwise we'd know where it came from, and more people would've heard it than just Simon Israel and Jezzer's mate.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Everyone knows journo's are full of shit


and since when were the Met paragons of honesty?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Well again, was it official MET misinformation (no) or was it erroneous information given by someone who just happens to be a Met Copper who didn't have the facts?
> 
> That's the job of the IPCC and we have to assume that the Met fully cooperated with them since we now officially know that plod was shot with a police bullet and that Duggan did not shoot.


yes, I'll buy that second sentence. They really do have no real practical choice but to play very, very nice with the IPCC over this - they'd be crazy not to


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

dp


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, you'd have thought so.
> 
> But I don't think the lack of such a statement is necessarily indicative of a deliberate attempt to mislead. There's no question that it was an unofficial comment otherwise we'd know where it came from, and more people would've heard it than just Simon Israel and Jezzer's mate.



Hang on, given the Radio and TV news used the the story about ther police being fired at, as KT said here already he heard it on the radio, we can reasonably expect that the comment went to more than two people.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Hang on, given the Radio and TV news used the the story about ther police being fired at, as KT said here already he heard it on the radio, we can reasonably expect that the comment went to more than two people.



Perhaps. Perhaps it was several comments from different sources, Chinese whispers, canteen gossip and the like. The majority of Met coppers wouldn't have known what happened beyond what their mates had told them etc. No one's telling us who said what, are they? What we do know is that it wasn't the official Met line and the IPCC have since said it was wrong.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps. Perhaps it was several comments from different sources, Chinese whispers, canteen gossip and the like. The majority of Met coppers wouldn't have known what happened beyond what their mates had told them etc. No one's telling us who said what, are they? What we do know is that it wasn't the official Met line and the IPCC have since said it was wrong.


so if it was individual OB shooting from the hip, why do you think they did that?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Those arguments you're using would work a lot better if it were not for the wider context Spymaster.

The sort of shit we're talking about happens *every time the cops kill someone* and since the phone-tapping revelations, we've been aware of extensive corrupt collusion between the Met and the gutter press. The Duggan case can't be separated from this context.



> Mr de Menezes's family today called on David Cameron to widen the scope of the phone hacking inquiry to look at alleged police leaks to the media during the investigation into the Brazilian's death.
> 
> They highlighted in particular the role of former Scotland Yard assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, who is now a columnist for The Times, a sister paper of the News of the World in Rupert Murdoch's News International group.
> Relatives of Mr de Menezes wrote to the Prime Minister: "We are conscious that the newspapers owned by News International provided some of the most virulent and often misleading coverage around Jean's death and its aftermath.
> ...



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ousin-may-have-been-a-victim-115875-23270866/


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so if it was individual OB shooting from the hip, why do you think they did that?



Dunno, because they're idiots?

Or a journo rings his "inside man" asks what he's heard, and gets "well it looks like Duggan shot our bloke and we shot him".

Cue Sun headlines ....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

It's not going to be some random traffic policeman that married our shirl though is it?

The Murdoch corruption case makes it very clear that senior police and especially their public affairs people regularly socialise with editorial staff, especially from those from the Murdoch press.



> Fedorcio, 58, is a conservative figure, with a rugby player's chest and a businessman's suit, who was given an OBE in 2006. He rose through the ranks of local government PR (at the Greater London council, West Sussex, and Kent) and took over as head of public affairs at the Yard in September 1997, shortly before the arrival as deputy commissioner of John Stevens, who became a close ally. When Stevens became commissioner in 2000, the two men set out to find allies in Fleet Street, particularly among the conservative tabloids and the Daily Mail.
> 
> Fedorcio was far less close to Stevens's successor, Ian Blair. Indeed, several Yard sources claim that Fedorcio disliked the new commissioner. But his job gave him power: specifically, a seat on the elite senior management team which oversees major operational decisions and where Fedorcio's voice is said to be highly influential.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/phone-hacking-spotlight-dick-fedorcio


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Those arguments you're using would work a lot better if it were not for the wider context Spymaster.
> 
> The sort of shit we're talking about happens *every time the cops kill someone* and since the phone-tapping revelations, we've been aware of extensive corrupt collusion between the Met and the gutter press. The Duggan case can't be separated from this context.



That's one  view. Another is that it should be.

Given the awful fuck up with JCdM, the way the Tomlinson case was handled, and the recent collusion with the press scandal, the Met is now under a microscope and have to play it straighter than straight. It would seem that so far, officially, they are.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Interesting piece on exactly this subject in the Guardian. They've also just announced that Met PR chief Dick Fedorico been put on gardening leave ...



> Discussing the 7/7 terrorist attacks in an interview with PRWeek, deputy director Chris Webb gave an interesting insight into how the department worked. "The first hour after a terror attack is the most important", he explained, "both in terms of setting out a proactive comms strategy and in reacting to media speculation. It's about reassuring the public that you're in control … *we have what we call a golden hour. It's an hour to get a grip, to get control of the situation*, or others will do it on our behalf."
> 
> In the case of Duggan, it is unclear who the police source that spoke to the Telegraph was, or even whether the source was authorised to speak. There is no evidence yet that what he allegedly said was part of a "proactive comms strategy".
> 
> What is clear, however, is that neither a vacuum nor proactive comms are going to reassure an increasingly sceptical and angry public. Improbable accounts are as bad for generating rumours as an information vacuum and it is perhaps no surprise that ahead of the riot in Tottenham there was speculation that Duggan was pulled from the minicab, held down and then killed.


 My emphasis, showing that the Met themselves are aware that they have every reason to try to frame the incident in their preferred terms, even if facts emerge later to contradict them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/met-communications-department-mark-duggan


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps. Perhaps it was several comments from different sources, Chinese whispers, canteen gossip and the like. The majority of Met coppers wouldn't have known what happened beyond what their mates had told them etc. No one's telling us who said what, are they? *What we do know is that it wasn't the official Met line* and the IPCC have since said it was wrong.



We don't know what it was, but, as i've said that line has not been refuted by the Met or any senior police in the Met.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> We don't know what it was, but, as i've said that line has not been refuted by the Met or any senior police in the Met.



Agreed. And it won't be now as the IPCC has done it for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Interesting piece on exactly this subject in the Guardian. They've also just announced that Met PR chief Dick Fedorico been put on gardening leave ...
> 
> My emphasis, showing that the Met themselves are aware that they have every reason to *try to frame* the incident in their preferred terms, even if facts emerge later to contradict them.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/met-communications-department-mark-duggan


nothing new for the met then


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed. And it won't be now as the IPCC has done it for them.



And that is the point surely?!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> And that is the point surely?!



???


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

> Dick Fedorcio, the Met's director of public affairs and internal communication, has been put on extended leave pending the result of an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) into his conduct, it has emerged.
> 
> The IPCC said last month it would begin an inquiry into Fedorcio's dealings with Neil Wallis, a former News of the World assistant editor who was arrested in July as part of Scotland Yard's investigation into phone hacking.
> That followed the revelation that Fedorcio had handed Wallis a two-day-a-month contract to assist the Met's press office in October 2009.
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/10/phone-hacking-enquiry-dick-fedorcio

One might speculate however, if one were so inclined ...


----------



## Giles (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm sure the police did attempt to put their own bullshit "spin" on what happened. Like they did with the Brazilian guy.

My sympathy for Mark Duggan is somewhat limited if he had a gun at all, whether or not he fired it, pulled it out, went to pull it out, or not.

Possession of handguns is completely illegal. The police clearly knew, or strongly suspected that he DID have a gun, or they would not have brought in armed officers to try to arrest him.

In situations where guns are pointed and adrenaline is pumping, even policemen make mistakes.

But: "Big boys rules" apply here I think: if you choose the lifestyle of a gun-carrying criminal / wannabe gangster, then you must accept a vastly increased chance of someone else using firearms against you.

Giles..


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I'm sure the police did attempt to put their own bullshit "spin" on what happened. Like they did with the Brazilian guy.
> 
> My sympathy for Mark Duggan is somewhat limited if he had a gun at all, whether or not he fired it, pulled it out, went to pull it out, or not.
> 
> ...


how come in a situation where there are no guns and adrenaline is not pumping you manage to make yourself look like a fly-ridden puddle of shit every time you post?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I'm sure the police did attempt to put their own bullshit "spin" on what happened. Like they did with the Brazilian guy.
> 
> My sympathy for Mark Duggan is somewhat limited if he had a gun at all, whether or not he fired it, pulled it out, went to pull it out, or not.
> 
> ...


 
At this point , though ALL of that is speculation.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> At this point , though ALL of that is speculation.



Sure, but the police spin that hits the media in that 'golden hour' that their deputy PR chief is talking about in the quote above, becomes proven fact in the minds of people like Giles.

Which is *precisely* the effect they hope to achieve ...

He probably still thinks that Liverpool fans pissed on corpses at Hillsborough too ...


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, but the police spin that hits the media in that 'golden hour' that their deputy PR chief is talking about in the quote above, becomes proven fact in the minds of people like Giles.
> 
> Which is *precisely* the effect they hope to achieve ...
> 
> He probably still thinks that Liverpool fans pissed on corpses at Hillsborough too ...


 
Yes --- I know ---- That was for readers still on Book one of the "Beacon Readers" (aka Giles)


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, but the police spin that hits the media in that 'golden hour' that their deputy PR chief is talking about in the quote above, becomes proven fact in the minds of people like Giles.



Tbf, Bern, the spin and "golden hour" that he's on about is with specific reference to terror related incidents. Now I'm prepared to accept that that may be indicative of a broader mindset, but so far there's very little to suggest that organised 'spin' is/was in play in the Duggan case.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Very little except for it happening every time the cops kill someone and a bunch of things that police sources told the media in Duggan's case turning out to be porkies?

See I just don't buy the idea that the Telegraph, the Channel 4 and least of all the Sun are getting their info from someone's brother in law in the traffic police or some dog handler who drinks in the same pub.

I think the relevant correspondents and editors have established relationships with the police spin department and I've produced a bunch of material above in support of that.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Tbf, Bern, the spin and "golden hour" that he's on about is with specific reference to terror related incidents. Now I'm prepared to accept that that may be indicative of a broader mindset, but so far there's very little to suggest that organised 'spin' is/was in play in the Duggan case.


 
I understand what you're saying , spy , but , that it happens at ALL is pretty poor , that it happens more than once is ---- well --- "suspect" --- to say the least.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Very little except for it happening every time the cops kill someone and a bunch of things that police sources told the media in Duggan's case turning out to be porkies?



A bunch of things that _journalists_ have reported as coming from unattributed police sources, that the IPCC have corrected within a few days of the incident.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

While the later developments of the riots seem to have been more about opportunist looting there's no doubt at all that the initial flashpoint happened in the context of deep suspicion about the circumstances of Duggan's death and about the stories that the cops were feeding to the media, while apparently failing to communicate effectively with the deceased's family.

They've lied and been caught doing it so often now that they've lost public trust.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> A bunch of things that _journalists_ have reported as coming from unattributed police sources, that the IPCC have corrected within a few days of the incident.



See 'golden hour' argument above.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I understand what you're saying , spy , but , that it happens at ALL is pretty poor , that it happens more than once is ---- well --- "suspect" --- to say the least.



I couldn't agree more but as I said, I don't want Mark Duggan to have been murdered by a policeman. Like Fedayn, I'd rather he wasn't shot at all, but since he has been, I'm hoping that it was a "reasonable" engagement and am trying to add balance to the speculation.

I may turn out to be wrong, but so far I think I've made a half-decent fist of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't agree more but as I said, I don't want Mark Duggan to have been murdered by a policeman. Like Fedayn, I'd rather he wasn't shot at all, but since he has been, I'm hoping that it was a "reasonable" engagement and am trying to add balance to the speculation.
> 
> I may turn out to be wrong, but so far I think I've made a half-decent fist of it.


that's probably what got mark duggan shot.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Well, I think at a certain point, the best thing the police can do to regain public trust in respect of these kinds of incidents is to admit to what they've obviously been doing, sack those involved (which is why I think sending the guy who has been their spin chief  off on gardening leave today may be a very welcome development) and promise to try not to smear people that they've killed in the future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, I think at a certain point, the best thing the police can do to regain public trust in respect of these kinds of incidents is to admit to what they've obviously been doing, sack those involved (which is why I think sending their spin chief on gardening leave today may be a welcome development) and promise not to smear people they've killed in the future.


yes. but you'll have to settle for second best because they're not going to do that.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, I think at a certain point, the best thing the police can do to regain public trust in respect of these kinds of incidents is to admit to what they've obviously been doing, sack those involved (which is why I think sending the guy who has been their spin chief for the last decade and a half, off on gardening leave today may be a very welcome development) and promise to try not to smear people that they've killed in the future.



Absolutely.

Could Fedorcio's suspension be the start of that????


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but you'll have to settle for second best because they're not going to do that.



It'd also be nice if the media "burned" anonymous police sources who told them porkies in such cases.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It'd also be nice if the media "burned" anonymous police sources who told them porkies in such cases.



Take the quotes out of that and I'd make you right!


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It'd also be nice if the media "burned" anonymous police sources who told them porkies in such cases.


It'd be nicer if the media did their job properly in the first place and didn't report speculation as fact.


----------



## Giles (Aug 11, 2011)

If it is someone fairly senior who is responsible for a policy of trying to "spin" cocked-up operations, I wonder what they think is going to happen?

I mean, any time the police shoot anyone dead, even times when they are pretty obviously doing the right thing, there is going to be a very detailed investigation, and they are inevitably going to make themselves look bad by lying about it. Any "benefit" in the short term in making the general public believe their slanted version is outweighed when the inquiry finds out their version is bullshit.

I can't imagine that they for some bizarre reason set out deliberately to "execute" this guy. Why do this, and so publicly?

I almost hope he DID have a weapon, even if he didn't fire it.

If it transpires that he was unarmed and there was no justification at all for shooting him, there'll be even worse protests to come.

Giles..


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

i see reality occasionally intrudes into giles' world


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

The police have a long history of hurting people/killing people and lying about it through a corrupt media.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Could Fedorcio's suspension be the start of that????



One has to hope so.

He seems to be at the epicentre of the dodgy dealing with the Murdoch press and he's been the spin chief for the Met for most of the key examples of people the Met killed getting pre-emptively smeared.

So even if he wasn't personally ringing them up to tell them how Ian Tomlinson was killed by a 'hail of bottles' etc, he's certainly not made any conspicuous efforts to put a stop to it that I'm aware of, which means that as the Met's spin chief, he should be held accountable.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 12, 2011)

IPCC "may have misled journalists": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14510329

Interesting!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

The whole prob with this thread is - as MM points out - EVRYTHING right now can only be specuklation, and will remain that way until the IPCC publish theifr full report


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Isn't that also what spy was saying?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Isn't that also what spy was saying?


no, don't think so, not quite


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 12, 2011)

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/p...formation-in-early-stages-of-Mark-Duggan.aspx

_"Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4th August._

_The IPCC's first statement, issued at 22.49 on 4th August, makes no reference to shots fired at police and our subsequent statements have set out the sequence of events based on the emerging evidence. However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital._


_Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident."_

So it seems it was the IPCC, not the Metropolitan Police, that - inadvertently or not - was the source of the 'exchange of shots' story.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 12, 2011)

> However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as *this was consistent with early information we received* that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.



Tell us more about this, please, IPCC. 

What was the totality of the early information you received from all sources, who were those sources (twitter, police at scene, 24 hour news channels, 'witnesses', the news international-enhanced police press department). Totality as in who said what, thanks. We can probably work out the rest. No need to name names, we'll be happy at this point to have generals. Just now.

By the way, people in the IPCC....the police are currently fucking you over and are plotting your career demise and already crafting your replacement along with others I'm sure. You're fucked. Do the decent thing and fuck them back.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 13, 2011)

Bit of an own goal for the IPCC I think.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 13, 2011)

If so then who told the IPCC there was an exchange or did they make it up without gathering evidence? Who told Israel and the rest of the press the exchange of fire story?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no, don't think so, not quite



No, not "quite". Exactly.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Do the decent thing and fuck them back.








			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> If so then who told the IPCC there was an exchange or did they make it up without gathering evidence?



The latter by the sound of it:




			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> _it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged *as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.*_



So they were only told that a copper had been shot and hospitalised and Duggan shot and killed. This information was correct. Given that the Met are not in the habit of shooting their own officers, it's an understandable mistake for someone to assume that he was shot by Duggan.


> Who told Israel and the rest of the press the exchange of fire story?



Someone at the IPCC by the sounds of it. If not, probably some Met copper who made the same mistake that they did.




			
				Spymaster said:
			
		

> Do you think that the OB immediately realised that he'd taken a police round but decided to say Duggan shot him anyway, in the absolute certainty that an examination of the round (which one can guarantee would take place) would show that it came from a police weapon? Or could it be that in the immediate aftermath of the gunfire it was erroneously assumed that Duggan had popped the copper and that's what "someone" told Israel before the facts were established?



This really is the most plausible explanation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2011)

And yet, duggan will be known as the gansta who shot at a copper in most peoples minds. Mistakes were made in briefings etc. Nobody lied, nobody smeared, there was no intent to cover arse and get the duggan is a cop killa wannabe story out first. Mistakes.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> And yet, duggan will be known as the gansta who shot at a copper in most peoples minds.



Not "most people" at all.

A handful of fucking idiots who are devoid of any capacity to read or understand the _crystal clear_ admissions from the Met and the IPCC, maybe.

It is looking increasingly unlikely that there's been a deliberate attempt to smear Duggan, and without the ACAB goggles it didn't seem very likely in the first place.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

So OK, the police are now leaking their views of Cameron's performance chairing the COBRA meetings on the riots and basically describing him as inept, incompetent and idiotic ... see e.g.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-against-senior-politicians-spin-2336852.html

It's pretty clear from recent polls that despite the recent corruption revelations, their poisonous little spin habit and their sterling efforts in guarding Oxford St while areas of less corporate significance were left to burn, the police seem to have acquired a certain amount of political capital, some of it at the expense of the government.

So how will they use it?

Protect their pay and pensions first obviously, but what about threats to police morale like IPCC corruption investigations or forthcoming manslaughter trials?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 14, 2011)

Looks like the police are going to fuck Cameron good and proper over these riots...


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Looks like the police are going to fuck Cameron good and proper over these riots...



Perhaps, though (as the Indy piece argues) it is probably more that they are spinning to try and prevent Cameron and his chums from using the riots to push through their "reforms", and they would be right to do so; the reforms that have been mentioned thus far are universally bad - for the police, and for society.  It might however just be an honest reaction to the spin that it was Dave coming back from holiday that calmed things down, especially if he really was going to order the Army onto the streets.

It is a bit weird though how the two people who seemingly have the least reason to kick off - Orde and Godwin (given that they are going for the Commissioner's office) are the ones who are making the most fuss, after all it will be Boris and Theresa May who end up deciding who gets the job.  Have they been told no already?  Is Brunstrom sailing his yacht into the Thames as I type this?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> It is a bit weird though how the two people who seemingly have the least reason to kick off - Orde and Godwin (given that they are going for the Commissioner's office) are the ones who are making the most fuss, after all *it will be Boris and Theresa May who end up deciding who gets the job.* Have they been told no already? Is Brunstrom sailing his yacht into the Thames as I type this?



But, both Orde and Godwin will know that Bumbling Boris & Disco Dave don't see eye-to-eye, which could have a lot to do with them speaking out.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

Here we go ... the 'morale argument' I knew we'd be seeing this pretty soon.



> Among a series of sweeping changes, he set up "performance indicators" to monitor the future handling of racial incidents, and how satisfied different ethnic groups were with police behaviour.
> 
> The intention was noble – but the result of such constant self-criticism, and of other causes célèbres, such as the *shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 and the death of Ian Tomlinson in 2009, was** a dispirited police force, dominated by a politically correct culture that all but extinguished the last flickering light of any esprit de corps*. <snip>
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ce-is-more-service-provider-than-a-force.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 14, 2011)

pk said:


> If he was a threat - yes. And Bernie - don't compare this guy to DeMenezes. DeMenezes wasn't carrying a loaded gun.



The question is did they know he had a gun and did they see it, thus leading to him being shot. Reports suggested it was "in a sock" and not visible. If correct and they also had no prior knowledge of him having one they essentially shot someone who they believed to be unarmed.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 14, 2011)

The fact that he was considered to have warranted an armed response suggests very, very strongly that they suspected he was armed.


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> The question is did they know he had a gun and did they see it, thus leading to him being shot. Reports suggested it was "in a sock" and not visible. If correct and they also had no prior knowledge of him having one they essentially shot someone who they believed to be unarmed.



The use of armed officers to stop the car he was in suggests that they thought he would be armed, as spymaster rightly points out.




			
				Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Here we go ... the 'morale argument' I knew we'd be seeing this pretty soon.



That isnt a disinterested article though - the criticisms Power comes up with are either blatantly wrong (the attack on community meetings especially), or merely dubious (especially his use of force argument); and his morale argument is far more to do with pay and conditions than it is about rioting or PCs being charged with offences.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

Well, he's pretty clearly tying his remarks on morale directly to criticism associated with the De Menezes and Tomlinson cases in the 2nd para I quoted. He's also in the last paragraph I quoted making a direct connection between low police morale and public safety.

So he obviously wants his readers to make a connection between these things.

Hence it's not exactly unreasonable to infer that he wants readers to conclude that:

"Criticism of the police over De Menezes and Tomlinson hurt police morale and hence made it more likely that packs of feral hoodies will burn your car and piss through your letter box."


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, he's pretty clearly tying his remarks on morale directly to criticism associated with the De Menezes and Tomlinson cases in the 2nd para I quoted. He's also in the last paragraph I quoted making a direct connection between low police morale and public safety.
> 
> So he obviously wants his readers to make a connection between these things and it's not exactly unreasonably to infer that he wants readers to conclude: "criticism of the police over De Menezes and Tomlinson hurt police morale and hence made it more likely that packs of feral hoodies will burn your car and piss through your letter box."



I agree thats what he was saying - my point was that he is wrong, both in inviting people to make that conclusion and in suggesting that the police are upset over those two issues, as I said people are far more down because of the attack on pay and conditions rather than because of criticism from those two cases.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree thats what he was saying - my point was that he is wrong, both in inviting people to make that conclusion and in suggesting that the police are upset over those two issues, as I said people are far more down because of the attack on pay and conditions rather than because of criticism from those two cases.



Ah OK. Gotcha.

So whose interests is he representing in trying to make that argument ... ?


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ah OK. Gotcha.
> 
> So whose interests is he representing in trying to make that argument ... ?



No idea, though it is perhaps in the interests of both ACPO and the Government to have the lower ranks seen as being discontented because of unjustifiable reasons (criticism related to de Menezes and Tomlinson, even though a lot / most of the criticism in both cases was aimed at senior ranks) than because of justifiable ones (ie: attacks on their pay, their jobs and their pensions).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> No idea, though it is perhaps in the interests of both ACPO and the Government to have the lower ranks seen as being discontented because of unjustifiable reasons (criticism related to de Menezes and Tomlinson, even though a lot / most of the criticism in both cases was aimed at senior ranks) than because of justifiable ones (ie: attacks on their pay, their jobs and their pensions).



Ahh that does make sense ...


----------



## newbie (Aug 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that he was considered to have warranted an armed response suggests very, very strongly that they suspected he was armed.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ew-of-Manchester-gangster-Desmond-Noonan.html


----------



## likesfish (Aug 14, 2011)

rather an interesting development involved in stuff but never hurt no one loves his mum
  carry's a gun for protection mate got stabbed to death police do nothing might be because its the career hazards of being a career criminal 
* Ipcc got fucked over* man dead police officer in hospital  with gunshot  gun recovered wait out for further details.
  99% of people would presume copper got shot by criminal his fellow officers shot criminal.

Might still be a legal shoot but the* MET* playing silly buggers with the facts or appearing to play silly buggers isn't really going to help.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

Interview with the local MP about the riots has this. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that unless the MP is lying, police arrogance and/or incompetence played a huge role in triggering the riots.



> When did he first hear about the riots? No, he says, quietly, that's the wrong place to start. He was on holiday on the south coast with his family (he and the artist Nicola Green have two boys, aged five and three) when he was called by the borough's commander. There had been an "incident" 90 minutes previously; a man had been shot and killed by police. "I immediately came back to Tottenham because I knew it would be very sensitive, and I had to get on top of what had happened. And that meant going to the estate, and speaking to people on the ground. The statement I put out was that there was a mood of anxiety."
> 
> By the Friday, stories were appearing in the media – notably, that Duggan had fired first – that didn't accord with what Lammy was hearing locally. The mood in Tottenham grew darker.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/14/david-lammy-tottenham-mark-duggan


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

I mean for fucks sake, they killed him on the Wednesday, by Friday night when it kicked off, the only information the family have received from the police are self-serving smear jobs and disinformation via the Met's mates in the media?

So they go direct to the cops and are kept waiting for five hours to see a senior officer?

That's really taking the piss ...


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I mean for fucks sake, they killed him on the Wednesday, by Friday (or possibly even Saturday, this isn't 100% clear) the only information the family have received from the police are self-serving smear jobs and disinformation via the Met's mates in the media?
> 
> So they go direct to the cops and are kept waiting for five hours to see a senior officer?
> 
> That's really taking the piss ...



If its true - after all, what Lammy is suggesting is in direct opposition to what the IPCC stated a while back:



> The following information sets out the contact the IPCC has had to date with the family:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/p...ews/Pages/default.aspx&l2title=Press Releases


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

OK, so he's shot around 18.15 Thursday 4th, not Wednesday.

The familiy are outside Tottenham nick trying to get info about the shooting around tea-time on the 6th though ... then a few hours later it kicks off for whatever reason.

Undisputed so far?


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> OK, so he's shot around 18.15 Thursday 4th, not Wednesday.
> 
> The familiy are outside Tottenham nick trying to get info about the shooting around tea-time on the 6th though ... then a few hours later it kicks off for whatever reason.
> 
> Undisputed so far?



I suppose it all comes down to whether the people on the march were the same people who the IPCC had spoken to, and when it was on the Saturday that the IPCC spoke to them. In any case, it seems - unless the IPCC have publically and blatantly lied - a bit off for Lammy to claim the family wasnt told that he was dead before they went to the police station, when it appears that at fourteen members of the family had actually seen the body earlier the same day.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> If its true - after all, what Lammy is suggesting is in direct opposition to what the IPCC stated a while back:


erm, no it's not. You missed this pretty vital bit out from that quote



> “I am aware of various media reports suggesting that we have not had adequate contact with Mr Duggan’s family since his death. Following my meeting with the family yesterday (Sunday) I am very clear that their concerns were not about lack of contact or support from the IPCC. Their concerns were about lack of contact from the police in delivering news of his death to Mark’s parents. It is never the responsibility of the IPCC to deliver a message regarding someone's death and I have told Mr Duggan’s family that I would be addressing this issue with the Met and that, if necessary, this would become part of our investigation.



ie the people who'd actually done the shooting hadn't had the decency to actually inform the victims parents directly themselves, and reading between the lines had attempted to pass the buck to the IPCC and leave them to do it.

I'm wondering if maybe the met talked to his wife, and didn't think it necessary to talk directly to his parents or something. If so, this would seem to have been a seriously bad misjudgement.


----------



## gavman (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Premature to judge whether the shooting was justified, but long past time to call for an end to the Met using their dodgy press contacts to smear people they've killed and to get a bunch of self-serving lies about the circumstances into the public domain.
> 
> This cynical and dishonest practice may well have played a role in triggering these riots and it needs to stop. The Met's PR chief, about whose relationship with News International many other questions still need to be asked, should be held accountable for it.


it's the practise of publishing unattributed comments from 'a police source' that must end.
but it won't


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

free spirit said:


> I'm wondering if maybe the met talked to his wife, and didn't think it necessary to talk directly to his parents or something. If so, this would seem to have been a seriously bad misjudgement.



From the IPCC statement the Met did appear to have spoken to his partner (an FLO had been appointed).


----------



## gavman (Aug 14, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Well unless we see a press release we won't know for sure (I presume there was a press release otherwise how could all the media outlets be informed about the incident at the same time?)


you've completely missed the point. this is about the way police set the climate with unattributed briefings, not official press releases


----------



## gavman (Aug 14, 2011)

Dowie said:


> Nah they didn't, they were much sneakier than that. They released selective facts 'gun found' 'bullet in police radio' that led people to conclude (inc myself) and some papers to claim that there was an exchange of fire when the police/IPCC would have known all along that there wasn't. It was fairly obvious to them that letting people know there was a bullet in an officer's radio is going to lead to that conclusion as opposed to the perhaps more unlikely trained marksman accidentally shooting another trained marksman conclusion or something along those lines...
> 
> Tis very dodgy the way they did that though, with hindsight, I guess if there had been an exchange of fire then they'd have been banging on about it right from the start - the fact that they weren't doing so was perhaps a good indicator (to people who are naturally skeptical of police press releases) that things weren't as they seemed.


so what is the skeptics response the fact we haven't seen this weapon yet?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> From the IPCC statement the Met did appear to have spoken to his partner (an FLO had been appointed).


looks like the FLO dropped a serious bollock here then, unless that bollocks was dropped further up the chain of command.

Either that, or it's standard practice to only inform the partner, not the parents when the police kill someone.


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2011)

free spirit said:


> looks like the FLO dropped a serious bollock here then, unless that bollocks was dropped further up the chain of command.
> 
> Either that, or it's standard practice to only inform the partner, not the parents when the police kill someone.



Its standard practice (edit: in terms of a normal death) to only inform the next of kin, though IME you would usually at least offer to inform other people if the next of kin didnt feel up to doing so.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its standard practice (edit: in terms of a normal death) to only inform the next of kin, though IME you would usually at least offer to inform other people if the next of kin didnt feel up to doing so.


well, at least that's one problem easily solved. If the police kill someone, the least they could do is to inform the parents personally, along with the partner and kids. This is different to informing next of kin in the case of an accidental death etc. the organisation has directly killed them, and should show the entire family some respect.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's pretty clear from recent polls that despite the recent corruption revelations, their poisonous little spin habit and their sterling efforts in guarding Oxford St while areas of less corporate significance were left to burn, the police seem to have acquired a certain amount of political capital, some of it at the expense of the government.
> 
> So how will they use it?
> 
> Protect their pay and pensions first obviously, but what about threats to police morale like IPCC corruption investigations or forthcoming manslaughter trials?


I reckon an item VERY high up their agenda will be greater immunity from PC Harwood-type prosecutions


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 15, 2011)

They may not have been obligated to talk to the parents however they said they informed 'family and friends' (not a direct quote) - it's not unreasonable to think that the parents should be someplace in that pecking order.

Also, was it not stated that the parents were made to wait 5 hours to talk to a plod in the station?

The implications seem clear.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 15, 2011)

you'd have thought somebody would have dicked the least liked officer to go round the parents/ NOK and tell them we shot your son/partner.
 Not exactly the best message to have to give but needed doing.
 leaving the parents waiting for 5 hours certain lack of moral courage by whoever was in charge.
 at least look them in eye and say I'm sorry for your loss I don't know whats going on as soon as I have anything I will phone you


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

likesfish said:


> you'd have thought somebody would have dicked the least liked officer to go round the parents/ NOK and tell them we shot your son/partner.
> Not exactly the best message to have to give but needed doing.
> leaving the parents waiting for 5 hours certain lack of moral courage by whoever was in charge.
> at least look them in eye and say I'm sorry for your loss I don't know whats going on as soon as I have anything I will phone you


tbh, Tottenham cops have always had such contempt for the black working class of their area, that their total insensitivity to the Duggans doesn't surprise me one little bit


----------



## likesfish (Aug 16, 2011)

the the officer in charge needs an interview without coffee at the yard.
 you don't have to like or even respect  the people you serve But you have to treat them with professional courtesy its not exactly fucking difficult probably wouldn't have stopped the riot but that's not the fucking point. Parents of somebody shot by the police deserve to be treated with some basic courtesy even if there is nothing useful to be able to tell them


----------



## two sheds (Sep 7, 2011)

*Mark Duggan family accuse police of operating a 'shoot to kill' policy*


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/07/mark-duggan-family-police



> Duggan's brother, Shaun Hall, 42, said ahead of Duggan's funeral on Friday: "The police were clearly operating a shoot to kill policy that day. They are supposed to disable, not kill, suspects. If they hadn't shot and killed Mark there would have been no riots."



Hmmm ... alternative cause for the riots to that given by the tories eh? And one i for one find more convincing. Couple of other things I'd not seen:



> The family say they have been told there was no forensic evidence of Duggan's fingerprints on the non-police issue gun recovered at the scene of the shooting, and they have many unanswered questions. The Guardian has established from sources outside the family that the gun was found inside a sock.
> The family are also puzzled by reports that the taxi Duggan was travelling in when he was shot was initially moved from the crime scene and then returned.
> "It's as though the police have messed with the whole case," claimed Hall. "Why did the police shoot to kill, why was the taxi moved from the crime scene, why were Mark's fingerprints not on the gun? We don't know whether or not that gun was planted."


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 7, 2011)

Oh, well here's a surprise.... ^^^^


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 7, 2011)

Not read all this thread, but what happened to the taxi driver? Surely they would have an idea what happened.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 8, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Not read all this thread, but what happened to the taxi driver? Surely they would have an idea what happened.



I thought the same thing on several occasions.....something isnt quite adding up here...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 8, 2011)

This is a remarkably fine point, and now you mention it I wonder whether he drove the taxi away and brought it back or whether it was the police, and ..... why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2011)

reportage says old bill moved it from the scene


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2011)

Ch4 news reporting all Met Police leave cancelled tomorrow, forces from across the UK will be attached with thousands of police on the streets

i hope it is peaceful for the families sake..


----------



## likesfish (Sep 8, 2011)

*
*

Thats complete bollocks you shoot to stop that usually means the target dies shoot to disable is Hollywood bollocks of the worse kind

The Only time I've ever heard the concept of shooting to wound. Was in a discussion about military tactics shoot the lead bloke in the legs and you can get his mates who come out to rescue him ala full metal jacket.
going into the police station and trying to report the police for murder may not be the best move to get any cooperation out of them


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2011)

cos they're all corrupt?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 8, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Pretty much.You either surrender immediately or they shoot you.Its not like their is any lawful reason for a civilian to be armed with a handgun in this country.



Or a chair leg?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Pretty much.You either surrender immediately or they shoot you.Its not like their is any lawful reason for a civilian to be armed with a handgun in this country.


lots of lawful reasons. disgrace so hard to get hold of a legal weapon.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 8, 2011)

You may want to edit the position of the quote tags in your post, likesfish 

but you seem to be saying the only option the police ever have is to kill someone.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 8, 2011)

skitr said:


> What do you define as a threat? I'd read he had a gun, but was stashed in his sock. Is this justified as a threat?



No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 8, 2011)

or to prevent finger prints.
in an armed arrest like this the tactic is to appear to have overwhelming force/numbers so the target thinks there's no way you can shoot your way out so they give up.
 mostly it works .
  Although if mark made any move rather than hands up maybe to give the police the gun likely to get shot


----------



## Dowie (Sep 8, 2011)

likesfish said:


> or to prevent finger prints.


This, probably. The sock/fingerprints thing isn't too important unless we're to assume that the random taxi driver possessed an illegal weapon or the police planted it (presumably they'd have gone to the effort to ensure his finger prints were on the gun if that was the case).

Main question is whether the officer overreacted - did the weapon actually get pointed at the police or was the officer a bit trigger happy?

IMO armed police officers should wear helmet cameras in order to be properly accountable - no more attempts to cover up botched arrests/raids and conversely surely less burden for the officers themselves after a shooting incident - if they know that they followed procedures and did everything by the book then they'd have nothing to worry about as its all on camera.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 8, 2011)

Yes, although you feel that when they're needed the helmet cameras will turn out to have no film in  .


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 8, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.



Unfortunately the civil liberties lot on here won't grasp this, head cams or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Unfortunately the civil liberties lot on here won't grasp this, head cams or not.


yes because obviously this has all been proved hasn't it.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 8, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Unfortunately the civil liberties lot on here won't grasp this, head cams or not.



You and joe seem to have it all boxed off. I reckon we can wrap-up the IPCC enquiry-for all the good it will do-and just leave it to you and Joe.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 8, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.


No, hold on, the whole "it's a gangland tactic to catch cartridges" thing is very recent. It was reported before with the implication that it was in his sock.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 9, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.


The weapon is some sort of revolver not an automatic, no need to "catch" cartridges, they stay in the gun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The weapon is some sort of revolver not an automatic, no need to "catch" cartridges, they stay in the gun.


so less chance of it being in a sock then


----------



## TopCat (Sep 9, 2011)

it may well have been in a sock but not to catch the cartridges.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 9, 2011)

That bell end who was in so solid crew who got done for a brocock revolver had his in a sock.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2011)

it's at times like these, when i find out about young people's fashions, that i feel really auld


----------



## TopCat (Sep 9, 2011)

What fashions? Carrying shitty re activated pistols that are inaccurate, dangerous to the user and deadly in that the police will kill you on sight if they think you have one? I think one issue is becoming clearer, when a person gets killed and Trident get involved, they are monitoring every one of their acquaintances mobile phones 24/7 from then on in. Make any comment about revenge and  their guns will be aimed and possibly firing at you in the near future.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 9, 2011)

reactivated pistols have killed other people surrender when the armed cops show up live do anything else die.
 because of the nature of gangs acquaintances will be monitored more dead wankers carrying guns always a good thing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2011)

zombies?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> surrender when the armed cops show up live



Well this is the whole point, isn't it. People with no sort of weapon are being killed even after they've surrendered.

I like the way the police killing people is never referred to as a 'cause' of the riots, just a 'trigger'. Now, what happens if you take the trigger off a gun? Ooooh lets try to do that then.


----------



## skitr (Sep 9, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.



If you read above, as others have mentioned, it was said the gun was in his sock, as well as there being no need for any cartridge catching device.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 9, 2011)

no they are not police killed 30 people in the last ten years uk wide.
 thats comparable with the number of gun murders in london last year
 th epolice are not on some sort of murder spree


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 9, 2011)

skitr said:


> If you read above, as others have mentioned, it was said the gun was in his sock, as well as there being no need for any cartridge catching device.



It seems we are relying on different sources. Channel 4 News tonight said that a) he was carrying and b) that he was shot on the pavement. It didn't however say whether he was standing up, in a kneeling position or lying face down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> no they are not police killed 30 people in the last ten years uk wide.
> thats comparable with the number of gun murders in london last year
> th epolice are not on some sort of murder spree


source pls


----------



## past caring (Sep 9, 2011)

skitr said:


> If you read above, as others have mentioned, it was said the gun was in his sock, as well as there being no need for any cartridge catching device.



Actually, no -  Guardian story from this Wednesday clearly makes the claim of the gun being carried _in_ a sock

This was also said at the time and very shortly after the police killed him.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 9, 2011)

http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings
actually the total in 20 years is 53 21 by the met 32 by the rest of the country
the met 2009 2010 2002 1998 1994 1991 failed to shoot anyone


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings
> actually the total in 20 years is 53 21 by the met 32 by the rest of the country
> the met 2009 2010 2002 1998 1994 1991 failed to shoot anyone


ta


----------



## Mation (Sep 10, 2011)

likesfish said:


> the met 2009 2010 2002 1998 1994 1991 failed to shoot anyone


Did they just hit each other's radios?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2011)

Deaths in police custody are a bit higher than the figure for deaths from police gunshots. And even they don't include deaths from copper that didn't include formal custody like Ian 'no contact with the police at all' tomlinson. Who turned out to have had contact with the police, then the pavement.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 10, 2011)

likesfish said:


> http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings
> actually the total in 20 years is 53 21 by the met 32 by the rest of the country
> the met 2009 2010 2002 1998 1994 1991 failed to shoot anyone



6 out of 20 years aint bad. They are trying. Bless 'em.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> the the officer in charge needs an interview without coffee at the yard.
> you don't have to like or even respect the people you serve But you have to treat them with professional courtesy its not exactly fucking difficult probably wouldn't have stopped the riot but that's not the fucking point. Parents of somebody shot by the police deserve to be treated with some basic courtesy even if there is nothing useful to be able to tell them


I doubt if things would have kicked off that saturday as they did in tottenham without the shooting and the appallingly bad handling of its' aftermath by Tottenham OB - but I agree they would have kicked off, somewhere in inner city London, at some point, probably by now.


Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the gun was in his sock. The gun, is it claimed, was in _a_ sock. The sock it is inferred, off record naturally, was there to catch cartridges. The further inference being, when you join up the dots, is that Duggan was on the way to clip someone.


Except that all the stuff about the shooter in a sick did NOT come from any official IPCC briefing or statement - but from an unattributable, anonymous leak to a cultivated journo from - guess who?
Yup - tottenham OB.
You really gonna put any faith in _that_?

it's bloody depressing to see certain posters here falling for the bollocks; the police really _are_ playing you for a bunch of mugs. I've spent timde ringing round all the people I know who knew MD - on the broadwater and elsewhere in tottenhham. the near-universal consensus was that MD was NOT a gangster or a criminal; for one thing, his feisty wife wouldn't have stood for it, and he had 3 kids. he was a much-liked, decent bloke, by all accounts, who simply took no shit from OB.
dibble have fucked up, pure and simple, and are trying to smear and lie their way out of it. Pay no heed


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't agree more but as I said, I don't want Mark Duggan to have been murdered by a policeman. Like Fedayn, I'd rather he wasn't shot at all, but since he has been, I'm hoping that it was a "reasonable" engagement and am trying to add balance to the speculation.
> 
> I may turn out to be wrong, but so far I think I've made a half-decent fist of it.


sorry spy, but you're dead wrong; and all the facts established so far indicate the OB panicked, fired on MD without him even being able gto shoot on them first - and are now trying to lie the problem away


----------



## likesfish (Sep 13, 2011)

er no that's not panicking that's doing what your trained to do.
 aim of an armed arrest is too make the target give up without having too shoot.
 IF that fails shoot him before he shoots you.
 you don't get get a free shot at the police what the fuck do you think this is dueling
   Mark was armed he was challenged doing anything other than putting your hands up and doing exactly as your told gets you shot.
  carry a gun run into armed cops that's whats going to happen.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> reactivated pistols have killed other people surrender when the armed cops show up live do anything else die.
> because of the nature of gangs acquaintances will be monitored more dead wankers carrying guns always a good thing.


ffs;
1) how was mark to know they were armed?
2) where's the proof that they properly challenged him, and followed approved procedure, rather than simnply getting trigger-happy? It's a known fact that tottenham Ob are extremely cavalier about this sort of thing, and hold the lives of local young black man cheaply.
3) for the UMPTEENTH time; mark knew man dem members in the same way that _everyone_ in the area knew them, and in the same way I do; you live there (as I did) or spend enough time there (as I do), you can't help knowing them. I'm a model, law-abiding white-collar professional, and, like Mark, I have ZERO criminal record. should I be monitored?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 13, 2011)

Do you carry a gun?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> er no that's not panicking that's doing what your trained to do.
> aim of an armed arrest is too make the target give up without having too shoot.
> IF that fails shoot him before he shoots you.


and you can _prove_ that one of the most hated police forces in the country followed the rulebook and procedure to the letter? and warned him before shooting? go on, let's see the proof then



> you don't get get a free shot at the police what the fuck do you think this is dueling


ALL the independently verified information to come to late so far has indicated that Mark was physically incapablde of firing a shot, even if he wanted to - it just wasn't



> Mark was armed he was challenged doing anything other than putting your hands up and doing exactly as your told gets you shot.
> carry a gun run into armed cops that's whats going to happen


oh ffs! He was NOT carrying a gun; the IPCC have now confirmed there is NOTHING - no dabs, fabric traces, nada - connecting him to the gun found at the scene of the crime. There is NO proof he was challenged or given proper and appropriate orders, other than the word of the OB, who have been proved to have lied over this.
Why on earth are you so willing to endlessly and uncritically accept and regurgitate the police line over this? When there's so much 'previous' of them covering up their fuckups by smearing the victim (JCDM, cynthia jarrett etc)? has it occurred to you that you are falling for purest unmitigated bullsit, and that they are making a fool out of you?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Do you carry a gun?


nope, and ALL the available, verified evidence suggests Mark wasn't, and all the informal evidence from my ferreting sessions in tottenham indicates that not only was Mark NOT carrying a gun that night, but that he had never been known to carry one before, and there was widespread amazement at the suggestion. _vox pop_ I know, but it'll do for me.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 13, 2011)

Yeah. When the information is so poor and scarce... it usually comes down to what you want to believe in the end.


----------



## OneStrike (Sep 13, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah. When the information is so poor and scarce... it usually comes down to what you want to believe in the end.



Based on what we do know, there is reasonable doubt as to what actually did happen. Conflicting eye-witness statements, the police and IPCC both avoiding talking to the family, the press calling a man a gangster despite no previous.  Oh, and the leak to the press that there was a firefight resulting in a policeman being shot.  Turns out later it was his colleague that shot him, no other weapons were fired.  All in all, I think without evidence to the contrary it is a reasonable jump to believe we aren't being told the full truth.  I suppose once again, unless the police make one of their own a suspect, nobody present will be obliged to give a statement to the IPCC, unless its different for death from a gun?

  I don't expect answers within a couple of days, but just why do these investigations take so long when the police should have everything logged up to the event and recorded asap after?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 13, 2011)

Arse covering takes time.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 13, 2011)

why does one of the most modern up to date police forces in the world need time to cover their arse and get their story straight? because they are a bunch of incompetent killers. that's it really.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah. When the information is so poor and scarce... it usually comes down to what you want to believe in the end.


no it certainly doesn't! it comes down to the credibility of the source of the info, based on their record, and the verifiability of the evidence, and the hard, indisputable facts that do emerge. On all 3 counts so far, Tottenham OB look utterly shitty so far, the IPCC _slightly_ less so (fuckup rather than malice aforethought, and they acknowledged it) - and Mark looking less like a wrong'un, and more an innocent victim, with every day that passes


----------



## The Old Bird (Sep 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I don't think we know at this stage whether the police were justified in shooting him.
> 
> What we do know is that the Met's partners-in-corruption at the Sun were printing shit like this immediately after Duggan was shot.
> 
> ...



Ain't that the truth http://duchessofhackney.wordpress.c...ifying-of-mark-duggan-his-family-and-friends/


----------



## The Old Bird (Sep 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> why does one of the most modern up to date police forces in the world need time to cover their arse and get their story straight? because they are a bunch of incompetent killers. that's it really.


I hear the officers involved were not seperated and had time to confere.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no it certainly doesn't! it comes down to the credibility of the source of the info, based on their record, and the verifiability of the evidence, and the hard, indisputable facts that do emerge. On all 3 counts so far, Tottenham OB look utterly shitty so far, the IPCC _slightly_ less so (fuckup rather than malice aforethought, and they acknowledged it) - and Mark looking less like a wrong'un, and more an innocent victim, with every day that passes



So what your saying is that MD was entirely innocent, but was ambushed by police in a planned operation, who then shot him in cold blood, and planted a gun on him to justify his execution. Ok. It is not impossible that this is what happened. The Met in particular seem to like killing people. 
 However, if it wasn't a case of mistaken identity, which seems rather unlikely, given the scale of the op, the question remains, why he was targetted in the way he was, in the first place?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 14, 2011)

because he was a 'major player' according to the iwca


----------



## TopCat (Sep 14, 2011)

More likely that trident cops assume anyone in a mobile phone directory of a murdered black man is a gangster themselves.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 14, 2011)

likesfish said:


> er no that's not panicking that's doing what your trained to do.
> aim of an armed arrest is too make the target give up without having too shoot.
> IF that fails shoot him before he shoots you.
> you don't get get a free shot at the police what the fuck do you think this is dueling
> ...



Carry a chair leg and run into armed cops and that's what's going to happen. Simply be fairly swarthy and come out of a house they are watching and that's likely to happen. In both those cases the OB initially reacted by telling what they already KNEW were porkies to the press. THEY DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW HAD HAPPENED. The more we get to know about the Mark Duggan shooting the more it looks like a complete fuck up by the Met that they are attempting to lie their way out of. That's the thing that HAS to change. Of course they will screw up sometimes, everybody does, but they have to stop lying about it afterwards if we are to have any faith at all in them as a viable police force.

Otherwise it's just more fucking hypocrisy from those in authority in the UK. Demanding the rest of us


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 14, 2011)

TopCat said:


> More likely that trident cops assume anyone in a mobile phone directory of a murdered black man is a gangster themselves.


I get you. Police set out to ambush, murder, and then frame him because of the dearth in genuine black gangsters in the Tottenham neighbourhood?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 14, 2011)

There's a shortage, don't you know. It's a recession.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I get you. Police set out to ambush, murder, and then frame him because of the dearth in genuine black gangsters in the Tottenham neighbourhood?


I give up. Given your total intransigence why bother with any debate?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 14, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Carry a chair leg and run into armed cops and that's what's going to happen. Simply be fairly swarthy and come out of a house they are watching and that's likely to happen.



Absolutely. Trigger-happy. No doubt about it. Harry Stanley, Cynthia Jarret and a host of others were shot dead simply becuase they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were unlawfully killed, and police did lie about it. Of course they did. That's what the police do. Like the unfortunate Brazilian mistaken for a suicide bomber, they were usually mistaken for someone else. In the case of Harry Stanley, they believed he was, according to reports, Irish and carrying a shotgun - ergo an IRA man.

Where the Duggan case differs in crucial respects is that _he_ was known to police, and _he_ was the one being targetted.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 14, 2011)

To be fair, no one has a clue what happened that night... or what kind of guy Duggan was. All debate on the subject is gonna require some intransigence.... otherwise we wouldn't be able to fight about it!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry spy, but you're dead wrong; and all the facts established so far indicate the OB panicked, fired on MD without him even being able gto shoot on them first - and are now trying to lie the problem away



Why? What are all these "facts established so far"? I haven't been around for a couple of weeks, have I missed something new?

As far as them firing at him "before he's able to shoot first", well that's what they're supposed to do!

And what are they lying about now? You started this saying that they were lying to the press, deliberately trying to spread misinformation. Turns out you were wrong about that according to the IPCC.

Do you have new info, or is this a rehash of your previous position?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 15, 2011)

as I said the police in the last 20 years in the UK have shot and killed 53 people.
 thats not very many really considering numbers of coppers armed operations etc etc


----------



## sihhi (Sep 15, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Absolutely. Trigger-happy. No doubt about it. Harry Stanley, Cynthia Jarret and a host of others were shot dead simply becuase they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were unlawfully killed, and police did lie about it. Of course they did. That's what the police do. Like the unfortunate Brazilian mistaken for a suicide bomber, they were usually mistaken for someone else. In the case of Harry Stanley, they believed he was, according to reports, Irish and carrying a shotgun - ergo an IRA man.
> 
> Where the Duggan case differs in crucial respects is that _he_ was known to police, and _he_ was the one being targetted.



1. Cynthia Jarrett was not shot dead, she had a heart attack under robust policing by police eager to deal with renegades who had stolen a car. Gang and 'organised' 'criminal' activity from people who happen to live in Broadwater Farm has existed ever since the recession of the 1970s.

2. The system in Hakcney and Tottenham has allowed the gangs to flourish by police being so undemocratic, by not explaining the motives of their actions and by the state's inability to protect those who testify against gangsters. Police in Hackney often adopted the supergrass approach. For a long while in the 1990s, Stoke Newington police themselves sold drugs. I've been threatened with arrest on three different occasions for being near and asking questions about arrests taking place. I was once told you'll find out about it afterwards. Nothing. In the papers or anywhere else.

In Edmonton where a youth gang member wanted to 'leave' 'a gang' because of what the elders were up to, some masked people threw stones at the windows of his third floor estate home. That's the rumour from a neighbour a year ago. According to the neighbour, no one was caught, nothing happened. Usually the young are kept away from any information that can incriminate elders. How do you fight against it.

Will the situation 'improve' if there are x more police officers on the streets of London? No. How can it? Police officers have to follow orders from above - that means protecting politicians, escort service for strikebreakers, arresting people in sit-down protests, raiding electricity-tappers, going after the small instead of the big. Hence no honourable people can ever think of becoming policemen.

3. In a country where the biggest criminals are in Whitehall and the Home Counties, where no action is taken against those rich people, that people want to emulate rich people should be expected.

4. It's still too early to discuss anything about the details of the evening of Duggan's murder.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 16, 2011)

There's been a lack of witnesses giving their view of what happened in the media. I'm not sure that's because there weren't many people who saw what happened, the IPCC have certainly asked for more witnesses, or I wonder if given everything happening afterwards if there has been pressure on the media to not report what has been seen. I can only find one report from an eyewitness that suggests he was shot in the chest whilst laying at gunpoint on his back. The taxi driver has been noticeably absent from media reports too.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> why does one of the most modern up to date police forces in the world need time to cover their arse and get their story straight? because they are a bunch of incompetent killers. that's it really.



I think I'd rather have incompetent killers than competent ones...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> I can only find one report from an eyewitness that suggests he was shot in the chest whilst laying at gunpoint on his back. The taxi driver has been noticeably absent from media reports too.



Well quite. The "execution" theory (that he was lying on his back, posing no threat, and shot in the chest) is almost certainly malicious bollocks as nobody has supported this one "witness".  There's been a distinct lack of evidence to support either position since the IPCC statements after the incident.

Jez seems to be reading this as the OB lying/hiding something, but in fact it no more supports his position than that of the police.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 16, 2011)

that eye witness was bollocks much like the bloke jumping the barriers in the de menzies case.
 a bloke did jump the barriers and leg it down to the platform but it was on of the cops
   We shall wait and see I doubt the investigation will change any minds though


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2011)

Great vid, includes footage from the community meetings in Tottenham and interviews with some of those who are active in the Tottenham defence campaign.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Great vid, includes footage from the community meetings in Tottenham and interviews with some of those who are active in the Tottenham defence campaign.




I stopped watching that after 2 minutes and 3 assertions that the police lied about the shooting, despite the very next section being an IPCC spokeswoman explaining that Duggan hadn't fired.

Loaded bollocks, but I'm sure it'll go down well here.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped watching that after 2 minutes and 3 assertions that the police lied about the shooting...



But haven't the police and IPCC been shown to have lied already?  What happened to him firing first?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 18, 2011)

A lie is when someone knows the truth but says different. You have no real reason to assume that those initial statements were lies.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 18, 2011)

wasn't exactly lie but say two shot injured one bloke dead one copper going to hospital saved by his police radio and leave the journos to fill in the blanks


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> But haven't the police and IPCC been shown to have lied already?



No. This has been discussed at length on this thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

you know what a lie by omission is?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you know what a lie by omission is?



Yep. And this wasn't that either.

Read the thread again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

So thats a no then.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

No. That's a "read the thread again".


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

I have. Many times while you were yet another enforced holiday. In thailand.

The point about lies by omission is that they are entirely deniable after the fact. As they rely on the other party to draw conclusions from incomplete statements. Then 'sorry guv, I didn't intend to mislead'. As opposed to a bare faced lie like 'mr tomlinson had no contact with the police prior to his death'.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Then you don't understand what a lie by omission is.

To lie by omission, you intentionally fail to give information, the absence of which would cause someone to reach a conclusion that you seek.

That hasn't happened here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 18, 2011)

I think you'd have to work pretty hard, as Spymaster has, to avoid the conclusion that the police, in collusion with their friends in the press, have a persistent habit of leaking untruths, often to the point of smearing anyone they kill, in order to establish themselves as totally justified in killing whoever it was before any of the detail comes out that might show they weren't.

A willing mind can probably make a technical case that this practice isn't 'lying' as such, but ... pretty obviously it's a repellent and dishonest practice that has done a huge amount of harm to the reputation of the police.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

'oh did we not say that the bullet in the radio was a police bullet? how remiss of us. Mistakes were made'


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 'oh did we not say that the bullet in the radio was a police bullet? how remiss of us. Mistakes were made'



Totally mendacious in this case. 

No official statement was ever made by the police that Duggan fired, and as soon as it became clear that he hadn't, the IPCC said so.

But carry on ignoring that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

nevertheless, the press were given facts that allowed them to draw a completely false story. Hide behind 'official' all you like.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Totally mendacious in this case.
> 
> No *official* statement was ever made by the police that Duggan fired, and as soon as it became clear that he hadn't, the IPCC said so.
> 
> But carry on ignoring that.



I'm sure the Met have totally clean hands when it comes to their dealings with the press.  I mean the very suggestion that they might have underhand dealings with such an august journal as The Sun is unthinkable.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> nevertheless, the press were given facts that allowed them to draw a completely false story. Hide behind 'official' all you like.



But by whom and how we don't know. So given the impossibility that this "lie" would not be uncovered, the far far more reasonable conclusion is that some copper, unaware of the facts shortly after the shooting, told some press bloke that a copper had been shot and Duggan had been killed subsequently. This was true. Given that the police aren't in the habit of shooting themselves he may easily have erroneously thOught that Mark HAD shot the copper, and said so. The press did the rest.

Either way confusion, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, is more likely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

Only if you have a touching faith in the unswerving honesty of the metropolitan police. Which you do, despite all evidence to the contrary.

and you've just shown that it was a lie by omission, you just don't want to believe that the brave men of the beat would do such a thing


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> nevertheless, the press were given facts that allowed them to draw a completely false story. Hide behind 'official' all you like.



So should there be press silence until all facts are available?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Only if you have a touching faith in the unswerving honesty of the metropolitan police. Which you do, despite all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> and you've just shown that it was a lie by omission, you just don't want to believe that the brave men of the beat would do such a thing



Are you stoned? 

For it to be a lie by omission, the person making the omission would have to know that he was doing so. What I've shown is a plausible circumstance in which he wouldn't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

I've not said that now have I. Nice try though. I'm pointing out that selective facts were leaked to the press, remember them, the ones engaged in the 'dark arts' of bribing coppers and tapping phones for the last ten years with impunity, and a line that suited the met came out first- in an uncanny repetition of how the met muddied waters after tomlinson and after de menezes. Deliberate naivety is so transparent lads


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Are you stoned?
> 
> For it to be a lie by omission, the person making the omission would have to know that he was doing so. What I've shown is a plausible circumstance in which he wouldn't.


 
Yes. Thats the fucking point about a lie by omission, you do it because it is plausibly deniable after the fact. Given the Mets record though, well you'd have to be a fool to think it was your fantasy land 'mistakes were made' confusion.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I've not said that now have I. Nice try though.



Said what?



> I'm pointing out that selective facts were leaked to the press .... and a line that suited the met came out first .....



The line that came out first would only have suited the met had it been true. It doesn't work as a lie.

You are suggesting that the Met, in the full and certain knowledge that they would be exposed as liars the second the radio and Duggan's weapon had been examined, chose still to collude and attempt a deception that was _absolutely guaranteed_ to fail.

That makes no sense.

What is far more likely is that someone without full knowledge of the incident, drew conclusions based on a) a shot copper, and b) a shot Duggan, maybe c) a non-police firearm recovered, put 2 and 2 together, came up with 5, and gobbed-off to the press.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

that wasn't in response to you- but yes, I am. Full and certain knowledge of a lie being exposed is not an issue for them. Especially, and lets say it a third time for the hard of understanding, a lie by omission is completely deniable. You yourself have constructed the grounds for denial.

the matter of it's exposure is not an issue. It is deniable but the work has been done. Duggan the trigger happy gangster is the first report in the tabloids. Hack job patels pathology report comes first. etc etc.

You've been royally shown up before on the matter of swallowing police stories whole so I'll have to leave you to it


----------



## two sheds (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped watching that after 2 minutes



You should have watched it for longer, they had eye witnesses giving a much more persuasive case for the reasons behind the riots than I've heard from any politician.



> and 3 assertions that the police lied about the shooting, despite the very next section being an IPCC spokeswoman explaining that Duggan hadn't fired.



Yes, but they didn't accuse the IPCC spokeswomen of lying, they accused the police of lying. Whether they did or not is as yet unclear, and I can quite imagine Duggan's friends not believing the police accounts (as I say, you should have watched the rest of the video, it gives accounts of some of the police behaviour in the area).

Not enough reason for rejecting out of hand the evidence given in the video I'm afraid Spymaster (and assuming that they were indeed eyewitnesses, although even if they were I doubt they will be interviewed by anyone investigating the riots).


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

I don't think we've much more to say to each other on this, Dot.

They could easily have said that Duggan pulled the weapon and was shot before he discharged it, if the plan was to smear him and they knew he hadn't fired. Same headlines, better prospects. You want to believe that the police have deliberately colluded to knowingly drop themselves in the shit.

I think that if they'd intended to lie, they'd have done it better.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Not enough reason for rejecting out of hand the evidence given in the video I'm afraid Spymaster (and assuming that they were indeed eyewitnesses, although even if they were I doubt they will be interviewed by anyone investigating the riots).



Fair enough, I'll watch it through.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

They aren't good liars. They don't have to be. The purpose of the lie is not to stand up to scrutiny but to establish the narrative ahead of facts, in collusion with their friends in the press


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Said what?
> 
> The line that came out first would only have suited the met had it been true. It doesn't work as a lie.
> 
> ...



Yes it does. The tactic is known as 'get your propaganda in first'. It stymies or colours the original debate. Its a standard ploy.  Government use it all the time. Think of the Belgrano, the SAS executions in Gibraltar for example, or when Sean Downes was shot dead at point blank range, in a clash between RUC and Irish Republicans, which I remember because I was there. The original stories were that the Belgrano was sailing _toward_ the Brit fleet, IRA unit killed in _'a gun battle' _and that Downes, as the BBC News duly reported, had been '_accidentally killed by a ricochet'_. Sound familiar?

By the time the fog of war has cleared, research has shown that a large percentage of the public will still retain belief in the original story. (Hillsborough is a good example of this, with Cabinet Minister Jeremy Hunt repeating the police/Sun lie (that hooligans were at fault) only the other month.)
In the meantime it allows the offending side to regroup. Which is exactly what is happening in the Duggan case.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> The purpose of the lie is not to stand up to scrutiny but to establish the narrative ahead of facts, in collusion with their friends in the press



You'd have thought that with all this "lying" they do they'd be better at it. If their aim was as you state, they've been singularly unsuccessful, as all of the reportage since the IPCC statement has been about Duggan NOT shooting.

Ridiculous "lies" that can only harm the police; a far more straightforward solution if the intent is to smear him, and an almost immediate retraction from the IPCC.

The available information just doesn't stack up the way you want it too I'm afraid.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Which is exactly what is happening in the Duggan case.



Except it's not is it?

The IPCC scotched the original story (that he fired) after just 2 or 3 days, iirc, and Duggan has not been smeared by the reports.

Quite the reverse.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Except it's not is it?
> 
> The IPCC scotched the original story (that he fired) after just 2 or 3 days, iirc, and Duggan has not been smeared by the reports.
> 
> Quite the reverse.



Not smeared? Who kindly linked him to Dessie Noonan then? His family?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

I meant "not smeared" by the initial report that he shot the copper.

If this was their tactic it failed spectacularly, it was always doomed to do so, and a 5 year old could have done it better.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> You'd have thought that with all this "lying" they do they'd be better at it. If their aim was as you state, they've been singularly unsuccessful, as all of the reportage since the IPCC statement has been about Duggan NOT shooting.
> 
> Ridiculous "lies" that can only harm the police; a far more straightforward solution if the intent is to smear him, and an almost immediate retraction from the IPCC.
> 
> The available information just doesn't stack up the way you want it too I'm afraid.


 
harm them how? As in show them up as incompetent liars? A ship well and truly sailed. You yourself are prime example. Untill the video evidence came forth you were happy with the met line on tomlinson- and you follow stories beyond just hearing the initial reportage and filing it away as truth. Many don't. Almost immediate was not immediate enough to stop the initial story being circulated and swallowed. These aren't lies intended to actually fool in the long run, you must know that. As Reilly said, it's getting your propaganda in first. And this isn't the first time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped watching that after 2 minutes and 3 assertions that the police lied about the shooting, despite the very next section being an IPCC spokeswoman explaining that Duggan hadn't fired.
> 
> Loaded bollocks, but I'm sure it'll go down well here.



Interesting, have you stopped reading newspaper articles and watching the TV news because it is biased in some way too? 

Shame you couldn't bring yourself to watch a little more/if not all and get a greater perspective about how this has affected the people of Tottenham and what life was like for them before and after the shooting of Mark Duggan.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You yourself are prime example. Untill the video evidence came forth you were happy with the met line on tomlinson- and you follow stories beyond just hearing the initial reportage and filing it away as truth.



As I recall, my line on Tomlinson (before I saw the the video) was that it was too soon to say that he was "murdered", or that the police were lying, as you lot were. A position that I changed as soon as I saw the evidence.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Shame you couldn't bring yourself to watch a little more/if not all and get a greater perspective about how this has affected the people of Tottenham and what life was like for them before and after the shooting of Mark Duggan.



I'll watch it after Spooks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped watching that after 2 minutes and 3 assertions that the police lied about the shooting, despite the very next section being an IPCC spokeswoman explaining that Duggan hadn't fired.
> 
> Loaded bollocks, but I'm sure it'll go down well here.


yeh because you have the ability to determine what 24 minutes you haven't seen contains. get over yourself.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh because you have the ability to determine what 24 minutes you haven't seen contains. get over yourself.



You're a bit late, Pickers, you old donger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> You're a bit late, Pickers, you old donger.


you've not watched it but you've felt well able to comment on the whole. how adult.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you've not watched it but you've felt well able to comment on the whole.



The initial tone irritated me a bit but yes, it was a mistake to reject it immediately. I'll watch it now, as I decided to do up there ^^^.

Like I said, you're a bit late.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So should there be press silence until all facts are available?



?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 19, 2011)

They will never release all the facts promptly. It's all about delays then assertions that it's not in the public interest or in the interests of justice to prosecute the police given the delays.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

After having reviewed all the material i have come to the conclusion that the police had no option to but to have one of theirs (someone either who would either not be hauled over the coals for it, or alternatively someone easily disposable if required) informally tell the IPCC that Duggan had opened fire on them, and the IPCC themselves had no other option but to then informally pass this onto the media. To have done anything else would have harmed themselves - and as kizmet has already handily established for us, no one would ever take such a course of action. Would they?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 19, 2011)

Is there a link to this documentary? Cant see one.

cheers


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> They will never release all the facts promptly. It's all about delays then assertions that it's not in the public interest or in the interests of justice to prosecute the police given the delays.



In some cases that's undoubtedly true. But it's not what I asked....


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> After having reviewed all the material i have come to the conclusion that the police had no option to but to have one of theirs (someone either who would either not be hauled over the coals for it, or alternatively someone easily disposable if required) informally tell the IPCC that Duggan had opened fire on them, and the IPCC themselves had no other option but to then informally pass this onto the media. To have done anything else would have harmed themselves - and as kizmet has already handily established for us, no one would ever take such a course of action. Would they?



It's not massively different to the conclusion I've come to... except of course, I don't have to invent massive unworkable conspiracy theories to explain why.

Individuals trying to cover their arses.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> In some cases that's undoubtedly true. But it's not what I asked....


no there should not be press silence. Justice will not be served if so.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

How is justice served by giving the press advanced and often incorrect information?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> How is justice served by giving the press advanced and often incorrect information?


It's not, who said it was?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

Didn't you just suggest that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Didn't you just suggest that?



No he didn't.  Saw your mistake earlier today but didn't have time to correct you.

Where is Spymaster? I wonder how life is for him now he has had to give up all print/TV/radio/internet media/news because of bias...Sucks eh?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 19, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> No he didn't.  Saw your mistake earlier today but didn't have time to correct you.



I asked if the press should be silenced until all the facts (within reason) are available... he said no, because justice would not be served.

So it seems that's what he did say.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2011)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Where is Spymaster? I wonder how life is for him now he has had to give up all print/TV/radio/internet media/news because of bias...Sucks eh?



I'm here. Been away for a month.

Why, what's happened?

As far as I'm aware my theory is still the most plausible to the unbiased.

Butcher's conclusion at #364 just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I'm here. Been away for a month.
> 
> Why, what's happened?
> 
> ...



It's not a conclusion, it's irony.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2011)

Oh ....


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 18, 2011)

The front page of tommorows Guardian say's he wasn't armed.  Suprise suprise.

(according to twitter)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 18, 2011)

Same old, same old. Fuck the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/mark-duggan-ipcc-investigation-riots?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## newbie (Nov 18, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> The front page of tommorows Guardian say's he wasn't armed. Suprise suprise.
> 
> (according to twitter)


that's not quite what it says

"The investigation into the death of Mark Duggan has found no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead by police on 4 August, the Guardian has learned.
A gun collected by Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14 feet away, on the other side of a low fence from his body. He was killed outside the vehicle he was travelling in, after a police marksman fired twice."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/mark-duggan-ipcc-investigation-riots


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 18, 2011)

From the linked article in the first post on the thread:


> The IPCC said Duggan was carrying a loaded gun


"Carrying a loaded gun", apparently, in the sense of "a gun was found without his fingerprints over a fence in a box".


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 18, 2011)

"A gun was planted" by a bunch of corrupt cunts.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 18, 2011)

Just in time for christmas shopping


----------



## miss giggles (Nov 18, 2011)

hmmm, my friend used to go out with him, and hang out with some of the elders from the horrific gang he was part of. He always carried a gun, in fact, he was absolutely obsessed with them. He was so obsessed with them he shot half his left foot off with his own gun, and still carried one. Just sayin like...


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 18, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> hmmm, my friend used to go out with him, and hang out with some of the elders from the horrific gang he was part of. He always carried a gun, in fact, he was absolutely obsessed with them. He was so obsessed with them he shot half his left foot off with his own gun, and still carried one. Just sayin like...





newbie said:


> that's not quite what it says
> 
> "The investigation into the death of Mark Duggan has found no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead by police on 4 August, the Guardian has learned.
> A gun collected by Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14 feet away, on the other side of a low fence from his body. He was killed outside the vehicle he was travelling in, after a police marksman fired twice."
> ...


TBF it looks like though he may well have been on his way to collect the gun in the box that he didn't actually have it on him. Being a dodgy bastard still isn't a capital offence in the UK afaik.


----------



## miss giggles (Nov 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> TBF it looks like though he may well have been on his way to collect the gun in the box that he didn't actually have it on him. Being a dodgy bastard still isn't a capital offence in the UK afaik.



no, to be fair it isn't. However, there is a world of difference between 'being dodgy' and terrorising your own community whilst making ludicros sums of money from doing so. This is one of the rare occassions where I do actually sympathise with the police. They were disrespectful to his family, they shouldn't have been treated the way they were. I think anyone close to the situation felt justified anger about that, and for me at least, I'd like to see more investigation into that. As for him, well, it's never a nice thing to see a young man taken out like that, but if you really knew what he was about, and you were that policeman, what would you do?


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 18, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> no, to be fair it isn't. However, there is a world of difference between 'being dodgy' and terrorising your own community whilst making ludicros sums of money from doing so. This is one of the rare occassions where I do actually sympathise with the police. They were disrespectful to his family, they shouldn't have been treated the way they were. I think anyone close to the situation felt justified anger about that, and for me at least, I'd like to see more investigation into that. As for him, well, it's never a nice thing to see a young man taken out like that, but if you really knew what he was about, and you were that policeman, what would you do?


Arrest him when I thought he had drugs or weapons on him, like they are meant to?


----------



## agricola (Nov 18, 2011)

newbie said:


> that's not quite what it says
> 
> "The investigation into the death of Mark Duggan has found no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead by police on 4 August, the Guardian has learned.
> A gun collected by Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14 feet away, on the other side of a low fence from his body. He was killed outside the vehicle he was travelling in, after a police marksman fired twice."
> ...



Its an awfully misleading headline, given the content of the article which follows it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Arrest him when I thought he had drugs or weapons on him, like they are meant to?



But if they wait for him to kill someone they can send him to prison for longer. That's what protecting the public is all about.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 18, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> hmmm, my friend used to go out with him, and hang out with some of the elders from the horrific gang he was part of. He always carried a gun, in fact, he was absolutely obsessed with them. He was so obsessed with them he shot half his left foot off with his own gun, and still carried one. Just sayin like...



Carried them openly?  If he was no threat to the police they had no right to kill him, yes i am biased against the cops.  Experience taught me that.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 18, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> But if they wait for him to kill someone they can send him to prison for longer. That's what protecting the public is all about.


TBF chances are in jail the only thing he would miss is pussy. I know people who have come out of jail far richer than when they went in.

That's not the point though, and this incident amongst others just go to prove that in most large cities the police are just another gang, albeit with more closely matching uniforms.


----------



## miss giggles (Nov 18, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Carried them openly? If he was no threat to the police they had no right to kill him, yes i am biased against the cops. Experience taught me that.



and I'm biased against gun carrying gang members, working with young people on Broadwater farm taught me that.

A disproportionate number of young black men die in police custody, it's unacceptable. However, holding up Mark Duggan as an example of police brutality or rascism is the wrong way to go, his case is far more complex than that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

old bill shot him dead then arranged a fit up job to cover their arses. I don't care if he's mugabe level evil, you just don't do that. You cry into your tea about gang violence and bad people all you like but don't fucking expect anyone to justify police actions like this. Mug. 'oh he was a bad man anyway'. What the fuck is wrong with you.


----------



## Giles (Nov 19, 2011)

He was probably looking at officers in a funny way, while listening to some of that dodgy rap music.

Like wearing a big coat in warm weather, or not, while looking a bit foreign, and not jumping the barriers and not running away at all,  or walking down the street with a glued-together table leg in a bag, he was asking for it.

Whatever the eventual truth of this, when will the cops realise that going for this blatant start-with-total-bullshit and then gradually be forced to admit the truth strategy isn't going to work, or do them any favours?

Yes, their bullshit "spin" makes them look better in the short term, but later makes them look ten times worse than if they told it straight from the off. He shot a policeman, oh hang on, another policeman shot a policeman, he fired a gun, oh no, but he had a gun, or was it a replica gun, oh, maybe he didn't......


----------



## newbie (Nov 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its an awfully misleading headline, given the content of the article which follows it.


that's right, and in the circumstances of this particular story, already rife with allegations of 'misleading', you'd think responsible journalists would try a bit harder.


----------



## newbie (Nov 19, 2011)

I've just been to the shop- I hadn't realised they'd splashed it as their main headline.  None of the other papers I saw had that story anything like so prominent.


----------



## Serotonin (Nov 19, 2011)

Giles said:


> Yes, their bullshit "spin" makes them look better in the short term, but later makes them look ten times worse than if they told it straight from the off. He shot a policeman, oh hang on, another policeman shot a policeman, he fired a gun, oh no, but he had a gun, or was it a replica gun, oh, maybe he didn't......



Actually its a very effective way of controlling what people believe. Heres a really good article about this exact phenomenom

http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-doesnt-sink-in/


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 19, 2011)

Giles said:


> He was probably looking at officers in a funny way, while listening to some of that dodgy rap music.
> 
> Like wearing a big coat in warm weather, or not, while looking a bit foreign, and not jumping the barriers and not running away at all, or walking down the street with a glued-together table leg in a bag, he was asking for it.
> 
> ...


...'rap music', lol.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 19, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> and I'm biased against gun carrying gang members, working with young people on Broadwater farm taught me that.
> 
> A disproportionate number of young black men die in police custody, it's unacceptable. However, holding up Mark Duggan as an example of police brutality or rascism is the wrong way to go, his case is far more complex than that.



Also found traces of ecstasy in his blood. A gangsta coming down off E with a gun in a box and a load of gun-toting cops on his tail. It was never going to have a happy ending.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> and I'm biased against gun carrying gang members, working with young people on Broadwater farm taught me that.
> 
> A disproportionate number of young black men die in police custody, it's unacceptable. However, holding up Mark Duggan as an example of police brutality or rascism is the wrong way to go, his case is far more complex than that.



We're all equal before the law, we should all receive the same quality (or lack of it) of treatment by the police. That someone is a known shitcunt doesn't change that, nor does the complexity of their back-story. As long as people keep making these special pleadings or making excuses for the police, we'll continue to have a culture within the police that believes it can get away with almost anything, as long as they "stage-manage" events properly. They need to learn that this isn't 1930s America, that urban areas aren't the equivalent of the Biograph theater, and that criminals can't be shot down as if they were John Dillinger.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> ...'rap music', lol.


 
Giles has heard those youngsters playing it at their discotheques


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2011)

What a load of bollocks of an article.

It does it's best to be controversial with the headline and then goes on to say that 'he actually *was* armed but seems to have lobbed the piece over a fence before he got popped ..... and by the way he was pilled-up too!'.

Disregard the misleading ACAB headline and a fair bit of that piece _bolsters_ the case for shooting him!

It even correctly states that OB are likely to face no action if they genuinely believed he was a threat. If they didn't see him dump the gun and know for certain he collected one (which the article makes clear) there's every reason to believe he's a threat. Even if they saw him chuck a box over a fence they wouldn't have known what was in it, or that he'd disarmed himself.

"Gang member who carries guns gets shot by police after collecting illegal firearm".

Forgive me for not giving a fuck.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 19, 2011)

So, to summarise, an anonymous person on the internet claims incriminating personal knowledge (at second remove) of man killed at hands of police, but mentions it only months after said man's death, at a time when the initial police/media/IPCC narrative has significantly unravelled.

In other accidental death news, coke-addled Brazilian rapist suffers seven bizarre brain haemorrhages onboard tube train; alcoholic Millwall fan collapses dead under weight of own inadequacies in the shadows of London's historic city; swarthy Irishman sprouts fatal body leaks whilst drunkenly wielding dangerous woodworking project. Police rule out foul play.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 19, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Arrest him when I thought he had drugs or weapons on him, like they are meant to?



No, you fucking bleeding heart - summary execution is what's needed.  Shoot the cunt first.  Ask questions later.  Then lie in your answers.  What's wrong with you?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2011)

Some far less biased reporting of exactly the same news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gun-found-near-mark-duggans-body-6264701.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

I fucking hate the independant. It's always bollocking me or trying to shit me up. The gaurdian is always reminding me why I hate fabians but at least it doesn't try to guilt trip me for existing. Well it does, but in slightly less hectoring tones.

anyway- can you cut and paste the relevant paragraph so I don't have to hurt my eyes on their website


----------



## likesfish (Nov 19, 2011)

seems a slightly botched op.
 police managed a circular ambush you tend to not have your own people in the firing line.
 Mark Duggan did something rather than obviously surrender thats going to get you shot.
  Panicked shock at being confronted or anger facing an armed copper whos been briefed your armed any of those reaction will get you shot


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2011)

likesfish said:


> police managed a circular ambush you tend to not have your own people in the firing line.



Ricochet apparently.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 19, 2011)

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_191111_metduggan.aspx


----------



## agricola (Nov 19, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_191111_metduggan.aspx



They are not wrong, even if they only went by what was actually in the Guardian article under that headline.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Ricochet apparently.



of course it was


----------



## TopCat (Nov 20, 2011)

The IPCC are a bag 'o shite.


----------



## agricola (Nov 20, 2011)

Two of the three members of the CAG assisting the IPCC investigation have resigned:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/20/investigation-mark-duggan-tainted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/20/mark-duggan-shooting-watchdog-panel


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> Two of the three members of the CAG assisting the IPCC investigation have resigned:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/20/investigation-mark-duggan-tainted
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/20/mark-duggan-shooting-watchdog-panel



Thanks for that Agricola, its all very illuminating, and people can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 22, 2011)

Can I conclude that the taxi was moved to put it, and Duggan, closer to the found gun?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2011)

Mistakes have been made. Lessons will be learned. I've got enough bad apples to brew up a lakeful of frosty Jacks. etc etc


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Ricochet apparently.



Like the one that killed Carlo Giuliani I suppose.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Can I conclude that the taxi was moved to put it, and Duggan, closer to the found gun?



Sounds vaguely plausible. In any case it would be unwise to discount any theory based on the assumption that there is an ethical line somewhere that the met police are not willing to cross. I don't know why they bother fudging the facts like this every time, even when the true facts come out together with cast iron proof that the pigs lied to cover their arses they still don't get in any trouble. Force of habit I suppose.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2011)

miss giggles said:


> As for him, well, it's never a nice thing to see a young man taken out like that, but if you really knew what he was about, and you were that policeman, what would you do?



Have delusions of being Judge Dredd and summarily execute him on the spot?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 25, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Have delusions of being Judge Dredd and summarily execute him on the spot?


      Supposedly the armed police  are highly trained and can make the split second judgement call to shoot or not shoot.
Unless Mark Druggan wanted death by cop there is no way he should have been killed.A converted replica pistol with one round vrs a whole load of armed cops!I do not believe he could take enough drugs to think he could fight his way out.
      Either one of them fucked up pulling the trigger when they shouldn't have.Or thought there was a threat when there wasn't one.
I'd hate to think a cop went out with the deliberate intent to kill.No idea if you can prove criminal charges ,but,at the least whoever pulled the trigger needs to be off the fire arm squad.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 25, 2011)

Doesn't work like that stopping a Suspected armed suspect is high stress high danger situation for all concerned.
 The armed squad were told they were off to intercept an armed suspect who was off to shoot somebody  (so a high threat situation)
  Mark Duggan gets challanged does anything other than immediatly surrender or makes any movement that can be mistaken for going for a weapon.
 He's going to get shot.
  Most people don't get trained in what to do if faced by armed cops he panics or is bolshy/bravado or doesn't hear the challenge taxi has the music on full tilt he's on the phone etc etc he gets shot.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 25, 2011)

Unless he had a gun or something that looked like a gun in his hand.No real excuses.Their supposed to be the highly trained experts after all at this sort of stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820

once again the evidence is stacking up against OB and against their apologists on this thread- same as with tomlinson, same as de menezes...mugs


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 13, 2011)

Worth quoting this bit...




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> When questioned, Mr Sparrow agreed there were no fingerprints, DNA or blood relating to Mr Duggan on the non-police firearm found at the scene.
> 
> The court was told that a gun initially linked to Mr Duggan was actually found 14ft (4m) away from the crime scene in Ferry Lane, and on the other side of a fence.
> 
> ...



Surely not a fit up!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

i've been calling fit up since the start- note again how bad a fit up job it is. Thats the contempt they hold us in, they don't even bother to make it convincing...


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2011)

isn't that the reason it was in a sock to avoid the "FEDS" being able to get dna/finger prints off the gun.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> isn't that the reason it was in a sock to avoid the "FEDS" being able to get dna/finger prints off the gun.



I dunno, one thing another I tend to leave a fair bit of DNA on my socks...


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2011)

well if I was going to get a gun for something dodgy I might just spring for some new ones from primark
mind you if you don't then you deserve all you get

or possibly steal someone elses used socks


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820
> 
> once again the evidence is stacking up against OB ....



No it isn't. There's nothing new here. The gun was thrown away by a copper. Why? Was he moving it away from the body? It's not as if 14ft is a huge distance, a flick of the wrist to place the gun out of reach of Duggan would easily send it 14ft. And how high is this fence? Are we talking 6ft or a small, knee-high picket jobbie?

So far there's no suggestion that it was planted. Nothing here for you to be getting excited about at all, Dotski!


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 13, 2011)

All very well except...



			
				bbc said:
			
		

> *The court was told that a gun initially linked to Mr Duggan* was actually found 14ft (4m) away from the crime scene in Ferry Lane, and on the other side of a fence.



So, how and who by was the 'gun initially linked to Mr Duggan'? This of course on top of the other 'initial' police claims that Mr Duggan had shot first which also turned out to be untrue.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 13, 2011)

It fuckin' stank from the start, & it still fuckin' stinks.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 13, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> No it isn't. There's nothing new here. The gun was thrown away by a copper. Why? Was he moving it away from the body? It's not as if 14ft is a huge distance, a flick of the wrist to place the gun out of reach of Duggan would easily send it 14ft. And how high is this fence? Are we talking 6ft or a small, knee-high picket jobbie?
> 
> So far there's no suggestion that it was planted. Nothing here for you to be getting excited about at all, Dotski!



are you fucking serious, a gun with nothing to connect it to the person the cops claimed was in possesion of it, is found 14 ft away over a fence?

the only argument that this wasn't a plant would seem to be that no one in their right minds would do such a poor cop of planting a gun.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2011)

stephj said:


> A
> So, how and who by was the 'gun initially linked to Mr Duggan'?



Well that's just reportage. "Initially linked" does not mean "no longer linked".



> On top of the other 'initial' claims that Mr Duggan had shot first which also turned out to be untrue.



We dealt with this way back in the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2011)

revol68 said:


> the only argument that this wasn't a plant would seem to be that no one in their right minds would do such a poor cop of planting a gun.



Which on it's own is an argument with considerable merit.


----------



## spliff (Dec 13, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> We dealt with this way back in the thread.


Yes and now were dealing with more information about disinformation.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2011)

spliff said:


> Yes and now were dealing with more information about disinformation.



No we're not. We've known for a while that the gun was found away from the body. It's only come up again because it was confirmed at the hearing.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Doesn't work like that stopping a Suspected armed suspect is high stress high danger situation for all concerned.
> The armed squad were told they were off to intercept an armed suspect who was off to shoot somebody (so a high threat situation)
> Mark Duggan gets challanged does anything other than immediatly surrender or makes any movement that can be mistaken for going for a weapon.
> He's going to get shot.
> Most people don't get trained in what to do if faced by armed cops he panics or is bolshy/bravado or doesn't hear the challenge taxi has the music on full tilt he's on the phone etc etc he gets shot.



Apparently he tweeted to his missus that the 'feds' were tracking him. He even i.d. the make and colour of _the _surveillance car. This suggests he was aware of police and was reasonably relaxed about it. On the other hand, as we now know, there were more than one car involved.  It was reported that over 30 police were in attendance. In the circumstances it is highly unlikely he panicked or acted bolshy.

Looking at the event from start to finish is does not resemble many mainland shootings - however there are a number of similarities to what was called the 'shoot to kill' policy (the accusation being the preference for execution tather than arrest) operated by the State against republicans/nationalists in the Six Counties in the 1980's.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2011)

republicans/nationalists in the Six Counties in the 1980's.
who declared war on the Britsh state but started crying foul when treated like combatants

maybe he made a move to look cool like pulling his phone that could be misinterpreted
maybe the cops fucked up.
  this isn't a De menzes case this is a "player" getting killed


----------



## bignose1 (Dec 13, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> I dunno, one thing another I tend to leave a fair bit of DNA on my socks...


And the curtains


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

revol68 said:


> are you fucking serious, a gun with nothing to connect it to the person the cops claimed was in possesion of it, is found 14 ft away over a fence?
> 
> the only argument that this wasn't a plant would seem to be that no one in their right minds would do such a poor cop of planting a gun.



so we did. The ipcc passed on hokum. Which was shown up by ballistics. And now we have a flying gun untouched by the bodily evidence that would link it to Duggan. Once again it looks like you've gone for the wrong horse, as you did with tomlinson and de menezes. Those bad apples causing isolated incidents eh

that was for spymaster but somehow I quoted you revol. ffs.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2011)

if it was a throwdown it would have been in his hand with smudged fingerprints job done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2011)

likesfish said:


> republicans/nationalists in the Six Counties in the 1980's.
> who declared war on the Britsh state but started crying foul when treated like combatants
> 
> maybe he made a move to look cool like pulling his phone that could be misinterpreted
> ...


So you're saying all nationalists / republicans killed by the crown forces were fair game.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2011)

revol68 said:


> are you fucking serious, a gun with nothing to connect it to the person the cops claimed was in possesion of it, is found 14 ft away over a fence?
> 
> the only argument that this wasn't a plant would seem to be that no one in their right minds would do such a poor cop of planting a gun.


A reminder: we are talking about the met here, not some crack top notch police force. The police force of challoner not a police force of columbos.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> So you're saying all nationalists / republicans killed by the crown forces were fair game.



Yes if they thought blowing the fuck out of an english shopping street was a legit target whineing about shoot to kill or the dublin bomb is being a bit petty.  War is nasty and horrible expecting you can start one (pira thought they were fighting a war with no rules that applied to them).
   Then were rather shocked when the british every so often joined them in the Gutter. What the fuck did they expect was going to happen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> No it isn't. There's nothing new here. The gun was thrown away by a copper. Why? Was he moving it away from the body? It's not as if 14ft is a huge distance, a flick of the wrist to place the gun out of reach of Duggan would easily send it 14ft. And how high is this fence? Are we talking 6ft or a small, knee-high picket jobbie?
> 
> So far there's no suggestion that it was planted. Nothing here for you to be getting excited about at all, Dotski!


 
there's loads pf reasons why you throw a suspects gun away after it hasn't put a round in your radio. Loads. It's totallly normal, believable behaviour. Which is why it was mentioned first off, before any other stuff....


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 14, 2011)

Do we know how big the fence was and how far behind it the gun was found...and when it was found?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> there's loads pf reasons why you throw a suspects gun away ..... Loads. It's totallly normal, believable behaviour.



Well not "loads", just one really. After an armed suspect is shot, the police will take any weapons from the body and put (throw?) them out of reach to prevent them being used. They don't know he's dead.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2011)

fourteen feet away, over a fence, with zero evidence following that to link 'armed suspect' to gun.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2011)

I'm just imagining the flick of the wrist it takes to fling an object so far when one is simply seeking to get a weapon out of the hand range of a dying man. Perhaps my wrists are not so brawny as your own


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2011)

the highly dodgy gun follows on the heels of the radio shot that wasn't all it seemed....it all seems perfectly straight up to me. lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Yes if they thought blowing the fuck out of an english shopping street was a legit target whineing about shoot to kill or the dublin bomb is being a bit petty.  War is nasty and horrible expecting you can start one (pira thought they were fighting a war with no rules that applied to them).
> Then were rather shocked when the british every so often joined them in the Gutter. What the fuck did they expect was going to happen.


So danny barrett deserved to die?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> After an armed suspect is shot, the police will take any weapons from the body and put (throw?) them out of reach to prevent them being used. They don't know he's dead.



Total rubbish. First a gun must be seized, made safe, & then bagged & kept safe. Not tossed over a fence for anyone one to find.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2011)

I don't understand why whoever threw it away threw it away, though. I could imagine if he'd wanted to implicate Duggan by moving it nearer to him.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> First a gun must be seized, made safe, & then bagged & kept safe. Not tossed over a fence for anyone one to find.



Well I'll bow to your superior knowledge of weapons handling, Bish. However, what you explain above still doesn't indicate a fit-up. As numerous others have pointed out, if it was a throwdown they'd have stuck it in his hand or at least in the car. That'd implicate him properly whilst at the same time short-circuiting that pesky lack of DNA evidence on the weapon. Chucking it 14ft over a fence, in full view of witnesses isn't the way forward. In fact it's far _more_ difficult and risky than quietly sticking it in his pocket or slipping it under his body.

I can however foresee a circumstance where immediately after the shooting, a copper takes the gun from near Duggan's dying body, and chucks it out of reach.



> I'm just imagining the flick of the wrist it takes to fling an object so far when one is simply seeking to get a weapon out of the hand range of a dying man.



14ft is no distance whatsoever. Pick something metallic up that weighs a couple of pounds and throw it away with anything more than a gentle wave, and unless you're a 2 year old it'll go 14ft, particularly if it bounces or slides on pavement/road. You could pick it up from 2ft away, the span of your arm and width of your body could account for another 4ft, so the weapon only has to travel another 8ft. Piece of piss.



> ..... my wrists are not so brawny as your own.



I'm sure that's not through lack of exercise on your part, Dotski.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> No it isn't. There's nothing new here. The gun was thrown away by a copper. Why? Was he moving it away from the body? It's not as if 14ft is a huge distance, a flick of the wrist to place the gun out of reach of Duggan would easily send it 14ft. And how high is this fence? Are we talking 6ft or a small, knee-high picket jobbie?
> 
> So far there's no suggestion that it was planted. Nothing here for you to be getting excited about at all, Dotski!



Don't be more of an idiot than you need to be, mate.

You *don't* chuck a gun, *ever*, if you have any training at all with them.  Any armed officer who threw the gun rather than sliding it along the ground would be acting against their training. You don't casually chuck firearms around, especially if they're tinker-toys like the one Duggan was supposedly carrying, which are as likely to harm the user as harm a target.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

likesfish said:


> republicans/nationalists in the Six Counties in the 1980's.
> who declared war on the Britsh state but started crying foul when treated like combatants



You might have a point if it had only been ASU members who were murdered. The evidence (what little there is) weighs against that having been the case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> 14ft is no distance whatsoever. Pick something metallic up that weighs a couple of pounds and throw it away with anything more than a gentle wave, and unless you're a 2 year old it'll go 14ft, particularly if it bounces or slides on pavement/road. You could pick it up from 2ft away, the span of your arm and width of your body could account for another 4ft, so the weapon only has to travel another 8ft. Piece of piss.








what a load of toss.

i tried this at work and unlike you i seem to be able to modulate my strength so it doesn't go 14 feet but lands where i want it to


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm just imagining the flick of the wrist it takes to fling an object so far when one is simply seeking to get a weapon out of the hand range of a dying man. Perhaps my wrists are not so brawny as your own



You probably don't wank off as many coppers as Spy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Total rubbish. First a gun must be seized, made safe, & then bagged & kept safe. Not tossed over a fence for anyone one to find.



Or so that an accidental discharge occurs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 14, 2011)

Of course, the fewer forensic details connecting him to the gun and the further away the gun was, the more it proves he was a serious wrong un. Who else would go to such lengths to hide the evidence but a proper murderous gangster?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> 14ft is no distance whatsoever. Pick something metallic up that weighs a couple of pounds and throw it away with anything more than a gentle wave, and unless you're a 2 year old it'll go 14ft, particularly if it bounces or slides on pavement/road. You could pick it up from 2ft away, the span of your arm and width of your body could account for another 4ft, so the weapon only has to travel another 8ft. Piece of piss.



If it bounces, or travels 14 ft and then lands, it's a 50/50 possibility that an accidental discharge will occur, higher if it was a "conversion" rather than a real firearm, as the converted pieces of shit don't have decent safety mechanisms, if any at all.

Time to stop making excuses for the old bill.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You *don't* chuck a gun, *ever*, if you have any training at all with them. Any armed officer who threw the gun rather than sliding it along the ground would be acting against their training. You don't casually chuck firearms around, especially if they're tinker-toys like the one Duggan was supposedly carrying, which are as likely to harm the user as harm a target.



As I said, happy to defer to military types like you and Bishta on the weapons handling thing.

But we're told that a witness saw this plod 'throw the gun over a fence'.



> _Mr Mansfield said witnesses had said they had seen a police officer throw the weapon there._



So either way, if this witness is to be believed, the copper *did* "throw" the gun.

So is it more likely that he was trying to distance the weapon from the body, or that he was engaged in a piss-poor attempt to fit Duggan up?

Of course there's the more likely possibility that the "witness" is talking bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> As I said, happy to defer to military types like you and Bishta on the weapons handling thing.
> 
> But we're told that a witness saw this plod 'throw the gun over a fence'. So either way, if this witness is to be believed, the copper *did* "throw" the gun.
> 
> So is it more likely that he was trying to distance the weapon from the body, or that he was engaged in a piss-poor attempt to fit Duggan up?



The latter, because no trained officer, even buzzing on adrenaline, would break training drastically enough to chuck a firearm.



> Of course there's the more likely possibility that the "witness" is talking bollocks.



The quality of eyewitness evidence is dependent on who elicits it, and how. The witness may well be telling the truth *as they recall it*, but unless we're privy to the interview transcripts, and to every interaction the witness had post-interview where the case was mentioned, then it's impossible to know what they recalled, where the word "throw" originated, etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> .... no trained officer, even buzzing on adrenaline, would break training drastically enough to chuck a firearm.



Yet we're told that he did.

And was this a trained firearms officer or some other flatfoot arriving shortly afterwards?



> The quality of eyewitness evidence is dependent on who elicits it, and how. The witness may well be telling the truth *as they recall it*, but unless we're privy to the interview transcripts, and to every interaction the witness had post-interview where the case was mentioned, then it's impossible to know what they recalled, where the word "throw" originated, etc.



Which works both ways. In fact, given the anti-police sentiment in the aftermath of the shooting isn't it also possible that the witnesses recall was, shall we say "tainted", by their own prejudice?

Sorry, but fitting someone up by planting a throwdown, with no prints or DNA, 14ft from the body, when it's easier and safer to do a proper job?

I can understand Dotski or Pickers grabbing that like a dog would a sexy bone, but would have thought you'd be more critical.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2011)

you still think they need to make it convincing enough to vex even quincy, when it has been proven multiple times that they don't


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you still think they need to make it convincing enough to vex even quincy .....



This wouldn't vex Andy Pandy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2011)

it vexed tottenham unto riot. Cos it was a cowboy hit job


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 14, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Yes if they thought blowing the fuck out of an english shopping street was a legit target whineing about shoot to kill or the dublin bomb is being a bit petty. War is nasty and horrible expecting you can start one (pira thought they were fighting a war with no rules that applied to them).
> Then were rather shocked when the british every so often joined them in the Gutter. What the fuck did they expect was going to happen.



A cursory look at colonial history demonstrates that the british have zero problem finding 'the Gutter' when it suits. As for the war jibe - the point was that, whatever your view of it - the brit establishment insisted right up to the point that they signed the GFA, that there was no war, just criminals. Thus according the _their_ rules, summary execution of civilians, was not a option.

That however did not stop them routinely shooting political opponents (often unarmed) at checkpoints and the like. Invariably there would be initial leaks to the press about 'a shoot-out'. The crime scene would probably not be secured. Evidence might be tampered with or go missing. Witnesses discredited, or intimidated. And so on.

Much of the above seems to be in play in the Duggan case. Which is why I thought it pertinent to draw attention to the fact that the authorities have previous, when it comes to dealing with what they regard as undesirables. political or otherwise.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 14, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> This wouldn't vex Andy Pandy.


coppers are fucking thick though.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 14, 2011)

They cleary fucked up and tried to bullshit their way out of it -as per usual.

Seems they had info that this guy was carrying a gun, they did their all too usual tactic of going in all bodie and doyle then - on discovering the bloke they'd just wasted was unarmed - pulled the stunt with the radio and possibly planted the weapon.

This would also explain the utterly  cack handed way they dealt with the victim's family -  maybe thinking its better to say nothing officialy then be caught offically bullshitting. Off the record smeers of the victim to the ever complient media are a different matter however.

I wonder if, whilst contemplating the smoudering remians of central tottenham a few days later the cops  thought perhaps it would maybe have been better to admit they got it very wrong, sack the officers invovled and issue an apology.

Acutally,  i doubt that course of action so much as crossed their minds for a second.


----------



## miktheword (Dec 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You might have a point if it had only been ASU members who were murdered. The evidence (what little there is) weighs against that having been the case.



I don't even think they have a point here VP,
Surely the 'crying foul' part was to highlight to the British public via the media, that this is a war, against a state that has taken the gloves off, against a risen community after NICRA, Bloody Sunday etc. To give the lie to the claim 'as British as Finchley' etc . And that the 'shoot to kill' highlighting was to show that this 'abiding by different rules, democratic state' ain't necessarily so.

I don't think PIRA or their communities were in the least surprised by what the Brits were prepared to do in response.

It's not as if Frank Kitson's revelations and Martin Dillons 'Dirty War' are recent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2011)

miktheword said:


> I don't even think they have a point here VP,
> Surely the 'crying foul' part was to highlight to the British public via the media, that this is a war, against a state that has taken the gloves off, against a risen community after NICRA, Bloody Sunday etc. To give the lie to the claim 'as British as Finchley' etc . And that the 'shoot to kill' highlighting was to show that this 'abiding by different rules, democratic state' ain't necessarily so.
> 
> I don't think PIRA or their communities were in the least surprised by what the Brits were prepared to do in response.



Of course not. My point isn't that people shouldn't have been surprised at state hypocrisy. State hypocrisy should *always* be presumed, it's that we're expected to buy it, even when the state hasn't bothered to only target combatants.



> It's not as if Frank Kitson's revelations and Martin Dillons 'Dirty War' are recent.



UK perfidy w/r/t to Ireland in general, and the six counties in particular, isn't exactly new either.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2011)

miktheword said:


> I don't even think they have a point here VP,
> Surely the 'crying foul' part was to highlight to the British public via the media, that this is a war, against a state that has taken the gloves off, against a risen community after NICRA, Bloody Sunday etc. To give the lie to the claim 'as British as Finchley' etc . And that the 'shoot to kill' highlighting was to show that this 'abiding by different rules, democratic state' ain't necessarily so.
> 
> *I don't think PIRA or their communities were in the least surprised by what the Brits were prepared to do in response.*
> ...



At the height of the public support for the Provo's campaign it never went above 10%. Even the mass mobilisation of nationalists over the Hunger Strikers wasn't about support for the IRA's campaign.
To say they were the IRA's community is a fucking joke, unfortunately one the bullying self elected shit hawks took seriously and used to justify their grip on catholic working class communities.


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 15, 2011)

revol68 said:


> At the height of the public support for the Provo's campaign it never went above 10%. Even the mass mobilisation of nationalists over the Hunger Strikers wasn't about support for the IRA's campaign.
> To say they were the IRA's community is a fucking joke, unfortunately one the bullying self elected shit hawks took seriously and used to justify their grip on catholic working class communities.



You have NEVER even lived in a nationalist/republican community so how would you presume to speak about that constituency
by chance?..You have NEVER lived in places like West Belfast and had to endure the Brits military occuapition of our areas.The house
raids..the constant stop and search..the every present harrasment in your daily life that was an all to present feature of thier
presense.The murders of kids by plastic and lethal bullets.
And yet you seem able to speak with authoritive conviction on their behalf. Where do you get that figure of 10% for "supporting
the Provos campaign" from per chance???....that seems like something garnered from the N.I.O. or a press release from the Armys
Lisburn propaganda unit.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2011)

i've plenty of friends who grew up in those places.

hatred of the army and their actions was near universal in working class nationalist areas, no doubt but actual support for the IRA's campaign was never so widespread. Fuck just look at the voting patterns for Sinn Fein prior to the cessation of violence.

but regardless the notion that they were the IRA's communities is at once nonsense and yet in a way summed up the relationship of the provo's to those communities, acting as jumped up fucking local masters, with their only semblence of legitimacy being that they weren't the brits.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> You have NEVER even lived in a nationalist/republican community so how would you presume to speak about that constituency
> by chance?..You have NEVER lived in places like West Belfast and had to endure the Brits military occuapition of our areas.The house
> raids..the constant stop and search..the every present harrasment in your daily life that was an all to present feature of thier
> presense.The murders of kids by plastic and lethal bullets.
> ...


Revols dada was a screw in NI.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Revols dada was a screw in NI.



SHOCK HORROR!


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Revols dada was a screw in NI.



A ha...did he work at the "maze"by chance???
Anyway we are getting away from the o.p. theme..
We have seen how the Met through there "agents of influence" in tabloid land treated and
blackend the name of the two young muslim brothers (one of whom was shot) in London
after they fucked up the raid on their home..i.e. child sex allegations et al.
We seen the same with the young Briziallian lad killed at Stockwell. The same with Harry Stanely.
So the Met have got real and previous form with this type of thing.
What`s more shocking is that the IPCC should take as fact..the briefing giving the Mets account of what happenend
as the definitive article...after so many experiences where they have been shown to have lied outright
they should approach the Mets account with great circumsicion.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 15, 2011)

Let's cut all the speculative crap and concentrate on the important fact. Which is this. In the aftermath of police officers killing yet another young black man the Met Police, the IPCC, the mainstream media, and just about every politician, has closed ranks, spouted loads of complete bullshit, and basically made it very clear to the rest of us that we are supposed to simply accept that we have no rights. No right to accurate information from the agencies of the state. No right to question the agencies of the state in any meaningful way. No right to live once the police have decided we are a wrong 'un. It doesn't matter whether the shooting of Mark Duggan was good policing, well intentioned policing gone wrong, or the Met acting as just another armed gang. The point is that we aren't ever going to be allowed to know, and we aren't supposed to care. That's the root of the anger. The riots didn't kick off when Duggan was killed. They kicked off when it became clear that the Met, the IPCC, and the government, were going to treat us like some shit they found stuck to the soles of their shoes yet again.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Let's cut all the speculative crap and concentrate on the important fact. Which is this. In the aftermath of police officers killing yet another young black man the Met Police, the IPCC, the mainstream media, and just about every politician, has closed ranks, spouted loads of complete bullshit, and basically made it very clear to the rest of us that we are supposed to simply accept that we have no rights. No right to accurate information from the agencies of the state. No right to question the agencies of the state in any meaningful way. No right to live once the police have decided we are a wrong 'un. It doesn't matter whether the shooting of Mark Duggan was good policing, well intentioned policing gone wrong, or the Met acting as just another armed gang. The point is that we aren't ever going to be allowed to know, and we aren't supposed to care. That's the root of the anger. The riots didn't kick off when Duggan was killed. They kicked off when it became clear that the Met, the IPCC, and the government, were going to treat us like some shit they found stuck to the soles of their shoes yet again.


<applauds>
it is worth pointing out that the riot was preceded by a protest march from Broadwater to tottenham cop shop, a march which was both peaceful, and the very essence of decorum and dignity. Duggan's family got bullshit from a CI, asked to see a very senior officer - and didn't get that, despite waiting a long time.
The cops deserved all they got, and I'm no ACAB merchant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> A ha...did he work at the "maze"by chance???
> Anyway we are getting away from the o.p. theme..
> We have seen how the Met through there "agents of influence" in tabloid land treated and
> blackend the name of the two young muslim brothers (one of whom was shot) in London
> ...



That's "circumspection", mate. Circumcision is foreskin removal. 

Not that I wouldn't like to hold a knife to the genitals of some members of the Met....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Let's cut all the speculative crap and concentrate on the important fact. Which is this. In the aftermath of police officers killing yet another young black man the Met Police, the IPCC, the mainstream media, and just about every politician, has closed ranks, spouted loads of complete bullshit, and basically made it very clear to the rest of us that we are supposed to simply accept that we have no rights. No right to accurate information from the agencies of the state. No right to question the agencies of the state in any meaningful way. No right to live once the police have decided we are a wrong 'un. It doesn't matter whether the shooting of Mark Duggan was good policing, well intentioned policing gone wrong, or the Met acting as just another armed gang. The point is that we aren't ever going to be allowed to know, and we aren't supposed to care. That's the root of the anger. The riots didn't kick off when Duggan was killed. They kicked off when it became clear that the Met, the IPCC, and the government, were going to treat us like some shit they found stuck to the soles of their shoes yet again.



You'd have thought that the riots would have alerted the pigs and the pols to the fact that they police us by our consent. I'm not sanguine that they'll be able to take the lesson to heart without it being beaten into them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's "circumspection", mate. Circumcision is foreskin removal.
> 
> Not that I wouldn't like to hold a knife to the genitals of some members of the Met....


i think cemerty's saying they're making dicks of themselves by believing the met


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd have thought that the riots would have alerted the pigs and the pols to the fact that they police us by our consent. I'm not sanguine that they'll be able to take the lesson to heart without it being beaten into them.


I'm certain they won't; they've got away with so much for so long, they're blind to how things are changing


----------



## likesfish (Dec 17, 2011)

sorry wanking over a load of cunts who burned people homes down and killed for new trainers and tv's fuck em next time they try they will get shot
good riddence to a waste of space.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2011)

no they won't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

likesfish said:


> sorry, wanking over a load of cunts


----------



## likesfish (Dec 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd have thought that the riots would have alerted the pigs and the pols to the fact that they police us by our consent. I'm not sanguine that they'll be able to take the lesson to heart without it being beaten into them.



revolting for political reasons fair enough.
 cause you want a new pair of trainers not so much


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2011)

likesfish said:


> sorry wanking over a load of cunts who burned people homes down and killed for new trainers and tv's fuck em next time they try they will get shot
> good riddence to a waste of space.



How many of them engaged in arson and thievery?
A minority.

Are you in favour of collective punishment?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

likesfish said:


> revolting for political reasons fair enough.
> cause you want a new pair of trainers not so much



yeah imagine class struggle happening over material things and self interest.

oh yeah it's meant to be pious do gooders promoting sacrifice and some such shite.

loot the fuck out of currys.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

what did you get in august, revol?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

i can't make head nor tail of that?

I'm not promoting any sacrifice.

Oh you seem to be suggesting that in promoting the looting of a currys I'm asking people to sacrifice their liberty?

Nah I think people can balance up those decisions themselves< i would say however to mask up and be careful, too many kids got carried away in the heat of the moment and forgot about precautions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> i can't make head nor tail of that?
> 
> I'm not promoting any sacrifice.
> 
> ...


simple question: what did you get in august?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> simple question: what did you get in august?



fuck all squared, rioters in my neck of the woods are idiots who riot across interface areas with fuck all shops worth looting.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

also should you be encouraging people to incriminate themselves on public forums?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> also should you be encouraging people to incriminate themselves on public forums?


i didn't realise there was any danger of you incriminating yourself, i'd not expect you to raise yourself to rioting let alone looting.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't realise there was any danger of you incriminating yourself, i'd not expect you to raise yourself to rioting let alone looting.



not so much these days but back in my youth


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> not so much these days but back in my youth


with the orangemen?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> with the orangemen?



pfft, maybe at then, nah I liked to do mine in more exotic locations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> pfft, maybe at then, nah I liked to do mine in more exotic locations.


as far away from home as you could get then


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> as far away from home as you could get then



nah still in Europe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> nah still in Europe.


Like I said as far away from home as you could get


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> Like I said as far away from home as you could get



fuck you're boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> fuck you're boring.


yes it's the boredom card

Strange how you only play it at times like these


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

a card is usually something palyed to get out of some sort of awkward situation.

i'm failing to see what awkward situation I was in, I just didn't want to prolong a tedious exchange that seemed to be pissing any kind of point.


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> not so much these days but back in my youth



Your "youth" was paid for by your father locking up people who undoubtably had gone through
the whole "Diplock" process..your the kind of "Castle catholic" who`s parents where happy to
take the kings shilling and be nice catholics in an overwhelming unionist town...
the "keep our heads down and dont upset the status quo" kind of church goers that closed there
eyes and ears to the violence that was inflicted on my parents while you and yours profited from the
misery and chaos that enfolled.
As Catholics.. when were being burnt out of our homes in Bombay Street.....with the B-specials standing
watching your father and many like him siad and did NOTHING....
Just as long as they were all right...
YOUR a fucking hypocric of the highest order..
The kind who when it comes to discussing politcs in the north is of the opinion of "a plauge on both
your houses" type...who has no understanding of your own fucking HISTORY...
I bet your dad even got an invite to the Palace when he retired....


----------



## revol68 (Dec 17, 2011)

I'm a hypocrite cos of my da?

Yeah I really should have thought about my politics before signing my da up to the prison service.

Perhaps you could tell me what sort of atonement I should make for the "sins of my father", I would imagine the only thing that would somehow exonerate me is if I embraced republicanism, would that do? But then even if I did that, which brand, maybe I'd pick the wrong one and they'd remove my pardon and expect me to pay for the sins of the father all over again.

I actually know a guy who rebounded towards republicanism from a similar background (bit more dramatic actually), he soon pulled his head out of his arse mind.

I mean I could see through it if I was some sort of defender of the british state, the police, the courts, the prison service and the army but my sin is to think republicanism or more specifically armed republicanism offered nothing to the working class and that it's not about british courts, judges and prisons but all courts, judges and prisons.

tell you what when I down at my parents for christmas I'll call them all cunts over the christmas dinner, would that please you?

"here ma and da thanks for raising me and shit but some guy on the internet I've never met thinks I'm a hypocrite unless I shit in the turkey and tell youse to shove the christmas present you got me up your imperialist lackey arses."

fucking grow up you cretin.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2011)

likesfish said:


> sorry wanking over a load of cunts who burned people homes down and killed for new trainers and tv's fuck em next time they try they will get shot
> good riddence to a waste of space.



Go throw yourself off the pier.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2011)

revol68 said:


> a card is usually something palyed to get out of some sort of awkward situation.
> 
> i'm failing to see what awkward situation I was in, I just didn't want to prolong a tedious exchange that seemed to be pissing any kind of point.


Pissing any kind of point? You have no fucking point, urine yellow or otherwise. You're almost certainly the dullest poster here and you try to compensate for the fact you're a bore by saying something outrageous, which you then deny (eg it was hypothetical hyperbole). Not only do you not have the courage of your convictions, you have noo convictions. You're like a worm, without a backbone


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

likesfish said:


> revolting for political reasons fair enough.
> cause you want a new pair of trainers not so much


The riot in Tottenham WAS for political reasons, and happened after a peaceful protest march to tottenham copshop was met by OB indifference. You really don't know what you're on about here


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

Rioting is a political act in itself. Attacking the police and looting is not akin to stealing pick and mix from Woolworths.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Attacking weedy little foreign students and then nicking from their bags while pretending to help is also a political act.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Attacking weedy little foreign students and then nicking from their bags while pretending to help is also a political act.


As it ever was. Similar actions took place during the Toxteth riots, both lots of rioting in Brixton etc. I got a brick in the head in Brixton riot '85. I was able to see the bigger picture though and keep on at it with the police.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I got a brick in the head in Brixton riot '85.



Ahh...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

I think with the passage of time people will view the recent rioting as a much more political act that many do at present. Especially as more of the truth about Duggan's death becomes public Knowledge.


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I'm a hypocrite cos of my da?
> I actually know a guy who rebounded towards republicanism from a similar background (bit more dramatic actually), he soon pulled his head out of his arse mind.
> .



And apparently you also "Know" Catholics who lived in republican areas into the bargin..they were mates of yours..thats a lots of
friends and very little insight IMHO.
You say that "armed republicianism" offered nothing to Catholic people in response to the British states refusal to address the sectarianism of the unionist political class and the " No Surrender" mentality that they fostered among their own....thats BOLLOCKS and belies a total
and utter lack of knowledge and understanding of the events of the last 3 decades.
If we hadn`t had an armed conflict we wouldn`t be at the position that were at today...
Do you seriously believe that the British/Unionist political elite who have moved one iota towards a non-sectarian society without the pressure
that armed republicans put them under to come to the negoiating table...
I think not...
You CANNOT build a non-sectarian based political movement of all religious (and non-religious people) while one section of society
is discriminated against in such a flagrant manner ( with government approval as was the case leading up to the troubles in  68/69)...
Like it says on the wall....
*Repression breeds resistance*


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Rioting is a political act in itself.



And if there were half a dozen lynchings thrown in, the riots would still be classified political. But 'political' is very different from progressive.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I think with the passage of time people will view the recent rioting as a much more political act that many do at present. Especially as more of the truth about Duggan's death becomes public Knowledge.


this is always the case, isn't it? The "mindless criminality" explanation only really works in the immediate aftermath, and in the immediate area.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2011)




----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


>


 
The post political mugger is the most political mugger.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2011)

yeah it was all mugging, cos mugging doesn't go on day to day when there isn't riots?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


> yeah it was all mugging, cos mugging doesn't go on day to day when there isn't riots?



Let's have a muggers' get together and call it political.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2011)

yeah my heart bleeds for poor mugging victims like Currys, PC World and JD Sports.

in another ten years idiots even idiots like you will understand them as having political significance and the BBC will do a nice safe talking heads show on it, like they always do when enough time has passed.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Attacking weedy little foreign students and then nicking from their bags while pretending to help is also a political act.


what - EVERYONE was doing that, and just that, when tottenham kicked off?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


> in another ten years idiots even idiots like you will understand them as having political significance and the BBC will do a nice safe talking heads show on it, like they always do when enough time has passed.


 
I think you're right-directionless, often opportunistic copycat riots followed by safe talking heads shows commissioned by the politically unchallengeable is probably what the 'post-political' era is going to look like.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> what - EVERYONE was doing that, and just that, when tottenham kicked off?



Yes-I quite clearly said everybody was doing that, as the post does show...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yes-I quite clearly said everybody was doing that, as the post does show...


it's where the logic of what you'd posted inevitably ends up, as much by omission as by commission.
for someone who purports to have progressive politics, you can come acropss as astonishingly reactionary - practically a hianging-and-flogging tory backwoodsman - on law 'n' order issues


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> it's where the logic of what you'd posted inevitably ends up, as much by omission as by commission.
> for someone who purports to have progressive politics, you can come acropss as astonishingly reactionary - practically a hianging-and-flogging tory backwoodsman - on law 'n' order issues



The real reactionaries in this debate are the ones who see the lumpen mob as potential political allies. A tiger to ride to some unspecified political nirvana.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> it's where the logic of what you'd posted inevitably ends up, as much by omission as by commission.
> for someone who purports to have progressive politics, you can come acropss as astonishingly reactionary - practically a hianging-and-flogging tory backwoodsman - on law 'n' order issues



What, because I pointed out that muggings take place during riots? Any fool knows that when an area kicks off like happened in August, you don't want to get in the way.

Are you going to post up some evidence of this hanging and flogging stance of mine then? In your own time.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The real reactionaries in this debate are the ones who see the lumpen mob as potential political allies. A tiger to ride to some unspecified political nirvana.


 
As if the likes of those who post on here are capable of riding the tiger anyway. And as if the tiger wants to know them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The real reactionaries in this debate are the ones who see the lumpen mob as potential political allies. A tiger to ride to some unspecified political nirvana.


 
where were you


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> where were you


 
You were in a college in Northampton, weren't you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2011)

at the times which provided the brewing for this current situation I was at school


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The real reactionaries in this debate are the ones who see the lumpen mob as potential political allies. A tiger to ride to some unspecified political nirvana.


In the long term, political change is certainly impossible without the underclass youth


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> In the long term, political change is certainly impossible without the underclass youth


 
And the riot fetishists are doing what to engage 'the underclass youth' politically? I hope they're going to make the balance sheet public somewhere along the line.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

Quick question those on thread how many of you have been down to the bank of ideas or to st pauls?

has anyone?

or is it all beard stroking and fuck all as usual...???


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What, because I pointed out that muggings take place during riots? Any fool knows that when an area kicks off like happened in August, you don't want to get in the way.


except the clear implication - as you well know - was that the riot was ONLY about mugging and criminality, and you zeroed straight in on that bit


> Are you going to post up some evidence of this hanging and flogging stance of mine then? In your own time


just about every single thing you've posted on the drugs laws, for one.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> And if there were half a dozen lynchings thrown in, the riots would still be classified political. But 'political' is very different from progressive.


But there were no lynchings. What there was was a series of significant rebellious acts including many many attacks upon the police. Attacks that were motivated mainly by a hatred of the police.

As for the looting, well it's far more progressive than many make out. A mental barrier has been crossed for thousands of people. Loads of captured people will forge links in prison that will last far into the future too.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Quick question those on thread how many of you have been down to the bank of ideas or to st pauls?
> 
> has anyone?


I have, and I've also been involved with the Tottenham defence campaign>
I don't think it's that relevant, though. many people simply don't have time to devote heavy hours to frontline activism (and may live too far away); their views are still just as valid


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Quick question those on thread how many of you have been down to the bank of ideas or to st pauls?
> 
> has anyone?
> 
> or is it all beard stroking and fuck all as usual...???


anyone?

nope ok then...

Montgolfier all the way is it...

so just like the bollolitics of the old way of doings things talking heads but no strong arms or legs... good good... same as it ever was...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I have, and I've also been involved with the Tottenham defence campaign>
> I don't think it's that relevant, though. many people simply don't have time to devote heavy hours to frontline activism (and may live too far away); their views are still just as valid


no I don't think they are any more...

apathy is no longer an excuse for tactic approval of the status quo...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And the riot fetishists are doing what to engage 'the underclass youth' politically? I hope they're going to make the balance sheet public somewhere along the line.


I certainly don't see anyone here 'fetishising' a riot, what a lurid idea....


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The real reactionaries in this debate are the ones who see the lumpen mob as potential political allies. A tiger to ride to some unspecified political nirvana.


Maybe the so called Lumpen have their own destiny and have no intention of being manipulated by any potential allies. That the so called lumpen represent a threat to the established order is clear.

They also represent a threat to the left and I include the IWCA in that. They have their own destiny and leave you lot by the sidelines.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> except the clear implication - as you well know - was that the riot was ONLY about mugging and criminality, and you zeroed straight in on that bit
> 
> just about every single thing you've posted on the drugs laws, for one.



Examples of how what I've posted on the drugs laws amounts to this 'hanging and flogging' stance? Or any examples of where I've called for anybody to be hung or flogged for anything will do.

I never said 'the riot' (which one?) was only about anything. I did point out that a slightly built foreign student who'd only been here a short time was a target for the type of people who'd mug you or me as well given the chance. Somehow I don't think these kind of people were strangers to the riots. We shouldn't talk about it though, so sorry. Sssh.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As if the likes of those who post on here are capable of riding the tiger anyway. And as if the tiger wants to know them.


Indeed. Not on the tiger - but in it.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I certainly don't see anyone here 'fetishising' a riot, what a lurid idea....


 
Okay then. As you were.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I certainly don't see anyone here 'fetishising' a riot, what a lurid idea....


tories seem to have done so tbf... water canons, cs gas, baton rounds etc..

from My POV what's more important to me is what LLETSA is doing to engage the underclass of youth poltically... I've a fiver on fuck all practically from any reasonable stand point would be the answer.... fuck the fuck all...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> That the so called lumpen represent a threat to the established order is clear.


 
Why? Are they going to riot capitalism into non-existence?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> tories seem to have done so tbf... water canons, cs gas, baton rounds etc..
> 
> from My POV what's more important to me is what LLETSA is doing to engage the underclass of youth poltically... I've a fiver on fuck all practically from any reasonable stand point would be the answer.... fuck the fuck all...



I have done fuck all to engage them (just like most on here). If I had a beard, I might even be stroking it. But I'm not fetishising the riots.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Why? Are they going to riot capitalism into non-existence?


that's NOT what he's saying AT ALL, simply that (if I get TC right) this could be one of a chain of many, many events - a tiny, tiny part but a part nevertheless - of a rather radical social change


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Examples of how what I've posted on the drugs laws amounts to this 'hanging and flogging' stance? Or any examples of where I've called for anybody to be hung or flogged for anything will do.


you really ARE addicted in painting things in terms of plain black and white, aren't you. As you know perfectly well, 'hang 'em and flog 'em' is a time-honoured allegorical way to refer to a law 'n' order reactionary


> I never said 'the riot' (which one?) was only about anything.


You didn't actually 'say' anything - you implied it



> I did point out that a slightly built foreign student who'd only been here a short time was a target for the type of people who'd mug you or me as well given the chance. Somehow I don't think these kind of people were strangers to the riots. .


Huh? what a ridiculous couple of statements. NO-ONE is saying the rioters were saints, or that the bastards who did that ashraf kid weren't scum. and no-one is denying that riots ALSO attract such people. People were simply trying to put the riots into the right context, and get the broader picture, consequently


> We shouldn't talk about it though, so sorry. Sssh


has got to be quite simply the dumbest straw man of the year


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that's NOT what he's saying AT ALL, simply that (if I get TC right) this could be one of a chain of many, many events - a tiny, tiny part but a part nevertheless - of a rather radical social change


 
Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change, except maybe the kind of change whereby they get to do entirely what they want and fuck the rest? Because if they did, I must have been out when they issued the communique. Ah well.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I have done fuck all to engage them (just like most on here). If I had a beard, I might even be stroking it. But I'm not fetishising the riots.


yet you dane to patronise those who have and do...

from what vantage point precisely...

cos from my vantage point it looks like you blowing hot air for the sake of hearing your own voice...

now is the time to get involved, failure to do so is allowing the state which is to win, rather than trying at least to move us all to a state which could be... or beyond...


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change, except maybe the kind of change whereby they get to do entirely what they want and fuck the rest? Because if they did, I must have been out when they issued the communique. Ah well.



what a fucking retarded notion of subjectivity and how social change happens. And it's a bit fucking rich for Urban's most miserable old cunt to demand that those rioting issue a coherent communique for radical social change when he himself can't even begin to imagine it. Atleast plenty of those rioters still maintained a sense of rage and anger at the world and it's injustices, no matter how contradictory it was articulated, something a pathetic craic vacuum like yourself can't even dream of as you bury your head into another John Gray book on sins of the enlightenment and any bid to emancipate ourselves from capitalism.

you're a clown.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change, except maybe the kind of change whereby they get to do entirely what they want and fuck the rest? Because if they did, I must have been out when they issued the communique. Ah well.


well done for missing the point by about a million miles!
We don't have to have a formal manifesto issued by rioters, pre-riot, for it to be part of sweeping social turmoil and therefore sweeping social change, and they don't all have to have PPEs from ballion either! It just _is_


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change, except maybe the kind of change whereby they get to do entirely what they want and fuck the rest? Because if they did, I must have been out when they issued the communique. Ah well.


They showed _every sign_ of wanting radical changes to the way we are policed with a clear refusal to except the stale lying bullshit offered by the IPCC. That some on this thread seem to accept that same stale IPCC bullshit astounds me. I think the latter are the ones most disconnected here.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


> what a fucking retarded notion of subjectivity and how social change happens.


precisely


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change, except maybe the kind of change whereby they get to do entirely what they want and fuck the rest? Because if they did, I must have been out when they issued the communique. Ah well.


yes they did...

primarily they showed this need for social change and the desire to show they were disengaged from the current society by attempting to damage and destroy the totems of this society... shopping centres and police equipment...

how do you propose to re-engage those disenfrancised?  precisely?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you really ARE addicted in painting things in terms of plain black and white, aren't you. As you know perfectly well, 'hang 'em and flog 'em' is a time-honoured allegorical way to refer to a law 'n' order reactionary
> 
> You didn't actually 'say' anything - you implied it
> 
> ...


 
It depends what you mean by law and order. If it means not burning working class people out of their homes and making the weak and the old afraid to leave their houses, or not smashing up areas where life is already hard enough, then fine, I'm a law and order reactionary. And if not liking the idea of people getting mugged is reactionary, then that's fine too.

You're big on the 'implied' today. Your own posts probably imply that in the absence of any other means of political change, you resort to fetishise rioting, no matter how damaging to the very working class communities you're supposed to be concerned about. Once again...ah well.

Anyway, I'm off home.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Did the rioters show any signs of wanting radical social change,


the ones at the start of the Tottenham riot sure as hell want massive changes in how OB treat them, and it was police refusal to take that on board, and the anger over mark duggan's shooting, which turned a peaceful, dignified protest march into a riot


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> yet you dane to patronise those who have and do...
> 
> from what vantage point precisely...
> 
> ...


 
Yes, yes, I 'dane' to patronise lots of people. it's just the way I am. 'Those who have and do' what exactly?

(I can't hear my own voice while typing on here.)


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> the ones at the start of the Tottenham riot sure as hell want massive changes in how OB treat them, and it was police refusal to take that on board, and the anger over mark duggan's shooting, which turned a peaceful, dignified protest march into a riot


Truth.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

revol68 said:


> what a fucking retarded notion of subjectivity and how social change happens. And it's a bit fucking rich for Urban's most miserable old cunt to demand that those rioting issue a coherent communique for radical social change when he himself can't even begin to imagine it. Atleast plenty of those rioters still maintained a sense of rage and anger at the world and it's injustices, no matter how contradictory it was articulated, something a pathetic craic vacuum like yourself can't even dream of as you bury your head into another John Gray book on sins of the enlightenment and any bid to emancipate ourselves from capitalism.
> 
> you're a clown.


 
Look, I know the rioters are lucky to have you radical intellectuals onside, but that doesn't give you reason to be uncharitable. 'Tis the season to be jolly etc etc.'


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> well done for missing the point by about a million miles!
> We don't have to have a formal manifesto issued by rioters, pre-riot, for it to be part of sweeping social turmoil and therefore sweeping social change, and they don't all have to have PPEs from ballion either! It just _is_


 
I never sugested there was a manifesto. I just wondered how you can be so sure that most rioters want radical social change.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> They showed _every sign_ of wanting radical changes to the way we are policed with a clear refusal to except the stale lying bullshit offered by the IPCC. That some on this thread seem to accept that same stale IPCC bullshit astounds me. I think the latter are the ones most disconnected here.


 
Wanting changes to the way you're policed doesn't amount to radical social change and would not necessarily lead to it even if it came about. It particularly doesn't lead to radical social change when you want those changes so you can more easily fuck over other people without any comeback.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I never sugested there was a manifesto. I just wondered how you can be so sure that most rioters want radical social change.


nope - you're STILL missing the point by a million miles!
I'm wondering if you're being deliberately mega-obtuse now....


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I just wondered how you can be so sure that most rioters want radical social change.


The rioters demonstrated by their very actions that their desire for change was so great they were prepared to risk their liberty with all that entails in this heavily policed state.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> the ones at the start of the Tottenham riot sure as hell want massive changes in how OB treat them, and it was police refusal to take that on board, and the anger over mark duggan's shooting, which turned a peaceful, dignified protest march into a riot


 
What about the ones who just seemed to want free stuff from the shops? Half of those in the copycat riots probably hadn't even heard of Mark Duggan.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The rioters demonstrated by their very actions that their desire for change was so great they were prepared to risk their liberty with all that entails in this heavily policed state.



Some may have. Others were prepared to risk it for a pair of trainers.* Still, takes all sorts to make a world.

*Last time I looked, trainers were no indicator of a desire for radical social change.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

Wanting and demanding radical changes to the way we are policed is hugely important here. For too long victorious Socialists frequently installed more repressive police forces than the capitalists had. This is not what is wanted.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You're big on the 'implied' today.


nope - it's just and old, old trick of yours, and I think i adverted to it TWICE. very 'big'


> Your own posts probably imply that in the absence of any other means of political change, you resort to fetishise rioting, no matter how damaging to the very working class communities you're supposed to be concerned about. Once again...ah well.


oh, don't be so fucking silly! NO-ONE is 'fetishising' rioting, not least for my part cos I was on the original march, and am profoundly relieved not to have been caught up in another riot - we're just putting it in appropriate context, understanding it for what it truly is


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> nope - you're STILL missing the point by a million miles!
> I'm wondering if you're being deliberately mega-obtuse now....


 
It isn't me who's being obtuse. After all, I asked you how you can be sure the rioters wanted radical social change and you didn't answer.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It particularly doesn't lead to radical social change when you want those changes so you can more easily fuck over other people without any comeback.


The sort of changes tottenham youth want in tottenham OB treatment of them have FUCK ALL to do with that


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Wanting and demanding radical changes to the way we are policed is hugely important here. For too long victorious Socialists frequently installed more repressive police forces than the capitalists had. This is not what is wanted.


 
As I said, it depends on who wants those changes and why. I wouldn't worry too much about victorious socialists though; not anymore.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't me who's being obtuse. After all, I asked you how you can be sure the rioters wanted radical social change and you didn't answer.


I did, I pointed out, in effect, the question was n irrelevance of mind-numbing inanity. And yes, you are being incredibly obtuse


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> The sort of changes tottenham youth want in tottenham OB treatment of them have FUCK ALL to do with that



Are you the spokesman for Tottenham youth? When were you elected and is it a permanent post?

In any case, who's talking only about Tottenham? The copycat riots had nothing to do with what happened in Tottenham.

Anyway, like I said, I'm going home. Might see you in a bit, might not.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Some may have. Others were prepared to risk it for a pair of trainers.* Still, takes all sorts to make a world.
> 
> *Last time I looked, trainers were no indicator of a desire for radical social change.


If the police decide their response to rioting will be to not turn up, it seems reasonable to crush a few more boundaries and do some free shopping before the vacuum has been filled.

For all dismissal of the looting rioters for corner shops getting turned over, these incidents were minor in the scheme of things.

The police's decision to provoke and then under resource the aftermath of Mark Duggan's death has had many consequences. Many of them positive, many of them leading to people being more politicised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Quick question those on thread how many of you have been down to the bank of ideas or to st pauls?
> 
> has anyone?
> 
> or is it all beard stroking and fuck all as usual...???


 
If I lived in london I'd have toddled along to the muddle classed talking shop.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you the spokesman for Tottenham youth? When were you elected and is it a permanent post?
> 
> In any case, who's talking only about Tottenham? The copycat ripots had nothing to do with what happened in Tottenham.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, I'm going home. Might see you in a bit, might not.


I'm focussing in on tottenham becuase
a) It's the area I can speak with the authrority of extensive knowledge
and
b) it's where it all kicked off.
both of which points i'd have thought were completely obvious, tb.
and I don't need to be 'elected spokesman' (yet another piece of prime fuckwittery from you there) to know exactly what the tottenham youth were angry about, cos it's all so bloody obvious.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I certainly don't see anyone here 'fetishising' a riot, what a lurid idea....



Get with the programme. It's the 21st century. We don't do logic in politics any more. It's the age of the neo-liberal consensus. So political debate now consists of accusing anyone who disagrees with you about anything of every possible evil thought and deed on the grounds that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on everything is clearly "one of them", and as we all know "they" all do all the same bad stuff. So failure to demand that all rioters be killed is fetishising a riot, and quite probably a clear sign of paedophile tendencies and membership of Al Qaeda.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I never sugested there was a manifesto. I just wondered how you can be so sure that most rioters want radical social change.



I can't. I can say that most of the younger people around here that I've discussed it with, and that's quite a few as I've had to represent the local community at several apres riot post mortems, see a very clear picture of repressive policing by (insufficient) force and constant breaking of the law by the wealthy. They see a political system that basically excludes ANYONE who doesn't either have serious money or the "right kind" of education. They see a lot of effort made to try and make them shut up, conform, and live and die in abject poverty. They hear a lot of bollocks about what they shouldn't do from people who are mostly doing exactly the sort of things they are being told to avoid. They almost never hear anyone even vaguely suggest they might be anything other than a problem. On the whole they couldn't give a flying fuck what the likes of you think, because a significant percentage are going to die before they are into their 20s, many more will be spending most of their life in prison regardless of what they do, and they know perfectly well that the view of the political establishment and those who accept that status quo is that there's nothing wrong about that. What I don't know is how many of them took part in rioting or looting, because I'm not stupid enough to ask.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 19, 2011)

Here we go. LLETSA has absolutely no contact with working class youth, therefore the rest of us can't possibly have any or we couldn't possibly be using the same message boards. Please shut up until you grow a brain.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Here we go. LLETSA has absolutely no contact with working class youth, therefore the rest of us can't possibly have any or we couldn't possibly be using the same message boards. Please shut up until you grow a brain.


 
How do you know who I do or don't have contact with? You met some rioters on a bus or something, didn't you? (I suppose they must have been wearing their 'We are rioters, we are' badges. ) We can't all be that lucky.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I can't. I can say that most of the younger people around here that I've discussed it with, and that's quite a few as I've had to represent the local community at several apres riot post mortems, see a very clear picture of repressive policing by (insufficient) force and constant breaking of the law by the wealthy. They see a political system that basically excludes ANYONE who doesn't either have serious money or the "right kind" of education. They see a lot of effort made to try and make them shut up, conform, and live and die in abject poverty. They hear a lot of bollocks about what they shouldn't do from people who are mostly doing exactly the sort of things they are being told to avoid. They almost never hear anyone even vaguely suggest they might be anything other than a problem. On the whole they couldn't give a flying fuck what the likes of you think, because a significant percentage are going to die before they are into their 20s, many more will be spending most of their life in prison regardless of what they do, and they know perfectly well that the view of the political establishment and those who accept that status quo is that there's nothing wrong about that. What I don't know is how many of them took part in rioting or looting, because I'm not stupid enough to ask.


 
I'm not under any illusions about their being concerned with what I think. That's what I've been getting at. Here's the bad news: they don't give a toss what you think either.

But hey-thanks for that little sermon about 'the way working class youth think.' Spoken like an old school 'trendy teacher' or social worker.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm focussing in on tottenham becuase
> a) It's the area I can speak with the authrority of extensive knowledge
> and
> b) it's where it all kicked off.
> ...



And luckily they've got you to speak for them on Urban75. They probably don't know it, but this is how fortunate they are.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't me who's being obtuse. After all, I asked you how you can be sure the rioters wanted radical social change and you didn't answer.


can you confirm they did or did not riot?

would that riot be symptomatic of a) a happy stable productive environment in which one feels valued and has opportunities to progress socially economically or emotionally or is it b) symptomatic of a despondent culture of neglect leading to a lack of self worth and in that around them?

if you can answer in the former in either one you are without any comprehension of the topic at hand and should desist in posting regarding it forever.  No don't think you've gto something valueable to add you simply haven't people like you in ivory towers have had their crack at Tottenham, Hackeny and the like and look where it got us, insufficient school places, lack of green spaces ill judged social engineering polices of zero merit to the community because it was imposed upon them rather than being a grass roots thing...

really thicky stop posting about this now you do yourself no favours and with each successive post go to show how out of the loop you really are...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> If the police decide their response to rioting will be to not turn up, it seems reasonable to crush a few more boundaries and do some free shopping before the vacuum has been filled.
> 
> For all dismissal of the looting rioters for corner shops getting turned over, these incidents were minor in the scheme of things.
> 
> The police's decision to provoke and then under resource the aftermath of Mark Duggan's death has had many consequences. Many of them positive, many of them leading to people being more politicised.


 
As I said earlier, though, we're not just talking about Mark Duggan's death. Most of the other riots had nothing to do with Mark Duggan's death. Manchester, for example, was pure opportunism.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And luckily they've got you to speak for them on Urban75. They probably don't know it, but this is how fortunate they are.


well if the alternative in the false dichotomy is someone as clue less as you speaking for them I'd rather have an old pinko with his heart in the right place than a jumped up swappie wadical anarkid with fuck all clue...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As I said earlier, though, we're not just talking about Mark Duggan's death. Most of the other riots had nothing to do with Mark Duggan's death. Manchester, for example, was pure opportunism.


you're trying to narrow the field of discussion once again.  wriggle, wriggle little worm....


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> can you confirm they did or did not riot?
> 
> would that riot be symptomatic of a) a happy stable productive environment in which one feels valued and has opportunities to progress socially economically or emotionally or is it b) symptomatic of a despondent culture of neglect leading to a lack of self worth and in that around them?
> 
> ...



Who's denied the shitty environment? You're another one who comes across like a patronising trendy teacher-if you can have a teacher who can't spell or punctuate (these days you probably can.)

I really don't mind being called thick by somebody who thinks deign is spelt dane.

Nor do I mind being considered, ahem, 'out of the loop.' (Is 'in the loop' the same as being 'down with the kidz'?)


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> well if the alternative in the false dichotomy is someone as clue less as you speaking for them I'd rather have an old pinko with his heart in the right place than a jumped up swappie wadical anarkid with fuck all clue...


 
You're burbling senselessly now.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you're trying to narrow the field of discussion once again. wriggle, wriggle little worm....


 
I'm sorry-I should really get myself down to the Bank of Ideas to be educated in struggle.

(Goes on National Express website.)


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> How do you know who I do or don't have contact with? You met some rioters on a bus or something, didn't you? (I suppose they must have been wearing their 'We are rioters, we are' badges. ) We can't all be that lucky.



The point is LLETSA, that Streathamist is taking part in community activities in Tottenham, I'm involved in the community project on the Angell Town Estate. And I don't know about Streathamite, but quite frankly I'm getting seriously pissed off with your attitude that you know more about everyone else's lives than they do themselves. It doesn't really have the same affect online, but if we were having this discussion face to face it's round about this point that I would say "fuck off you arrogant ignorant cunt" and go off to find some sentient life forms elsewhere.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The point is LLETSA, that Streathamist is taking part in community activities in Tottenham, I'm involved in the community project on the Angell Town Estate. And I don't know about Streathamite, but quite frankly I'm getting seriously pissed off with your attitude that you know more about everyone else's lives than they do themselves. It doesn't really have the same affect online, but if we were having this discussion face to face it's round about this point that I would say "fuck off you arrogant ignorant cunt" and go off to find some sentient life forms elsewhere.


 
I haven't said I know anything about anybody's life.

I'm really glad  don't know you personally if that's what you'd do though. You strike me as somebody who thinks he's a character in a Ken Loach film.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I haven't said I know anything about anybody's life.
> 
> I'm really glad don't know you personally if that's what you'd do though. You strike me as somebody who thinks he's a character in a Ken Loach film.



Whereas you're a character in a Mike Leigh film.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Whereas you're a character in a Mike Leigh film.


 
No-a Michel Houellebecq novel. Get it right.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Who's denied the shitty environment? You're another one who comes across like a patronising trendy teacher-if you can have a teacher who can't spell or punctuate (these days you probably can.)
> 
> I really don't mind being called thick by somebody who thinks deign is spelt dane.
> 
> Nor do I mind being considered, ahem, 'out of the loop.' (Is this the same as being 'down with the kidz'?)


cool so in your world spelling is more important than ideas...

shows what a petty troll you really are in all it's glory really....

still attacking dyslexics about their disability as a way of avoiding answering the points made is a shit counter argument so shall we try again fuck wit...

you are asking specifically if they want change if you concede the riot happened then the obvious next step is why did it happen, and the obvious answer is that people are unhappy enough with their lot to want to try and change it...

you're issue like most wadical dickwads on the internet is that because it doesn't ascribe to your particular brand of bolotics you think it's an irrelevant struggle or voice of opinion...

well fuck you ...

don't come down to the bank, although I'm sure the fluffies would love to see you spend a week in tottenham spouting your bullshit and see where that gets you....

btw not going to the bank, not aiding in those who are willing to take a stand and try to start a dialogue about the shape of our society is to become put's you firmly in the camp of some other groups ... but maily the shite keyboard clueless fuckwit warrior you've always been you vaccious waste of DNA....`


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm sorry-I should really get myself down to the Bank of Ideas to be educated in struggle.
> 
> (Goes on National Express website.)


or you could respond to the points raised in courter to your evanescent bullshit and bollocks...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No-a Michel Houellebecq novel. Get it right.


as a mask on a cereal packet rather cardboard cut out and fucking without any reasonable use...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> cool so in your world spelling is more important than ideas...
> 
> shows what a petty troll you really are in all it's glory really....
> 
> ...


 
You're right-I spend much of my time attacking dyslexics.

You don't come across as dyslexic though-you come across as not a full shilling.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> as a mask on a cereal packet rather cardboard cut out and fucking without any reasonable use...


 
Yes...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You're right-I spend much of my time attacking dyslexics.
> 
> You don't come across as dyslexic though-you come across as not a full shilling.


glad that I don't conform to your stereotype of what a disabled person can and can't be like... sorry for the disappointment... still enough with the personal off topic attacks eh, retard, care to engage with you know like counter points and well some reliance on what we like to call facts... eh?

nope to simple for you... so let's try again you worthless anarkid brat...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 19, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yes...(I am a) cardboard cut out and fucking without any reasonable use


a confession of being worthless and without use... thanks...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> a confession of being worthless and without use... thanks...


 
Don't mention it.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you worthless anarkid brat...


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Maybe the so called Lumpen have their own destiny and have no intention of being manipulated by any potential allies. That the so called lumpen represent a threat to the established order is clear.
> 
> They also represent a threat to the left and I include the IWCA in that. They have their own destiny and leave you lot by the sidelines.



With all due respect that is complete bonkers. In what possible way do the lumpen represent a threat to the established order? Historically the lumpen have offered a threat to the left/organised working class that is indeed true. So it's then a case of picking sides. As for the interaction between the lumpen and the IWCA for example in Blackbird Leys when the IWCA lined up with the local working class community against the crack-dealers, police informers/drug dealers, Yardie rapists and so forth; it was the iWCA and local community on one side and the lumpen, plus media, Labour Party and police on the other. A sort of 'show me your friends and I'll tell you what you are' sort of moment.

Precisely the same thing happened in Dublin when locals tried to confront herion dealers. As I say it's case of picking sides.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> In the long term, political change is certainly impossible without the underclass youth



Pity we can't ask Huey Newton about how that worked out for the Black Panthers?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You're right-I spend much of my time attacking dyslexics.
> 
> You don't come across as dyslexic though-you come across as not a full shilling.


I know Garf IRL, have done for nearly a decade, and you couldn't be more wrong. He certainly IS both dyslexic and completely sane.


----------



## past caring (Dec 20, 2011)

So it's just a case of him necking a couple of tabs every time he posts on here then?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And luckily they've got you to speak for them on Urban75. They probably don't know it, but this is how fortunate they are.


except I'm not doing that AT ALL - as is immediately apparent to all but the severely retarded. Are you actually trying to establish a new personal best for wiklful stupidity?
And as eric points out, just cos you don't get up off your arse to try and help your community, it's pretty pathetic that you sneer at those who do. Beats actually having to bother, eh?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> except I'm not sdoing that AT ALL - as is immediately apparent to all but the severely retarded. Are you actually trying to establish a new personal best for wiklful stupidity?
> And aseric points out, just cos you don't get up off your arse to try and help your community, it's pretty pathetic that you sneer at those who do. Beats actually having to bother, eh?



I haven't sneered at anybody who tries to help their community; I've sneered at your attempts to speak for 'Tottenham youth. ' On U75.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I haven't sneered at anybody who tries to help their ncommunity; I've sneered at your attempts to speak for 'Tottenham youth. ' On U75.


those entirely fictitious, non-existent 'attempts' thaqt you dreamt up, you mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...a jumped up swappie wadical anarkid with fuck all clue...



....would have fuck all clue because they'd probably have induced schizophrenia in themselves by trying to be a Swappie *and* "radical" at the same time.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I know Garf IRL, have done for nearly a decade, and you couldn't be more wrong. He certainly IS both dyslexic and completely sane.



I know him too.

He's certainly dyslexic. Not so sure about his sanity!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> So it's just a case of him necking a couple of tabs every time he posts on here then?



garf, I'm really sorry but that WAS funny...


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I can't. I can say that most of the younger people around here that I've discussed it with, and that's quite a few as I've had to represent the local community at several apres riot post mortems... On the whole they couldn't give a flying fuck what the likes of you think, because a significant percentage are going to die before they are into their 20s, many more will be spending most of their life in prison regardless of what they do...



'A significant percentage of younger people around here will die before they are into their 20's, or be spending most of their life in prison.'

Or in other words a significant number of teenagers will die at the hands of other teenagers and their killers, if caught, will be lifed off.

And these are the people being defended, lauded, and eulogised as a threat to the system?

Perhaps as well and more tellingly we have an unwitting admission, that a) gang life is quite widespread (which has been long denied on here and on other threads) and b) is entirely nihilistic, which is a philosophy perhaps, but not one that usually warrants the description of 'political'.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I haven't said I know anything about anybody's life.


yes you do, time after time, when the debate inevitably reaches the cul-de-sac of endless cheap sneers from you.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> In what possible way do the lumpen represent a threat to the established order?


Several days of serious rioting was/is a serious threat to the established order.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'A significant percentage of younger people around here will die before they are into their 20's, or be spending most of their life in prison.'
> 
> Or in other words a significant number of teenagers will die at the hands of other teenagers and their killers, if caught, will be lifed off.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here has lauded or eulogised the rioters - at most, hope has been expressed that street-level anger and discontent may possibly provide some raw material to work with in the future


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'A significant percentage of younger people around here will die before they are into their 20's, or be spending most of their life in prison.'
> 
> Or in other words a significant number of teenagers will die at the hands of other teenagers and their killers, if caught, will be lifed off.
> 
> ...


Yeah. It's all about moral failing and nothing whatsoever to do with people reacting to the circumstances they are trapped in. Not political. 

Remarkably revealing thread this. Top work TopCat, Streathamite et al.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Perhaps as well and more tellingly we have an unwitting admission, that a) gang life is quite widespread (which has been long denied on here and on other threads) and b) is entirely nihilistic, which is a philosophy perhaps, but not one that usually warrants the description of 'political'.


I would argue that the gangs providing a sense of community that is otherwise lacking in blighted communities, and kids reacting to blighted communities, ruined life chances, shit circumstances, by disavowing the rules of a society that has abandoned them, is a100% 'political' issue, myself
e2a; edited for clarity


----------



## likesfish (Dec 20, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Several days of serious rioting was/is a serious threat to the established order.


 
which got dealt with rather firmly.
 gang culture is a dead end that's got nothing of value to add to anything.
  even in communities blighted by gangs people get out and up. but then their no longer on da street so are traitors politics of the lobster pot


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

likesfish said:


> which got dealt with rather firmly.
> gang culture is a dead end that's got nothing of value to add to anything.
> even in communities blighted by gangs people get out and up. but then their no longer on da street so are traitors politics of the lobster pot


except...all the reports about the riots have said they had f-all to do with gang culture


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

'oh but but those reports are all by liberal guardianistas who wish to ingnore the lumpen black menace because they are liberal'

good prole, bad prole-no room for thought.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I don't think anyone here has lauded or eulogised the rioters - at most, hope has been expressed that street-level anger and discontent may possibly provide some raw material to work with in the future



What happened to the 'raw material' from the riots of the 1980s? (You remind me of a character, a Communist, in that Sartre trilogy-it's over 20 years since I read it, but I think I'm recalling it accurately-where they're in a fascist prison camp and he looks upon his fellow inmates as his 'material.')

Where did the 'threat to the establishment' from those riots go because last time I looked, the establishment was still very much here?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> good prole, bad prole-no room for thought.



Of course there are good and bad 'proles'-the bad 'proles' are the ones who prey not on the ruling class and the capitalists but on their fellow 'proles.'


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Of course there are good and bad 'proles'-the bad 'proles' are the ones who prey not on the ruling class and the capitalists but on their fellow 'proles.'



Apparantly that sort of view is divide and rule on what passes for the left these days. ( that is a left that won't go near working class communities per se)


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What happened to the 'raw material' from the riots of the 1980s? (You remind me of a character, a Communist, in that Sartre trilogy-it's over 20 years since I read it, but I think I'm recalling it accurately-where they're in a fascist prison camp and he looks upon his fellow inmates as his 'material.')
> 
> Where did the 'threat to the establishment' from those riots go because last time I looked, the establishment was still very much here?


It took decades to overturn the postwar consensus. You expect the reverse to happen in weeks?

If that's your idea of a realistic timeframe for political change, it's no wonder you've given up.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> well if the alternative in the false dichotomy is someone as clue less as you speaking for them I'd rather have an old pinko with his heart in the right place than a jumped up swappie wadical anarkid with fuck all clue...



all of which Llettsa is as far as away from as you could get. The jumped up liberals that you are on about are the ones that think the looting was some form of an uprising.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What happened to the 'raw material' from the riots of the 1980s?


I don't know, and I don't think the 80s have too much relevance to today, or more precisely the events of last summer. Also, i'd be the last to suggest we took a huge leap towards a revolution last summer - i just think it's helpful that the youth got that little bit more angry and bitter.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Apparantly that sort of view is divide and rule on what passes for the left these days. ( that is a left that won't go near working class communities per se)


as a 'left' community activist in wc communities, that 'left' that you are on about is not one I recognise


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> all of which Llettsa is as far as away from as you could get. The jumped up liberals that you are on about are the ones that think the looting was some form of an uprising.


I don't know about you but i'd say a large number of people across the country taking on the cops looks like some sort of uprising to me. Sounds to me from a variety of posts that you're the sort of liberal jello biafra sang about


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know about you but i'd say a large number of people across the country taking on the cops looks like some sort of uprising to me. Sounds to me from a variety of posts that you're the sort of liberal jello biafra sang about



The absense of pickets, demos at police staions and indeed the absence of large people 'taking on the cops' unless it stopped them from looting  leads me to believe that you are the sort of dreamer that the Monkees sang about.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> as a 'left' community activist in wc communities, that 'left' that you are on about is not one I recognise



Good for you .How about the local working class perspective or are they as Dotcom thinks being divisive by having counter revo thoughts that the people who are stealing off them, robbing them and generally making life a misery in working class communities are really not on the same side?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

it's only a reaction when it conforms to my expectations


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Several days of serious rioting was/is a serious threat to the established order.



How is it? What is it suggesting the 'established order' is going to be replaced with?


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Good for you .How about the local working class perspective or are they as Dotcom thinks being divisive by having counter revo thoughts that the people who are stealing off them, robbing them and generally making life a misery in working class communities are really not on the same side?


This is precisely the same form of argument that leads to groups like the EDL - people attacking immigrants rather than the policies that use immigration to threaten the working-class.

Simple-minded moral condemnation ignores the circumstances which produce these behaviours, and thus cannot offer a solution for those communities which are blighted by it. Social problems are caused by poverty, exclusion and alienation - if they weren't, Hampstead would have exactly the same sorts of problems as Tottenham.

None of this is to condone individuals who steal from or commit acts of violence against their communities, but authoritarian foot-stomping and demanding that people behave exactly how you want them to doesn't work. This problem has a cause, and refusal to recognise and tackle that cause is to condemn these communities to more of the same whilst providing political cover for those who have created this situation for their own ends and will see it continue for as long as we allow them to. It is an astonishingly stupid position to take.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I would argue that the gangs providing a sense of community that is otherwise lacking in blighted communities, and kids reacting to blighted communities, ruined life chances, shit circumstances, by disavowing the rules of a society that has abandoned them, is a100% 'political' issue, myself
> e2a; edited for clarity



What you describe is accurate. But the resulting mindset isclassically criminal rather than political. (Afterall what socialist youth would happily cut the throat of another socialist from a different post code? )

They know this. Its actually you, not them who can't distinguish between the two.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> This is precisely the same form of argument that leads to groups like the EDL - people attacking immigrants rather than the policies that use immigration to threaten the working-class.
> 
> Simple-minded moral condemnation ignores the circumstances which produce these behaviours, and thus cannot offer a solution for those communities which are blighted by it. Social problems are caused by poverty, exclusion and alienation - if they weren't, Hampstead would have exactly the same sorts of problems as Tottenham.
> 
> None of this is to condone individuals who steal from or commit acts of violence against their communities, but authoritarian foot-stomping and demanding that people behave exactly how you want them to doesn't work. This problem has a cause, and refusal to recognise and tackle that cause is to condemn these communities to more of the same whilst providing political cover for those who have created this situation for their own ends and will see it continue for as long as we allow them to. It is an astonishingly stupid position to take.



So for you then the gangs are not part of the problem but part of the solution?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I don't know, and I don't think the 80s have too much relevance to today, or more precisely the events of last summer. Also, i'd be the last to suggest we took a huge leap towards a revolution last summer - i just think it's helpful that the youth got that little bit more angry and bitter.



Given that nothing happened to dislodge the established order after the bigger riots of the 1980s, when there was also plenty of anger and bitter youth around, why do you expect a different result this time, when those who are able to articulate some kind of alternative to the established order are even fewer in number and lesser in talent etc etc than they were then? And that's leaving aside the knocks the very idea of an alternative has also taken.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> It took decades to overturn the postwar consensus. You expect the reverse to happen in weeks?
> 
> If that's your idea of a realistic timeframe for political change, it's no wonder you've given up.


 
We're not talking about a matter of weeks but of twenty-odd years. And I can't see what you're getting at anyway. Are we to imagine that cheering on rioters from time to time will have some kind of incremental effect at the end of which we get...what exactly?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> None of this is to condone individuals who steal from or commit acts of violence against their communities, but authoritarian foot-stomping and demanding that people behave exactly how you want them to doesn't work. This problem has a cause, and refusal to recognise and tackle that cause is to condemn these communities to more of the same whilst providing political cover for those who have created this situation for their own ends and will see it continue for as long as we allow them to. It is an astonishingly stupid position to take.



So if dismissing a working class response which expresses the common working class dislike of those who generally prey on their own communities as mere 'foot-stomping,' and 'moral condemnation' (nothing could be more inaccurate) what do you suggest? How do you propose to 'tackle the causes' of such behaviour (while taking into account that some people will always perpetrate anti-social crime no matter what)? Isn't this the same abstract crap that the left has failed to produce anything concrete from for decades?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> it's only a reaction when it conforms to my expectations



Maybe you could use this opportunity to explain your idea that it's all part of 'a process.'

How does this process work? Is it by magic, for instance? Can we detect the mysterious workings of God in it?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> This is precisely the same form of argument that leads to groups like the EDL - people attacking immigrants rather than the policies that use immigration to threaten the working-class.
> 
> Simple-minded moral condemnation ignores the circumstances which produce these behaviours, and thus cannot offer a solution for those communities which are blighted by it. Social problems are caused by poverty, exclusion and alienation - if they weren't, Hampstead would have exactly the same sorts of problems as Tottenham.
> 
> None of this is to condone individuals who steal from or commit acts of violence against their communities, but authoritarian foot-stomping and demanding that people behave exactly how you want them to doesn't work. This problem has a cause, and refusal to recognise and tackle that cause is to condemn these communities to more of the same whilst providing political cover for those who have created this situation for their own ends and will see it continue for as long as we allow them to. It is an astonishingly stupid position to take.



What a bizarre post! This is the sort of flimy reasoning that used to explain joy riding as some form of alienation or mugging as a post colonial fightback and promised that it would be all over when the revolution came.

I am intrigued about what  exactly would you yourself ( or ,indeed if you ever got near them, with local working class communities )would do with these individuals who steal or committ violence against their communities if you are not going to condone them.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Maybe you could use this opportunity to explain your idea that it's all part of 'a process.'
> 
> How does this process work? Is it by magic, for instance? Can we detect the mysterious workings of God in it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

yes lletsa. it works by magic.

Now the topic in hand is the increasingly-dodgy-looking shooting of Mark Duggan. of course, it is far easier to starkey out and talk about 'culture' etc isn't it. But you and other webbies do have a whole other thread for it. Lets keep this one to the inconvenient facts that so scupper bedwetting 'oh its all blackies on the rampage' whiners, shall we?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 20, 2011)

Oh fuck off.


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So for you then the gangs are not part of the problem but part of the solution?


You'll have to explain how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote because it is so bizarre I have no idea how to help you get the point without knowing how you managed to miss it so spectacularly.


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> What a bizarre post! This is the sort of flimy reasoning that used to explain joy riding as some form of alienation or mugging as a post colonial fightback and promised that it would be all over when the revolution came.
> 
> I am intrigued about what exactly would you yourself ( or ,indeed if you ever got near them, with local working class communities )would do with these individuals who steal or committ violence against their communities if you are not going to condone them.


You too will have to explain how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote because it is so bizarre I have no idea how to help you get the point without knowing how you managed to miss it so spectacularly.

FWIW, of those I know who were involved in this kind of shit in their youth, one ended up as a social worker, one carried on with some fairly serious shit for a long time before he managed to get out and is now studying criminology, and the genuine psychopath ended up working for Goldman Sachs.


----------



## past caring (Dec 20, 2011)

Just a bit of temporary acting out then?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> You'll have to explain how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote because it is so bizarre I have no idea how to help you get the point without knowing how you managed to miss it so spectacularly.



Let me simplify it for you:

a) lumpen gangs are both symptom and compound of 30 years of neo-liberalism.

b) lumpen gangs are 'raw material' to work on

c) the gangs and rioters, in standing up to their and our oppressors, have taking a political stance already, and accordingly, further and presumably wilder riots, can only help hasten progressive political change.


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> Just a bit of temporary acting out then?


Well no - if that was the case then, as I said before, you'd expect exactly the same problems in Hampstead as Hackney. They, like everyone else in the world, are responding to the circumstances they are in at a particular time in their lives. If the circumstances don't change, then neither will the behaviour.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> Just a bit of temporary acting out then?



I have never met anyone in the middle classes who didn't like a bit of 'character building' on their CV to try and give them a bit of 'cred'.


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Let me simplify it for you:
> 
> a) lumpen gangs are both symptom and compound of 30 years of neo-liberalism.
> 
> ...


Is that your position or your strawman? Sorry, I can't tell - you're not making a whole lot of sense AFAICT.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> How is it? What is it suggesting the 'established order' is going to be replaced with?



Destabilisation that isn't on their own terms is a threat to the established order. It may not be a *great* threat, one that will lead to replacement, but it does shake 'em up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What you describe is accurate. But the resulting mindset isclassically criminal rather than political. (Afterall what socialist youth would happily cut the throat of another socialist from a different post code? )



The Chinese socialist youth faced with the Russian socialist youth, and _vice versa_?
Surely you're not naive enough that you believe political allegiance can permanently over-write other allegiances?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> Just a bit of temporary acting out then?



For some it is, for some it isn't. If you don't help people find a reason to get over the acting out, then it ain't going to be temporary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I have never met anyone in the middle classes who didn't like a bit of 'character building' on their CV to try and give them a bit of 'cred'.



You're projecting again, aren't you?


----------



## past caring (Dec 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Destabilisation that isn't on their own terms is a threat to the established order. It may not be a *great* threat, one that will lead to replacement, but it does shake 'em up.



And in the absence of any credible and progressive challenge to the established order, the result of said shake up is likely to be a reactionary one.



ViolentPanda said:


> The Chinese socialist youth faced with the Russian socialist youth, and _vice versa_?
> Surely you're not naive enough that you believe political allegiance can permanently over-write other allegiances?



Implication of this appears to be a belief in either the "genuinely" socialist nature of said youth or that nation/tribe will, ultimately, always trump progressive politics. Or possibly both. Either way, I'm surprised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Oh fuck off.


 
No. I'm sick of the veiled and not-veiled insistence that this is a black and/or gang thing. I'm sick of people on the left wanting to section these riots off as the apotheosis of parasites. I expect it from the right, it is a given. But it sticks in the craw when this shit is coming from the left. I'm not even going to go into how shitty I felt about those burned out families again, did it all during the riots. But the constant attempts to frame this as bad lumpens acting up is such a crock of shit. Divorced of any serious contextual analysis.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> No. I'm sick of the veiled and not-veiled insistence that this is a black and/or gang thing. I'm sick of people on the left wanting to section these riots off as the apotheosis of parasites. I expect it from the right, it is a given. But it sticks in the craw when this shit is coming from the left. I'm not even going to go into how shitty I felt about those burned out families again, did it all during the riots. But the constant attempts to frame this as bad lumpens acting up is such a crock of shit. Divorced of any serious contextual analysis.



Those burned out families will no doubt feel very comforted that you 'felt shitty' about it while cheerleading all that led to it anyway.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> yes lletsa. it works by magic.



But what is it, this 'process'?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Those burned out families will no doubt feel very comforted that you 'felt shitty' about it while cheerleading all that led to it anyway.


 
what was I cheerleading? LLETSA? What? oh thats right I wasn't, you are just making up bollox again.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> what was I cheerleading? LLETSA? What? oh thats right I wasn't, you are just making up bollox again.


 
You have been cheerleading the very events that led to the burning of working class familes out of their homes on here from day one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)




----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 20, 2011)

I already posted this excellent commentary from Mike Marqusee, but I think it deserves a second:​


> In the vast realm of human phenomena there are few things as impure or as complex as a riot, with its ever-shifting array of motives and circumstances. It is a social phenomenon and requires a social analysis and response. It’s the denial of that duty that’s reckless and irresponsible, not the alleged “socio-economic excuses” reviled by conservatives...​
> What happened was a concatenation of actions and reactions, with the riotous behaviour taking several forms: confrontation with police, destruction of property (large chain stores but also small shops), sporadic assaults on individuals, looting (theft), sometimes as a secondary overspill and sometimes as primary purpose, plus a lawless reaction to all of the above...​
> The killing in Tottenham elicited a response because it was the latest in a series of events which have left the Metropolitan Police (London’s police force) deeply compromised. There have been fatal and near-fatal shootings of innocent young men, the death of a middle aged newspaper vendor as a result of heavy handed policing at the G20 protest in 2009, and the death earlier this year of reggae musician Smiley Culture during a police raid on his home (a peaceful protest of thousands was ignored). When student demonstrations against the tripling of tuition fees surged through central London this past winter, they were subjected to stringent police tactics, with many thousands “kettled” – forcibly confined for hours to small areas without facilities of any kind. Tens of thousands of London youth have found themselves subject to demeaning and discriminatory ’stop and search’ operations. Finally came the exposure of police complicity in the Rupert Murdoch-sponsored phone-hacking scandal, culminating in the resignations of the Met’s two top cops only weeks before the riot...​
> Britain as a whole is a wealthy country but the distribution of that wealth has grown increasingly and palpably unequal. In London in particular there’s a concentration of glamour and grimness, luxury goods and lifestyles next to poverty and exclusion. Fifteen yeas of GDP growth passed many of those in the riot-affected areas by, and three years of recession have hit them hard. Average male life expectancy in Tottenham is 18 years less than in wealthy Kensington and Chelsea (and youngsters there five times more likely to be injured in road accidents). Youth unemployment, running at 20% nationally, runs at double that figure in places like Tottenham and Hackney.​
> ...



http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1203​
You see, that's the sort of multifaceted and nuanced analysis that actually requires a bit of thought. But I guess it's easier to spout some sub-Starkey shit about black gangs though....​


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ​You see, that's the sort of multi faceted and nuanced analysis that actually requires a bit of thought. But I guess it's easier to spout some sub-Starkey shit about black gangs though....​


 
I notice the liberal left has resorted to playing the race card again.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 20, 2011)

You can't say anything any more.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> ....would have fuck all clue because they'd probably have induced schizophrenia in themselves by trying to be a Swappie *and* "radical" at the same time.


They're all the same wadical I'm more wadical than thou types who use the politics in the way golf bores use their par as a dick sizing contest. 

This lletsa joker however is one of those oh we'll you don't have a complete solution to the problem your entire solution is invalid its all hopeless. 

What it must be to live life not have any hope.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> How is it? What is it suggesting the 'established order' is going to be replaced with?


What are you suggesting it should replaced with? Nothing? 

Well then you have no right to complain about society. 

That's the candour of your post...

Which is just bullshit. 

You don't need to be raped to know its wrong.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I notice the liberal left has resorted to playing the race card again.


All of them?

Really.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You can't say anything any more.


 
At least I don't have to bring in a communique from one of the bigger boys.

And both you and Dotty have tried to play the race card in this thread.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> All of them?
> 
> Really.


 
No, a couple on here. Strewth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

the 'race card' was already in play, both in this and the wider discussion. The eagerness with which some leftist folks siezed upon it, well, don't moan when you get called.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

Tell us again about how starkey had it right


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

actually don't bother, this isn't the thread for your sub conradian shit.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> This lletsa joker however is one of those oh we'll you don't have a complete solution to the problem your entire solution is invalid its all hopeless.
> 
> What it must be to live life not have any hope.


 
There's a difference between asking for 'a complete solution' and asking for at least a semblance of an idea as to where the so-called uprising of the underclass is leading. I've done the latter but nobody's been able to oblige with an answer so far.

Hope is subjective, but I find it hard to see why anybody sees hope in the opportunistic and mostly apolitical copycat rioting that took place in August. Still, the anarcholeft has always been stuffed with naive mugs who want to see hope in pretty much anything. And never seem to seriously wonder why nothing ever comes of their 'hopes.'


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Tell us again about how starkey had it right


 
Stop lying: a glance at the relevant thread gives the lie to that claim.

I thought you were supposed to be some kind of minor Marxist intellectual?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> actually don't bother, this isn't the thread for your sub conradian shit.



I wish I could come up with some sub-Conradian shit. I'd probably make some money if I put it out on Kindle.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No, a couple on here. Strewth.


Then you should be more concise in your lax use of language.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Stop lying: a glance at the relevant thread gives the lie to that claim.
> 
> I thought you were supposed to be some kind of minor Marxist intellectual?



LOL


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Then you should be more concise in your lax use of language.


 
Right...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> LOL


 
First a picture, then a lie and now text language.

Is this the kind of Marxist intellectual the colleges are producing these days?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

oh what, the lie of you giving starkey props. Yeah, what a generator of falsehoods I am. It isn't like you did your 'ACADEMIC BULLSHIT! ACADEMIC BULLSHIT! EXTERMINATE! NOTHING ON THE INTERNETS IS REAL! EXTERMINATE!' routine is it


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> oh what, the lie of you giving starkey props. Yeah, what a generator of falsehoods I am. It isn't like you did your 'ACADEMIC BULLSHIT! ACADEMIC BULLSHIT! EXTERMINATE! NOTHING ON THE INTERNETS IS REAL! EXTERMINATE!' routine is it


 
Can't you just try to say something coherent about your stance on all this? You're on your way to becoming one of the Urban nutter brigade.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

on the case of mark duggan? I've made my view perfectly clear on it from the outset of this thread.

A cowboy hit, then a lazy fit up. So far evidence suggests that I am not far wrong.

If you want to discuss the riots and wider implications then toddle off to the 'Riots-The fallout' thread. Where I shall not be joining you, as I've a film to watch and you remind me of the slough of despond from pilgrims progress.

toodle pip


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> There's a difference between asking for 'a complete solution' and asking for at least a semblance of an idea as to where the so-called uprising of the underclass is leading. I've done the latter but nobody's been able to oblige with an answer so far.
> 
> Hope is subjective, but I find it hard to see why anybody sees hope in the opportunistic and mostly apolitical copycat rioting that took place in August. Still, the anarcholeft has always been stuffed with naive mugs who want to see hope in pretty much anything. And never seem to seriously wonder why nothing ever comes of their 'hopes.'


My guess is that societal convention comes from dialogue between each other which is equitable. 

Nothing about the current standards of living comes close to this. 

Being denied a valid and equitable voice leads to frustration

Frustration leads to anger 

Anger leads to depression and dispare

This current system isn't working for the majority of people because the are denied that dialogue 

It is beneficial to the modern alcamists to portray societal cohesion as some dark arcane art it's leads to the attitude of if it's not a complete solution it's invalid. 

But ask yourself this. 

Has any year been indentical to any other or has each one been different. Yet you've managed to navigate through life without knowing your entire plan or the outcome of it. 

Also if you think with out a defined govt the society would collapse why did belgium do so for 18 months?

In fact Belgium has been better protected from the whole recession because without a govt it's not changed their economic policies and they still have growth.

You seem like a very dispondant and hopeless. 

Hence your apathy and dejection. 

Pitiful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> The absense of pickets, demos at police staions and indeed the absence of large people 'taking on the cops' unless it stopped them from looting  leads me to believe that you are the sort of dreamer that the Monkees sang about.


I think what you're trying to say here is that as far as you're concerned there is a rrpertoire of practices which you recognise together as an uprising. you are trying to fost the practice of 10, 20 years ago onto something you don't understand and because it does not conform you deny its reality. You're like some frog general from 1940 wondering how come 1914-18 isn't being replayed.


turning to a couple of specifics, you don't seem to have paid much attention to events in eg hackney where *shock* lots of things happened away from shops involving sizeable groups of people. In fact, anything which doesn't coincide with your conception is ignored. By the way you seem to have ignored the fact I didn't actually mention looting in my post


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> on the case of mark duggan? I've made my view perfectly clear on it from the outset of this thread.
> 
> A cowboy hit, then a lazy fit up. So far evidence suggests that I am not far wrong.
> 
> ...


 
 As if the thread hadn't already veered away from Mark Duggan. Still, nice excuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2011)

Oh - iirc there weren't many pickets of police stations in the spring of 1990, or in the six counties in '68 or '69 - are you going to arguue the poll tax wasn't a bit of a rising or that the unrest in the six counties, esp in eg 71, 72 hadn't some of the hallmarks of a rising.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> My guess is that societal convention comes from dialogue between each other which is equitable.
> 
> Nothing about the current standards of living comes close to this.
> 
> ...



So basically, if we riot our way towards no government (as if), we might become like Belgium and have growth in a market economy.

Now we're getting somewhere!

(And how can people take seriously the idea that Belgium had 'no government?')


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I think what you're trying to say here is that as far as you're concerned there is a rrpertoire of practices which you recognise together as an uprising. you are trying to fost the practice of 10, 20 years ago onto something you don't understand and because it does not conform you deny its reality. You're like some frog general from 1940 wondering how come 1914-18 isn't being replayed.
> 
> turning to a couple of specifics, you don't seem to have paid much attention to events in eg hackney where *shock* lots of things happened away from shops involving sizeable groups of people. In fact, anything which doesn't coincide with your conception is ignored. By the way you seem to have ignored the fact I didn't actually mention looting in my post


 
What is happening that's different to the 1980s then, apart from the opposition to the existing order being weaker (and thicker), and the idea of an alternative to capitalism having drastically lost ground? And riots then, riots now-why should we expect a different outcome? Spell it out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2011)

Down st pancras and on the eurostar to brussels from the sounds of it


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

DP


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So basically, if we riot our way towards no government (as if), we might become like Belgium and have growth in a market economy.
> 
> Now we're getting somewhere!


Nope. 

My guess is the future is not borne from glib over simplification intent on scoring imaginary points against others to try feel more in control of their lives they otherwise exercise little in. 

You can stop being a little man. Try it. You might like it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What is happening that's different to the 1980s then, apart from the opposition to the existing order being weaker (and thicker), and the idea of an alternative to capitalism having drastically lost ground? And riots then, riots now-why should we expect a different outcome? Spell it out.


What the bloody fuck are you on about? You should change your tagline and lose the magnet bit


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh - iirc there weren't many pickets of police stations in the spring of 1990, or in the six counties in '68 or '69 - are you going to arguue the poll tax wasn't a bit of a rising or that the unrest in the six counties, esp in eg 71, 72 hadn't some of the hallmarks of a rising.



Is that the best you can come up with?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 20, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Nope.
> 
> My guess is the future is not borne from glib over simplification intent on scoring imaginary points against others to try feel more in control of their lives they otherwise exercise little in.
> 
> You can stop being a little man. Try it. You might like it.


 
How many times can you and your ilk say nothing?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> What the bloody fuck are you on about? You should change your tagline and lose the magnet bit


 
You know what I'm on about. We had riots in the 1980s under more favourable conditions both politically and socially. Nothing happened to change the established order. Why should we expect riots to lead to a different outcome now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Is that the best you can come up with?


You say: they picket police stations in uprisings

I say: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're applying what people might have done some time ago in different circumstances to a different context. I do.'t think people picket police stations in an uprising, I think they're more likely to attack them


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> How many times can you and your ilk say nothing?



name names

my ilk

You've no idea. 

Joker. 

Is that the best you can do?  Really little man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You know what I'm on about. We had riots in the 1980s under more favourable conditions both politically and socially. Nothing happened to change the established order. Why should we expect riots to lead to a different outcome now?


I haven't said anything about this and I don't know why you're acting as though I have


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I think what you're trying to say here is that as far as you're concerned there is a rrpertoire of practices which you recognise together as an uprising. you are trying to fost the practice of 10, 20 years ago onto something you don't understand and because it does not conform you deny its reality. You're like some frog general from 1940 wondering how come 1914-18 isn't being replayed.
> 
> turning to a couple of specifics, you don't seem to have paid much attention to events in eg hackney where *shock* lots of things happened away from shops involving sizeable groups of people. In fact, anything which doesn't coincide with your conception is ignored. By the way you seem to have ignored the fact I didn't actually mention looting in my post



obviously Hackney leads the way, must be the impact of London anarchists


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I haven't said anything about this and I don't know why you're acting as though I have


 
I just thought that you, as a long-time riot fetishist, might be able to shed light where others are unable or unwilling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> obviously Hackney leads the way, must be the impact of London anarchists


Yes dear


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 21, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> No. I'm sick of the veiled and not-veiled insistence that this is a black and/or gang thing. I'm sick of people on the left wanting to section these riots off as the apotheosis of parasites. I expect it from the right, it is a given. But it sticks in the craw when this shit is coming from the left. I'm not even going to go into how shitty I felt about those burned out families again, did it all during the riots. But the constant attempts to frame this as bad lumpens acting up is such a crock of shit. Divorced of any serious contextual analysis.



It's not the first time you have erroneously equated people's views to those of say, David Starkey. Who here is saying it is just 'blacks on the rampage'? But you do you make a good point. Where the fuck, in concrete terms, is the left, and what does it mean exactly to working class people who have never needed to use a radical class analysis to redefine themselves as working class? Of what relevance is it to those from the same circumstances who got burned out, attacked and robbed by the kind of scrotes they usually live in fear of. Their perspective of it. Their social context. Not that of the vaguely-defined left most of whom have never lived in those communities. Understand it, sure, and some excellent analysis has been out forward here at this site. But this left you talk of (have never noticed it around here on the estate where I live), isn't taken seriously by those who really have had the shittest deal. I dislike seeing wasted potential, brilliant, bright people's lives literally wasted and made pointless from inequalities the causes of which are beyond their direct control, no matter how hard they try, and then prodded by the sharp fingers of those who have enjoyed conferred social advantages by an accident of birth. This situation isn't an accident at all though. It's deliberate. Am I a reactionary? A counter-revolutionary?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Good for you .How about the local working class perspective or are they as Dotcom thinks being divisive by having counter revo thoughts that the people who are stealing off them, robbing them and generally making life a misery in working class communities are really not on the same side?


that is a totally fair question.
Right...first, I do NOT see the rioters as 'angels', in fact a large proportion of them are most definitely enemies of the working class, as leeches preying on working class communities, and generally horrible little scumbags. but they are actually part of the working class as well, and i think it's more productive to address the underlying social problems, that have caused this destruction in the community. And the riots were NOT just about opportunistic looting, not in every case.
And...ermm...I don't think dotty was saying what you suggest he's saying? 

And we STILL can't escape the fact that the only time tottenham has seen riots is when the death of a black person as a result of a police f-up was followed by them lying and comprehensively smearing the victim. I view the anti-OB hatred as a positive


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that is a totally fair question.
> Right...first, I do NOT see the rioters as 'angels', in fact a large proportion of them are most definitely enemies of the working class, as leeches preying on working class communities, and generally horrible little scumbags. but they are actually part of the working class as well, and i think it's more productive to address the underlying social problems, that have caused this destruction in the community. And the riots were NOT just about opportunistic looting, not in every case.



The point is that, Tottenham aside, the riots were very much 'copycat' and primarily directed towards opportunistic looting.

So how are these underlying causes to be addressed and by whom? While bearing in mind that there are people who will be 'leeches preying on working class communities' no matter what (this is, after all, a category of people that actually increased during the decades of the post-war boom/social democratic consensus.)


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I view the anti-OB hatred as a positive


 
Again it depends on why the hatred exists. There is that felt by those with legitimate grievances to be addressed, and that of those who simply want to create conditions whereby they can do whatever the fuck they want to anybody they choose with no fear of any comeback.

It is naive in the extreme to think that both elements are not always very much present in the type of riots we saw in August.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Given that nothing happened to dislodge the established order after the bigger riots of the 1980s, when there was also plenty of anger and bitter youth around, why do you expect a different result this time, when those who are able to articulate some kind of alternative to the established order are even fewer in number and lesser in talent etc etc than they were then?


well, ermm, given that I'm not clairvoyant, I haven't the faintest idea how things will pan out. The difference to me is that an entire generation of youth have been comprehensively shafted, even more so than in '81


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> well, ermm, given that I'm not clairvoyant, I haven't the faintest idea how things will pan out. The difference to me is that an entire generation of youth have been comprehensively shafted, even more so than in '81



Yes, yes, tell us what we don't know.

So basically we're in a blind alley where we can't say where such events are leading, but they should be cheered on anyway?

Not being a clairvoyant has nothing to do with anything. Funny how so many are saying this on lefty messageboards these days.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The point is that, Tottenham aside, the riots were very much 'copycat' and primarily directed towards opportunistic looting.


Really? You must be a quite remarkable man, if you have such a direct access to the inner mental workings of each and every rioter, and know their precise motivations better than they do themselves.
Otherwise, I'd assume you were simply repeating the tabloid line uncritically, without any attempt at deeper analysis


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> You say: they picket police stations in uprisings
> 
> I say: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're applying what people might have done some time ago in different circumstances to a different context. I do.'t think people picket police stations in an uprising, I think they're more likely to attack them



I didn't say that at all. You in fact were trying to make out that the riots were some sort of public dissent at the police when in fact with the exception of the protest outside of Totenham Police station  there was no evidence of public protest against the police.Post riots there has pretty much been a consensus that if anything the Police should have got stuck in more.

Your anti Police obsession and fetishism of riots is destroying what ever limited politics you ever had.I suspect you will grow out of it and eventually be one of those vicar types that visit people in custody.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> well, ermm, given that *I'm not clairvoyant*, I haven't the faintest idea how things will pan out. The difference to me is that an entire generation of youth have been comprehensively shafted, even more so than in '81


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't say that at all. You in fact were trying to make out that the riots were some sort of public dissent at the police when in fact with the exception of the protest outside of Totenham Police station there was no evidence of public protest against the police.Post riots there has pretty much been a consensus that if anything the Police should have got stuck in more.
> 
> Your anti Police obsession and fetishism of riots is destroying what ever limited politics you ever had.I suspect you will grow out of it and eventually be one of those vicar types that visit people in custody.


do you recall this post:


The39thStep said:


> The absense of pickets, demos at police staions and indeed the absence of large people 'taking on the cops' unless it stopped them from looting leads me to believe that you are the sort of dreamer that the Monkees sang about.


so you did in fact say that.

your claim that 'there was no evidence of public protest against the police' doesn't really sit too well with the evidence from at least - off the top of my head - nottingham and hackney.

your claim that there has been a consensus that the cops should have got stuck in more's a load of auld shit too. a consensus among who? i certainly don't think so, no fucking consensus there. who do you mean and what evidence do you have for your bold claim?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> with the exception of the protest outside of Totenham Police station there was no evidence of public protest against the police.


but it was that which started the whole bloody thing off!


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> do you recall this post:
> 
> so you did in fact say that.
> 
> ...



I sincerely hope that you have never been allowed to represent anyone at work with those legal skills Pickman.I wouldn't have confidence in  you to call me a cab.

Outside of the second star on the left anarchist scene on here and the Guardianista's i think you will find that consensus exists.

I am still looking for these looter defence campaigns, marches and demos against the police following on from the defeat of the uprisings let me know when you spot  one.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> but it was that which started the whole bloody thing off!



Are you honestly suggesting that the demonstration outside the Police station in Tottenham would have wanted to be blamed or even associated for the looting and rioting and the destruction of local communities nationally? I think not .


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Are you honestly suggesting that the demonstration outside the Police station in Tottenham would have wanted to be blamed or even associated for the looting and rioting and the destruction of local communities nationally? I think not .


no of course not, but genuine hatred of the met underpinned an awful lot of the rioting in London - dunno about elsewhere


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I sincerely hope that you have never been allowed to represent anyone at work with those legal skills Pickman.I wouldn't have confidence in  you to call me a cab.
> 
> Outside of the second star on the left anarchist scene on here and the Guardianista's i think you will find that consensus exists.
> 
> I am still looking for these looter defence campaigns, marches and demos against the police following on from the defeat of the uprisings let me know when you spot  one.


So if we leave aside everyone who doesn't agree with your consensus you think there's a consensus. Never mind not trusting me with calling a cab I wouldn't trust you to call the talking clock. Where's the evidence I asked for you dozy twat?

incidentally this is the first time in this exchange you've mentioned defence campaigns for rioters


----------



## past caring (Dec 21, 2011)

Once upon a time thought dotty was ok - now  realise a proble liberal cunt along with the rest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no of course not, but genuine hatred of the met underpinned an awful lot of the rioting in London - dunno about elsewhere


I don't think you can blame hatred of the met for what happened in eg nottingham


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Really? You must be a quite remarkable man, if you have such a direct access to the inner mental workings of each and every rioter, and know their precise motivations better than they do themselves.
> Otherwise, I'd assume you were simply repeating the tabloid line uncritically, without any attempt at deeper analysis



You don't need 'access to the inner mental workings...' You just have to look at what was actually going on.

'Deeper analysis'? Is the kind of fantasising you're indulging in what passes for deep analysis now?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> Once upon a time thought dotty was ok - now realise a proble



I always knew he was a proble from his lack of toes.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You don't need 'access to the inner mental workings...' You just have to look at what was actually going on.
> 
> 'Deeper analysis'? Is the kind of fantasising you're indulging in what passes for deep analysis now?


No you don't 'just have to look atwhat was going on', that's ridiculously simplistic
And only in your head - and absolutely nowhere else - have I indulged in  ANY sort of 'fantasising' - god you're delusional


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No you don't 'just have to look atwhat was going on', that's ridiculously simplistic
> And only in your head - and absolutely nowhere else - have I indulged in ANY sort of 'fantasising' - god you're delusional



Your fantasising comes from trying to see something progressive in what went on in August even though you can't say what it is.

Of course looking at what went on in the copycat riots is enough. It's more than enough. What individual rioters may have been thinking is irrelevant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> And in the absence of any credible and progressive challenge to the established order, the result of said shake up is likely to be a reactionary one.



From what we know of history, yes it will be.

Most of the more effective "moments" of civil disobedience in the last 30 years have been born of reactionary (pardon the pun) reactions.



> Implication of this appears to be a belief in either the "genuinely" socialist nature of said youth or that nation/tribe will, ultimately, always trump progressive politics. Or possibly both. Either way, I'm surprised.



No, the implication is that *any* other loyalty can come between a person and their political allegiance, including cretins scrapping over whose version of socialism has the biggest bollocks, or people worrying more about personal as opposed to national concerns.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> Once upon a time thought dotty was ok - now realise a proble liberal cunt along with the rest.



bullshit - there is nothing liberal about feeling some empathy with the kids who rioted, and understanding that things are far more complex and nuanced than lefty graduates and old timers spout, because you or yours have been in the same place a lot of those kids are


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> bullshit - there is nothing liberal about feeling some empathy with the kids who rioted, and understanding that things are far more complex and nuanced than lefty graduates and old timers spout, because you or yours have been in the same place a lot of those kids are


 
Nobody's denying that things are complex. What isn't complex is the outcome of most of the August events, which was almost entirely negative.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Your fantasising comes from trying to see something progressive in what went on in August even though you can't say what it is.
> 
> Of course looking at what went on in the copycat riots is enough. It's more than enough. What individual rioters may have been thinking is irrelevant.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------The point.

                                                         ---------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LLETSA


----------



## love detective (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Your fantasising comes from trying to see something progressive in what went on in August even though you can't say what it is.



Judging by some of the analysis on this thread it would appear that militant islam, reactionary nationalism, organised crime, drug dealing, corporate tax avoidance and pretty much anything else should be viewed as progressive, based purely on the fact that these activities are a 'challenge' to the established order and involve a confrontation (either overt or covert) with the institutions that police it

To not cheer lead these things is reactionary, counter revolutionary, fails to see the raw material that could be 'worked with' (by whom?) and 'splits the class' (as we all know that the working class should be treated as one big homogenous cultural phenomena - akin to how nationalists view ethnicity, such that people should not be judged on their material activity and the impact of this on those around them, but instead judged a priori based purely on their membership of an idealised cultural group)

'the most progressive is the post progressive' would be a more fitting description of a lot of the riot analysis than DSG's ''the most political is the post political'


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

love detective said:


> Judging by some of the analysis on this thread it would appear that militant islam, reactionary nationalism, organised crime, drug dealing, corporate tax avoidance and pretty much anything else should be viewed as progressive, based purely on the fact that these activities are a 'challenge' to the established order and involve a confrontation (either overt or covert) with the institutions which police it
> 
> To not cheer lead these things is reactionary, counter revolutionary, fails to see the raw material that could be 'worked with' (by whom?) and 'splits the class' (as we all know that the working class should be treated as one big homogenous cultural phenomena - akin to how nationalists view ethnicity, such that people should not be judged on their material activity and the impact of this on those around them, but instead judged a priori based purely on their membership of an idealised cultural group)
> 
> 'the most progressive is the post progressive' would be a more fitting description than DSG's ''the most political is the post political'



Good points. After official multiculturalism's 'Balkanisation' of large parts of the country, we now have the 'Balkanisation' of political resistance (some of which is barely political or not political at all), with the same negative outcome all but guaranteed.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

love detective said:


> Judging by some of the analysis on this thread it would appear that militant islam, reactionary nationalism, organised crime, drug dealing, corporate tax avoidance and pretty much anything else should be viewed as progressive, based purely on the fact that these activities are a 'challenge' to the established order and involve a confrontation (either overt or covert) with the institutions that police it



so do the EDL and working class BNP voters come under the nouveau lumpen label to be dismissed without any further analysis?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't think you can blame hatred of the met for what happened in eg nottingham


was kinda the subtext though... tbf... wot the met goons do down here is what the rest of the countries goon squads see as being the industry leader and don't want to be left behind...

so although it's a bit by proxy it is still hate of the MET....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> Once upon a time thought dotty was ok - now realise a proble liberal cunt along with the rest.



Absolute bollocks. Shame, I used to think you were ok too.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> your claim that 'there was no evidence of public protest against the police' doesn't really sit too well with the evidence from at least - off the top of my head - nottingham and hackney.



It is widely accepted that the Hackney situation was gang led. Indeed the kick off there was anticipated by residents even prior to the Mark Duggan demo on the Saturday. This a result of large scale operation against the Pembury Boys in an anti-drug op leading to something short of 30 arrests. That some of the most intense fighting in London happened in Clarence Rd opposite the estate distinguishes it from many of the other rioting tourists. In summary it was primarily anti-police but also primarily a 'measured response from the gangs to police invasion of their turf - as they see it.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so do the EDL and working class BNP voters come under the nouveau lumpen label to be dismissed without any further analysis?



We've already gone over all this in another thread. Why do you keep asking the same questions like a troll?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> was kinda the subtext though... tbf... wot the met goons do down here is what the rest of the countries goon squads see as being the industry leader and don't want to be left behind...
> 
> so although it's a bit by proxy it is still hate of the MET....


i meant the firebombing of the police station in nottingham, which i expect was driven by dislike of the local filth and not so much by dislike of the london filth


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> We've already gone over all this in another thread. Why do you keep asking the same questions like a troll?



i dont remember you answering it


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i dont remember you answering it


you should change your username to 'smoke less'


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i dont remember you answering it



Yeah, you do.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

well no I don't, but thats okay, you dont have to answer


----------



## love detective (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so do the EDL and working class BNP voters come under the nouveau lumpen label to be dismissed without any further analysis?



Some should, others shouldn't - i would suggest an analysis that goes somewhat further than categorising people based on who they formally vote for however as you seem to be suggesting - therefore it's not about no analysis as you suggest, the complete opposite in fact

It's about being able to recognise that although certain activities may be carried out by those who are formally part of the working class, the impacts of these activities are detrimental to the development of any kind of progressive independent working class politics that could stand a chance of posing any kind of threat to the established order.

Therefore there's nothing anti working class, reactionary or counter revolutionary about calling out certain kinds of activities, and those who perform them, and pointing out that these things are part of the problem, and therefore anyone who invests any kind of hope/belief in them being part of the solution are deluded. This identification of actions taken by those who are formally part of the working class but act in a way which is harmful to it is done quite painlessly and without protest by most of the left when it comes to analysing and making taboo the activities of scabs, bailifs and the police. However a blind spot seems to exist when things get a bit more nuanced and the harmful activity does not come neatly attached to a formal position or uniform. However it's the material activity itself which causes the harm, not the formal position or uniform worn by those doing it - so in that sense I don't see what's so unpalatable about extending this analysis to other forms of anti working class activity

Anyway, i've no the time or inclination to go over this same argument again on again on the internet - i'll leave it at that


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> bullshit - there is nothing liberal about feeling some empathy with the kids who rioted, and understanding that things are far more complex and nuanced than lefty graduates and old timers spout, because you or yours have been in the same place a lot of those kids are



 You are empathising with individuals who most marked characteristic is that they have no empathy. This kind of hand-wringing is why the working class black and white have long abandoned the left.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't think you can blame hatred of the met for what happened in eg nottingham


Ok, OB in general.
plus pure scumbaggery


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so do the EDL and working class BNP voters come under the nouveau lumpen label to be dismissed without any further analysis?


no. a lot of bnp voters and edl activists are by no means lumpen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no, that was just pure scumbaggery


http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/N...bed-violence/story-13102253-detail/story.html

scumbaggery?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> You are empathising with individuals who most marked characteristic is that they have no empathy.



are you saying they aren't human beings?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2011)

the grand write off writ large- subhumans


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> You are empathising with individuals who most marked characteristic is that they have no empathy. This kind of hand-wringing is why the working class black and white have long abandoned the left.


where as you are dmeonising the most marginalised members of a society and turnign them in the charaachtures and stereotypes...

are you sure all the rioters were a one size fits all description, all of them?

what about the bloke who got done for taking a swig of stolen water after helping someone out of the burning pub?  he fit into you has no empathy cookie cutter...  what about the people who helped others injured and mugged they fall into your cookie cutter no empathy mold?

you're a fucking joke, of a poster really.

this thread sure brings out the petty little micro penis boys doesn't it...

all itching to have some restorative justice and maybe lose that impotence which has stopped them feeling virile...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> are you saying they aren't human beings?


 
I think he might be saying that they are human beings with no empathy for other human beings.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> this thread sure brings out the petty little micro penis boys doesn't it...
> 
> all itching to have some restorative justice and maybe lose that impotence which has stopped them feeling virile...


while i disagree with joe on a lot of things, at least his posts are frequently interesting and thoughtful. posts like yours quoted show a side of you i'd think best kept to yourself.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> are you sure all the rioters were a one size fits all description, all of them?


 
It doesn't matter. What matters is who leads and what the outcome is.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2011)

..


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/N...bed-violence/story-13102253-detail/story.html
> 
> scumbaggery?


I meant looting, shop-trashing etc elsewhere in the area


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I meant looting, shop-trashing etc elsewhere in the area


so how would you describe the firebombing of the police station?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so how would you describe the firebombing of the police station?


with greater tones of approval


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so how would you describe the firebombing of the police station?


 
Again, doesn't it depend on what the motives are? There are those who have legitimate grievances against the police, and those who wish to have free rein to do whatever they like to anybody they want.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I already posted this excellent commentary from Mike Marqusee, but I think it deserves a second:​
> http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1203​
> You see, that's the sort of multifaceted and nuanced analysis that actually requires a bit of thought. But I guess it's easier to spout some sub-Starkey shit about black gangs though....​



Yeah, this is the guy who at a meeting in the mid-1990's literally clapped his hands in delight at prediction that London would be majority black by 2020.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

bad craic when the guardian has a deeper and more nuanced reading of the riots and their political significance than quite a few "lefties" on these boards.

seems to me that throwing a one size fits all blanket over the riots as a merely lumpen, mugger and gang led carnival of cannibalistic capitalism is as daft as some idiot trying to claim it as a full scale communist insurrection, and atleast the over enthusiastic cheerleader isn't reproducing dodgy racist discourses and gangs and muggers.

i really don't understand why LLETSA and joe reilly are so keen to homogenise riots that encompassed everything from directed violence towards the police, looting of large stores, to the attacking of local corner shops, some idiots setting fires in shops that have residential properties above them, oh and a few muggings by opportunist cunts.

oh wait I do know, it's cause they have bought into the bullshit notion of a feral underclass that is subhuman, that isn't like me or you, that is without basic empathy or compassion, hence everything from looting baby clothes, tv's and trainers to mugging foreign students can be thrown together as just lumpen violence or gang culture, with a nice subtext of racism thrown in for good measure.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> oh wait I do know, it's cause they have bought into the bullshit notion of a feral underclass that is subhuman, that isn't like me or you, that is without basic empathy or compassion, hence everything from looting baby clothes, tv's and trainers to mugging foreign students can be thrown together as just lumpen violence or gang culture, with a nice subtext of racism thrown in for good measure.


 
Sigh. Another over-excited bedroom radical.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Again, doesn't it depend on what the motives are? There are those who have legitimate grievances against the police, and those who wish to have free rein to do whatever they like to anybody they want.



this is true and my reaction to the firebombings was that they would have been more gang organised, however what about those just out fighting the police, can they be reduced to just people who want a free reign to steal, rob and mug from the working class? I don't fucking think so. One thing that came across was that even those who were interviewed who were pissed off at the rioters for wrecking their own areas and attacking local shops had no sympathy for the police.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Sigh. Another over-excited bedroom radical.



pathetic


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

also if I was some bedroom radical with a hard on for riots there are plenty in my own backyard I could seek to put some sort of revolutionary spin on but alas I don't because I'm not an idiot.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> also if I was some bedroom radical with a hard on for riots there are plenty in my own backyard I could seek to put some sort of revolutionary spin on but alas I don't because I'm not an idiot.


 
I was referring to your foaming about others supposedly calling people subhuman-something you'll find nowhere on here.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> bad craic when the guardian has a deeper and more nuanced reading of the riots and their political significance than quite a few "lefties" on these boards.



That you have to rely on the flagship of the liberal establishment for your analysis says it all.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I was referring to your foaming about others supposedly calling people subhuman-something you'll find nowhere on here.



it's the underlying subtext only an idiot could miss.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> this is true and my reaction to the firebombings was that they would have been more gang organised, however what about those just out fighting the police, can they be reduced to just people who want a free reign to steal, rob and mug from the working class? I don't fucking think so. One thing that came across was that even those who were interviewed who were pissed off at the rioters for wrecking their own areas and attacking local shops had no sympathy for the police.



Irrelevant. What matters is who has the upper-hand in matters like this: those who have legitimate grievances or those who merely want to police to retreat so they can get on with a crime spree within their own communities. (Something which, incidentally, can only ever result in a crackdown and worse repression than before-and with the support of most of the population of all social classes.)


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> it's the underlying subtext only an idiot could miss.


 
 An imaginary subtext.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> That you have to rely on the flagship of the liberal establishment for your analysis says it all.



they've actually bothered to interview rioters and the like, and yes whilst it is a liberal rag, in this instance it's far in advance of those supposed working class revolutionaries who simply throw reduce the whole thing to a festival of feral lumpens and the whole racist discourse that underpins it.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> they've actually bothered to interview rioters and the like, and yes whilst it is a liberal rag, in this instance it's far in advance of those supposed working class revolutionaries who simply throw reduce the whole thing to a festival of feral lumpens and the whole racist discourse that underpins it.


 
The race card again.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's political career


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Irrelevant. What matters is who has the upper-hand in matters like this: those who have legitimate grievances or those who merely want to police to retreat so they can get on with a crime spree within their own communities. (Something which, incidentally, can only ever result in a crackdown and worse repression than before-and with the support of most of the population of all social classes.)



again you are lumping together many things, is the looting of jd sports etc a crime spree on their own communties?

the other thing you are missing is how some of the nihilism of the riots is an expression of how there is no community or in so much as it exists it is resented. the lack of clear demands and the inadequacy of the standard hand wringing left liberals for more youth centres or jobs has political significance, many of the rioters see nothing to be preserved in "their community".


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> they've actually bothered to interview rioters and the like, and yes whilst it is a liberal rag, in this instance it's far in advance of those supposed working class revolutionaries who simply throw reduce the whole thing to a festival of feral lumpens and the whole racist discourse that underpins it.



The fact that the 'insurrectionists'  on here had no contact with the rioters aside from reading the Guardian interviews shows how far the admirers are from their would be suitors.Its almost like a pen pal romance.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> The fact that the 'insurrectionists' on here had no contact with the rioters aside from reading the Guardian interviews shows how far the admirers are from their would be suitors.Its almost like a pen pal romance.



well i'm in northern ireland so forgive me for not having much contact.

i do know people in Hackney and they said the medias wanking on about terrifying intimidatory atmosphere was overhyped nonsense.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

the joke is that all this shit was spouted after brixton etc and across the atlantic about the Watts riots.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> The fact that the 'insurrectionists' on here had no contact with the rioters aside from reading the Guardian interviews shows how far the admirers are from their would be suitors.Its almost like a pen pal romance.


speak for yourself


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well i'm in northern ireland so forgive me for not having much contact.
> 
> i do know people in Hackney and they said the medias wanking on about terrifying intimidatory atmosphere was overhyped nonsense.



Wasn't just directed at you Revo and yes the media are biased and just in for a quick story but I also know people in Hackney and noone described the riots there  as a carnival of community either.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well i'm in northern ireland so forgive me for not having much contact.
> 
> i do know people in Hackney and they said the medias wanking on about terrifying intimidatory atmosphere was overhyped nonsense.



Tell that to the hundreds made homeless, the individuals murdered, the mugged, the raped, the 2,200 businesses/homes burnt out


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> speak for yourself



As we all do.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> And these are the people being defended, lauded, and eulogised as a threat to the system?



If by "defended, lauded, and eulogised" you actually mean not treated as cardboard cutout villains then you are right.



Joe Reilly said:


> Perhaps as well and more tellingly we have an unwitting admission, that a) gang life is quite widespread (which has been long denied on here and on other threads) and b) is entirely nihilistic, which is a philosophy perhaps, but not one that usually warrants the description of 'political'.



There's no unwitting admission. Any lack of wit is entirely yours. At no point have I ever claimed anywhere that there isn't a serious gang problem on this estate that affects a majority of young people. You'll never get any real grip on any political ideas if you insist on ignoring any form of complication, complexity, or subtlety. However I suspect you don't actually give a toss, because what you want from politics is a chance to feel good about yourself by bad mouthing anyone who doesn't operate entirely on the basis of ignorant stereotypes, rather than actually using political action to create a better world.

Furthermore the criminalising of working class, and especially black working class youth, doesn't rely on them taking any decision to begin a life of crime. I recall one lad who came to an MP's surgery I was helping at, who had bought a new pair of trainers, and as a consequence had been stopped and searched by the police fifteen times in three days. Despite carrying the receipt around after the first afternoon he was still abused and treated as if he was a criminal. Another was arrested and held for two days after the riots because his brother was serving time for burglary. No stolen goods were found in his possession or at his home, and no charges were brought as he could prove he wasn't even in London at the time. No apology has been forthcoming.

Of course a lot of them don't see any reason not to commit crimes. They are often treated as criminals whether they do the crime or not, so many choose to live up to the stereotype. Others simply get dragged into the justice system through being associated with genuine criminals despite not actually committing any crimes themselves. For many there isn't any alternative to the local gang. Their parents don't want them in the house. They have no other relatives living nearby. All their older neighbours ignore them or treat them as a problem. There are almost no leisure or social activities available in the area that don't cost money to take part in. There simply isn't anything else to do. So when the gang they are hanging around with do anything seriously out of order and they can't prove they were elsewhere at the time. Bingo! One more criminal in the nick.

There are also a small number of them who are real cunts who deserve to be banged up for the remainder of their lives, at the very least. The trouble is that it's easier for the police to nick the hangers on, so whilst they make a serious effort to nab the really vicious little shits, they also make up the numbers with a lot of kids who haven't done much wrong other than hanging out with the wrong people. The wrong people being the only ones who will have anything to do with them.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> As we all do.


I measn that I certainly did have contac t with the rioters, and not through choice.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

love detective said:


> Some should, others shouldn't - i would suggest an analysis that goes somewhat further than categorising people based on who they formally vote for however as you seem to be suggesting - therefore it's not about no analysis as you suggest, the complete opposite in fact



but the analysis here seems to be based on whether they took part in a single night of rioting, without any questioning of why



> This identification of actions taken by those who are formally part of the working class but act in a way which is harmful to it is done quite painlessly and without protest by most of the left when it comes to analysing and making taboo the activities of scabs, bailifs and the police. However a blind spot seems to exist when things get a bit more nuanced and the harmful activity does not come neatly attached to a formal position or uniform. However it's the material activity itself which causes the harm, not the formal position or uniform worn by those doing it - so in that sense I don't see what's so unpalatable about extending this analysis to other forms of anti working class activity



a lot of what happened wasn't necessarily anti-working class actvity, I don't see what is anti-working class about looting argos or attacking coppers - its this that some people seem to have a blind spot to, that and the reasons some people might have done that

we agreed it's the material activity that causes the harm, I fail to see why this analysis should exclude the underlying reasons for some of that activity - this is what the IWCA argued successfully about the rise of the far right - if we can accept both a failure of the left to provide a political alternative and abandonment of white working class communities by all political factions led to this (whilst not necessarily apologising for it) then why can't that same analysis be applied to the rioters who do largely come from an economic underclass and are far more marginalised than a BNP voting cab driver


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Tell that to the hundreds made homeless, the individuals murdered, the mugged, the raped, the 2,200 businesses/homes burnt out


HUNDREDS made homeless? people *raped*? and are you sure 2,000 businesses and homes were burnt out (btw, I don't care about the bigger businesses, they're the enemy)?
Aren't you getting a bit over-heated here?
e2a; people raped in numbers, i meant


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If by "defended, lauded, and eulogised" you actually mean not treated as cardboard cutout villains then you are right.
> 
> There's no unwitting admission. Any lack of wit is entirely yours. At no point have I ever claimed anywhere that there isn't a serious gang problem on this estate that affects a majority of young people. You'll never get any real grip on any political ideas if you insist on ignoring any form of complication, complexity, or subtlety. However I suspect you don't actually give a toss, because what you want from politics is a chance to feel good about yourself by bad mouthing anyone who doesn't operate entirely on the basis of ignorant stereotypes, rather than actually using political action to create a better world.
> 
> ...


at long last, an oasis of real perception. These are EXACTLY the problems


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Tell that to the hundreds made homeless, the individuals murdered, the mugged, the raped, the 2,200 businesses/homes burnt out



where did you get the 2,200 figure?

I can only find one example of a rape, sadly this is far from an uncommon occurrence, why would you expect crime to stop just because there was rioting


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> These are EXACTLY the problems



And what EXACTLY are the solutions?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> And what EXACTLY are the solutions?


I don't know, but I know that simply writing off and demonising an entire generation of underclass youth isn't the solution. They've already been written off, as have a large part of urban w/c youth - in the schools, in the community, on the streets, by the council and the govt (in the 6 months before the riot, 80% of haringey's youth services were closed) - and that's what got us to where we are today.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> many of the rioters see nothing to be preserved in "their community".


In this, they're often right


----------



## revol68 (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> In this, they're often right



totally


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yeah, this is the guy who at a meeting in the mid-1990's literally clapped his hands in delight at prediction that London would be majority black by 2020.



Best discard what the race traitor says out of hand then.


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If by "defended, lauded, and eulogised" you actually mean not treated as cardboard cutout villains then you are right.
> 
> There's no unwitting admission. Any lack of wit is entirely yours. At no point have I ever claimed anywhere that there isn't a serious gang problem on this estate that affects a majority of young people. You'll never get any real grip on any political ideas if you insist on ignoring any form of complication, complexity, or subtlety. However I suspect you don't actually give a toss, because what you want from politics is a chance to feel good about yourself by bad mouthing anyone who doesn't operate entirely on the basis of ignorant stereotypes, rather than actually using political action to create a better world.
> 
> ...



This is interesting...and i will comr back to this after dinner..but there are certain points here you make with which i take exception
to and simply dont believe...hold on back soon....only get an hour on the libracy pc...


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 21, 2011)

The solutions:-

End the fetishisation of the nuclear family, which has NEVER been a succesful way to raise children for most, and look at ways of replacing the extended family that has been declining ever since the industrial revolution led to widespread urbanisation and a largely mobile population. End the compartmentalisation of provision of services for youth and the elderly and fund more projects that engage all generations in the same activity, thus leading to more and better role models for young people. Both of these are beginning to happen, though in the latter case largely as a way for funders to get away with funding fewer projects.

Above all we need to stop teaching morality solely by telling kids they mustn't do this and that when they can see adults getting away with doing precisely those things. We have to teach them to create an "internal personal morality" which allows them to find the right things to do. So that in a situation where they see a breakdown of law and order they still have a code of behaviour to follow. We need to teach by rewarding good actions as well as punishing bad actions. It would help if the wealthy and powerful were also held to account when they break the law.

The macho culture of the police needs to change. Community policing should be a path to promotion chosen by high fliers in the police service and not seen as a dead end job for those not up to joining the knuckle draggers in the various "kick the shit out of the bad guys" units.

That's the stuff that's easily affordable and which shouldn't be any effort.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The solutions:-
> 
> End the fetishisation of the nuclear family, which has NEVER been a succesful way to raise children for most, and look at ways of replacing the extended family that has been declining ever since the industrial revolution led to widespread urbanisation and a largely mobile population. End the compartmentalisation of provision of services for youth and the elderly and fund more projects that engage all generations in the same activity, thus leading to more and better role models for young people. Both of these are beginning to happen, though in the latter case largely as a way for funders to get away with funding fewer projects.
> 
> ...


 
Who will implement these 'solutions?'


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

revol68 said:


> again you are lumping together many things, is the looting of jd sports etc a crime spree on their own communties?
> 
> the other thing you are missing is how some of the nihilism of the riots is an expression of how there is no community or in so much as it exists it is resented. the lack of clear demands and the inadequacy of the standard hand wringing left liberals for more youth centres or jobs has political significance, many of the rioters see nothing to be preserved in "their community".


 
The nihilism may be there already, but the riots represented a deepening of the nihilism.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yeah, this is the guy who at a meeting in the mid-1990's literally clapped his hands in delight at prediction that London would be majority black by 2020.



Would it be a bad thing if this did happen? Would you be happy if it didn't come true?


----------



## ymu (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't say that at all. You in fact were trying to make out that the riots were some sort of public dissent at the police when in fact with the exception of the protest outside of Totenham Police station there was no evidence of public protest against the police.Post riots there has pretty much been a consensus that if anything the Police should have got stuck in more.
> 
> Your anti Police obsession and fetishism of riots is destroying what ever limited politics you ever had.I suspect you will grow out of it and eventually be one of those vicar types that visit people in custody.


Wow. The right are busy dismissing the evidence that the policing of these communities was a major trigger. You can't even be bothered with that - pretending the evidence doesn't exist is a lot easier, eh?



> Much of the early debate engendered by Reading the Riots has focused on the police. Large numbers of rioters talked about their antipathy towards the police, and how this fuelled at least some of their actions in early August. Some of the immediate reaction to this material has attempted to dismiss it as nothing more than the predictable rationalisations of people with no respect for law and order. Why should we be at all surprised that criminals hate the police, the critics asked.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/policing-sacred-cow-reading-riots?INTCMP=SRCH


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> And what EXACTLY are the solutions?


what are your solutions.  you have no right to complain if you cannot come up with credible alternatives.... isn't that the mantra?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The nihilism may be there already, but the riots represented a deepening of the nihilism.


how can that possibly even happen?  your statement reads like infinity + 1.  you criticise my spelling and yet you use words without understanding their meaning at all...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Who will implement these 'solutions?'


how will you implement the solutions... if you cannot come up with credible alternatives you don't get a say.  That's your mantra.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Pickman's political career


now about that consensus you announced earlier. any evidence for it or is it a load of auld shite?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> The fact that the 'insurrectionists' on here had no contact with the rioters aside from reading the Guardian interviews shows how far the admirers are from their would be suitors.Its almost like a pen pal romance.


yeh cos you know every contact everyone's had here 

you're full of shit today


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 21, 2011)

if someone had why the hell would the admit it on a public internet board with high traffic levels known to be observed by the MET...

I mean does the 39th stepford wife really think people are as stupid as they are...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't say that at all. You in fact were trying to make out that the riots were some sort of public dissent at the police when in fact with the exception of the protest outside of Totenham Police station there was no evidence of public protest against the police.Post riots there has pretty much been a consensus that if anything the Police should have got stuck in more.
> 
> Your anti Police obsession and fetishism of riots is destroying what ever limited politics you ever had.I suspect you will grow out of it and eventually be one of those vicar types that visit people in custody.


did you see this interesting story from the bbc website in october? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15308109

according to the poll there, 56% thought the met did a very or fairly good job.  that doesn't sound like a resounding 'they should have got stuck in more' to me. does it to you?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> if someone had why the hell would the admit it on a public internet board with high traffic levels known to be observed by the MET...
> 
> I mean does the 39th stepford wife really think people are as stupid as they are...



oddball


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm glad you've resurfaced. Perhaps you can provide some evidence today for the consensus you talked about. But i'm not holding my breath


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm glad you've resurfaced. Perhaps you can provide some evidence today for the consensus you talked about. But i'm not holding my breath


 
For a librarian you don't seem have grasped the art of reading do you? The Poll that you quoted in the link also says



> The poll found 78% wanted the police to use curfews to tackle future riots, 72% wanted water cannons, 50% called for tear gas and 38% for rubber bullets.



If you get a mo from cheering on the renegades or waffling about the need abolish the Police to your chums in the anarchist scene you might want to actually read the survey results

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/BBCLondonRiotsTopline FINAL260911.pdf


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> For a librarian you don't seem have grasped the art of reading do you? The Poll that you quoted in the link also says


you shitfer twat. which part of 'future riots' do you read as 'past riots'? you fucking thick fuckwit. you did claim that there was a consensus people felt the police should have got stuck in harder in august - august 2011, for the hard of thinking.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> oddball


why the off topic and personal abuse?

you do understand that few people involved in anything which might be considered to be in the firing line of the authorities would be likely to admit it in public on a bulletin board don't you...

rather like not posting up videos of your self committing a crime on to you tube or confessing to murder on twitter...

or are you actually mentally incapable of rational, logical thought in your rush to slur one and all as a blanket defense of your nonsensical position on this topic...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why the off topic and personal abuse?


because he's a twat


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> because he's a twat



Benjamin Bramble Blimber borrowed the baker's birchen broom to brush the blinding cobwebs from his brain


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> at long last, an oasis of real perception. These are EXACTLY the problems



Ironicallythe sort of work that the IWCA has attempted to do would be a response to some of these problems unlike 'helping out' in the local Mps surgery whose party have been part of creating these problems. Touch too much handwringing and too little local activity. Up here groups like The United Estates of Wythenshaw have at least had a go and should be supported.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> pointless waste of text


so nothing to say no admittance of misunderstanding what was posted or an apology for the personal attack...

that's your entire defense of your bollocks...

I'd have a little candour if i were you...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Ironicallythe sort of work that the IWCA has attempted to do would be a response to some of these problems unlike 'helping out' in the local Mps surgery whose party have been part of creating these problems. Touch too much handwringing and too little local activity. Up here groups like The United Estates of Wythenshaw have at least had a go and should be supported.


I'm glad they do, but unless it goes with some sort of serious attempt to address the root causal factors of why young working class males get drawn into a world of drugs and gangs - unless we start to address the process that turns them into a menace to the community - all we'll ever be doing is firefighting, and the fire will come back stronger every time.
this is not liberal handwringing, simply understanding, because vigilanteism is not enough 9and i'm not against vigilanteism either), and It doen't strike me that the IWCA has got very far, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> For a librarian you don't seem have grasped the art of reading do you? The Poll that you quoted in the link also says
> 
> If you get a mo from cheering on the renegades or waffling about the need abolish the Police to your chums in the anarchist scene you might want to actually read the survey results
> 
> http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/BBCLondonRiotsTopline FINAL260911.pdf



Have you checked out the comparative data they're using? They're pulling some conclusions out of the hat that pollsters may be able to get away with, but an undergrad would get their nipples stapled to a blackboard for.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It doen't strike me that the IWCA has got very far, either.


 
the IWCA as much chance of being relevant in Tottenham as a penis as a chocolate cake convention...


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you checked out the comparative data they're using? They're pulling some conclusions out of the hat that pollsters may be able to get away with, but an undergrad would get their nipples stapled to a blackboard for.



Yes its weak but its the poll that Pickman quoted.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the IWCA as much chance of being relevant in Tottenham as a penis as a chocolate cake convention...



why would that be the case?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Yes its weak but its the poll that Pickman quoted.



I'm merely expressing surprise that whoever commissioned the poll let them get away with it.
Unless, of course, it gave the commissioners the "answers" they wanted.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 22, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Best discard what the race traitor says out of hand then.



I'm sure most rational people will regard as a tad alarming that somone who is evidently educated, sees black majority rule as some sort of panacea.

That said this type of liberal guilt tripping will likely find favour on here.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> why would that be the case?


tbh, although I think the IWCA are admirable in many ways, I can't see them gaining much headway there either. The community's too fractured, and similar folk such as HSG, TDC etc already have that natural base


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I'm sure most rational people will regard as a tad alarming that somone who is evidently educated, sees black majority rule as some sort of panacea.
> 
> That said this type of liberal guilt tripping will likely find favour on here.


name names you racist prick...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> why would that be the case?


largely because as far as the local cultures in Tottenham and surrounding areas is concerned solidarity with a working class workers movement is an entirely alien concept.

hell the closest most will come to solidarity is defending their postcode/street from another postcode/street.

you really don't get what this area or areas are like and are trying to apply catch all solutions to specific problems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Benjamin Bramble Blimber borrowed the baker's birchen broom to brush the blinding cobwebs from his brain


so nothing about people wanting the cops to have gone in harder i note.

if there is any evidence for your consensus claim you've not been able to show it to other people, and when there is evidence there isn't a consensus you've shown a level of reading comprehension a ten year old would be ashamed of.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 22, 2011)

One of the problems with a good community policing activity is do it right and you have little to show for it.
  do it badly loads of arrests targets met


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Yes its weak but its the poll that Pickman quoted.


however you take it, it's evidence there's no consensus, which is why i posted it 

now, IF you have any evidence supporting your contention there's a consensus you might share it instead of hiding it under a bushel.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 22, 2011)

revol68 said:


> again you are lumping together many things, is the looting of jd sports etc a crime spree on their own communties?
> 
> the other thing you are missing is how some of the nihilism of the riots is an expression of how there is no community or in so much as it exists it is resented. the lack of clear demands and the inadequacy of the standard hand wringing left liberals for more youth centres or jobs has political significance, many of the rioters see nothing to be preserved in "their community".



'What is society or they to society' - which is where we came in. If they see nothing worth preserving it goes to prove that they are alienated from, and alien to working class community standards.  A class apart in other words.


----------



## Sue (Dec 22, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> largely because as far as the local cultures in Tottenham and surrounding areas is concerned solidarity with a working class workers movement is an entirely alien concept.



In many areas, the idea of a working class movement is an entirely alien concept. Including areas the IWCA has done well in.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 22, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> name names you racist prick...



Your really sort of obsessed with male genitalia aren't you?


----------



## Sue (Dec 22, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Would it be a bad thing if this did happen? Would you be happy if it didn't come true?



It's neither good not bad. For someone to be so over-excited about it would imply they don't see it as neutral but good. Not sure why but there you are.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 22, 2011)

Sue said:


> In many areas, the idea of a working class movement is an entirely alien concept. Including areas the IWCA has done well in.


What has happened to Tottenham should be a stark warning to Stratford. Heart ripped out of the community in anticipation of a new regeneration project which has been forever delayed. 

It's in many ways akin to the dust bowl towns of the 1930's. 

Theres not enough top soil for roots to take hold before its blown away in the wind.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'What is society or they to society' - which is where we came in. If they see nothing worth preserving it goes to prove that they are alienated from, and alien to working class community standards. A class apart in other words.


I don't think that's quite right; it's more that they are a sub-class whom the wider society has cut adrift in terms of life chances, and in terms of the economy, at the same time as traditional structures of working class society (which DID once exist in Tottenham, but quite along time ago) have been more or less destroyed


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> largely because as far as the local cultures in Tottenham and surrounding areas is concerned solidarity with a working class workers movement is an entirely alien concept.
> 
> hell the closest most will come to solidarity is defending their postcode/street from another postcode/street.
> 
> you really don't get what this area or areas are like and are trying to apply catch all solutions to specific problems.



that is just utter bollocks


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> however you take it, it's evidence there's no consensus, which is why i posted it
> 
> now, IF you have any evidence supporting your contention there's a consensus you might share it instead of hiding it under a bushel.



Stop retreating.  The fact is that the poll showed support for draconian measures alled with the select committee report and public debates on tv, radio and the web, the response of victims  clearly shows that it was felt that the Police should have never given the impression that they had lost the streets and should have done more. In other areas it was a testimony to local community civic resilience that there were no riots and looting.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 23, 2011)

white hart lane developments (or the utter lack of them the mega purchase of land building shutting down of stores, pubs etc) have killed Tottenham dead look at the high road...

So on one hand the club has brought increased riches to certain parts of Tottenham but largely it has been responsible for the decimation of the high road and the surround streets and areas near the stadium.  land compulsory purchased to allow building work to go ahead pubs and clubs shut down in anticipation of demolition, shops emptied out of the high road as they moved to more secure less likely to be bulldozed locations.  As a result only a few remained and those which did we're scattered between the many boarded up and abandoned buildings...

an entire busy high road which used to be the focal point of the area destroyed for a stadium  which is seemingly never being built there...

 after his death They set up the Bernie grant centre which was becoming the community focal point for a bit  shortly before the riots this was shut down as all of it's funding was cut at the same time as the football club in the area spent twice as much on legal fees as it would have taken to run the centre on fighting the GLA over being able to move to Stratford.

As far as I'm concerned Spurs should be fined by the govt for failing in it's obligation to look after the area which has supported and nourished it and which it has been nothing but a cancerous leach too...

As to the causes of the riots in the area the flash point was the Duggan shooting but underlying this is the abandonment of an entire area of London to the mega business of the club which has put almost zero back into the host area its sucking life from...

I see the championing of the IWCA as being actually yet another group trying to get fat of the carcass of the area if I'm honest, almost like the missionaries of the modern age... of course we'll feed, clothe and nourish you all you need do is accept our lord and Saviour Marxism into your lives...

I think it's a particularly bad plan to be going around trying to force people into a viewpoint to further the political aims of people outside of that area in the same way it's wrong of one religion to attempt to poach members of another religion...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 23, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> that is just utter bollocks


you are utter bollocks you have not a fucking clue about the area or it's history and are still poncing around making grandiose bullshit at large statements made from tabliodeque knowledge of the circumstances and situation of the area...

shut up you cunt, it's no longer reasonable or acceptable to be this willfully ignorant of the problems of inner cities abandoned by sucessive administrations to super massive mega corporations...

the very fact you dispute this is sufficient for me to wish you great harm you fucking apologist for the system...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Stop retreating. The fact is that the poll showed support for draconian measures alled with the select committee report and public debates on tv, radio and the web, the response of victims clearly shows that it was felt that the Police should have never given the impression that they had lost the streets and should have done more. In other areas it was a testimony to local community civic resilience that there were no riots and looting.



support for something in the future and a consensus about what should have happened in the past are two different things. the results of the survey i referred to talk about what should happen in the FUTURE and not what should have happened IN AUGUST.

you lost the argument when you said that there was a consensus as long as you took out the people who disagreed with you.

your introduction of the select committee report is rather daft as you will recall the select committee said that the introduction of water cannon, for example, would be a bad idea and was not to be countenanced. you talk about radio and tv debates. which debates? where are they on the internet? are they accessible? can you point to precise evidence from them or is this a load of auld anecdotal shite? and i hope i need not remind you that a consensus among what you describe as the victims - and among those i'd number people sent down for nicking a couple of bottles of water or posting shite on facebook - is by no means a consensus among the wider population.

so either put up or shut up, and i think most people would prefer the latter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

*taps watch*


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 23, 2011)

*taps nose*

looks like the apologist has finally fucked off them

happy seasons greetings picky...


----------



## flutterbye (Dec 23, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> largely because as far as the local cultures in Tottenham and surrounding areas is concerned solidarity with a working class workers movement is an entirely alien concept.
> 
> hell the closest most will come to solidarity is defending their postcode/street from another postcode/street.
> 
> you really don't get what this area or areas are like and are trying to apply catch all solutions to specific problems.



The Tottenham community has consistently shown it will unite in defence of its own, and in a way is far closer a community than many others across this country. The reason left wing politics make sense is because they dont represent the kind of big business that as you say has decimated the area but are represent the community, social housing, a decent education system, free healthcare, and the kind of local services that bring the community together. It doesnt have to be totalitarian, but something needs to change in british society generally, the grand sell off of what once belonged to us has left working class communities floundering, facilities that brought us together closed down to save money to prop up bankers. I'm not a mantra spewing lefty, but left-wing politics are probably the only solution to the state we find ourselves in providing they are grounded in common sense. Just my opinion.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you are utter bollocks you have not a fucking clue about the area or it's history and are still poncing around making grandiose bullshit at large statements made from tabliodeque knowledge of the circumstances and situation of the area...
> 
> shut up you cunt, it's no longer reasonable or acceptable to be this willfully ignorant of the problems of inner cities abandoned by sucessive administrations to super massive mega corporations...
> 
> the very fact you dispute this is sufficient for me to wish you great harm you fucking apologist for the system...



What was utter bollocks was your comic book portrayal of Tottenham which reduced its residents to that of being youths in post code gangs.I am sure would have been not just a a shock to many who live there but also an insult.

I don't think Tottenham is much diffrent to scores of other places nationally in inner city areas.

I have some clue both about the area and its history having lived in Harlesden for twenty years and being politically active knew people politically active in Tottenham both through anti facsist work , trade unions and campaigns. Had friends who were arrested in the Broadwater Farm riot ( one fled to south Africa) . Never been a resident .

Well aware of inner cities  not least beacuse by the sound of your juvenile yapping  I have probably lived in them longer than you have lived life.

So if organising through working class communities is not the solution I take it its the looters and rioters for you then? is that what you are advocating and supporting? Get Pickman down so he can brief them on public order matters  and the two of you could had out what to do if you are arrested sheets.Make a day of it.

Can I thank you for you wishing me great harm and can I wish you seasons greetings.

I am now having a drink in a pub with work mates.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 23, 2011)

You're from some where else telling me what my own backyard is like. Ok the my local knowledge of living here must be highly wrong I mean having to see it each and ever day makes me entirely clueless about my own area. 

Really you fucking child grow up. 

Your yesterday politics mean less than fuck all. 

Like all missionaries you cannot see that you religion isn't welcomed wanted or more importantly addressing the communities needs. 

Ask yourself why Marxism is popular in Palestine and not in tottenham. The answer is because the groups involved are pertinent and not seperate from the communities they serve. 

You come in with mythical tales of another way to be and at the end of it get to ponce off back to your nice area after you done Sunday sermon and never give a seconds thought to those of us you left behind. Still living there day to day. 

How incredibly conceited would you need to be to tell someone from the area you know it better than they do. 

And your riot tourism at broad water doesn't change that.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 23, 2011)

And yes harm to you and all like you.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I'm sure most rational people will regard as a tad alarming that somone who is evidently educated, sees black majority rule as some sort of panacea.
> 
> That said this type of liberal guilt tripping will likely find favour on here.



What he may or may not have said in a meeting some 17 years ago is of no interest to me and has no bearing the analysis I posted. The reason I posted it was because I thought it was a damn sight more nuanced than the one dimensional cartoon caricature of the riots as a lumpen black gang rebellion driven purely by opportunism and self interest. Frankly the 'arguments' presented by you and your your cohorts on this thread sound like they were writen by Ian Duncan Smith, Theresa May and David Starkey!


----------



## newbie (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'What is society or they to society' - which is where we came in. If they see nothing worth preserving it goes to prove that they are alienated from, and alien to working class community standards. A class apart in other words.


The strategy you're apparently pushing tells them that they are worthy of little or no consideration by the rest of society and should be further alienated and excluded.

How do you imagine that playing itself out?

What do you think are the consequences if such an attitude gained traction in the communities those people live in? Consequences for friends, families and neighbours as well as the direct effect on the 'renegades'?

I'd like to get a sense of what you see as the longer term and wider benefits of your "a class apart" analysis.


----------



## Sue (Dec 23, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...
> I see the championing of the IWCA as being actually yet another group trying to get fat of the carcass of the area if I'm honest, almost like the missionaries of the modern age... of course we'll feed, clothe and nourish you all you need do is accept our lord and Saviour Marxism into your lives...



What a load of shite. Really.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

the iwca aren't marxist, they're shit.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

revol68 said:


> the iwca aren't marxist, they're shit.



Stick to something you know about sonny.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

like reducing the working class to another fucking identity group...


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

local socialism for local people


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

newbie said:


> The strategy you're apparently pushing tells them that they are worthy of little or no consideration by the rest of society and should be further alienated and excluded.
> 
> How do you imagine that playing itself out?
> 
> ...



The analysis we're pursuing is as a result of overwhelming evidence, empirical, theoritical and historical and the rest of society is worthy of little or no consideration by them. They have set their face against, in particular working class society, on a daily basis. It is  the communities themselves that demand that action is taken. Ultimately it's a case of picking sides. With the working class and the standards they believe in or against them. There is always an alternative - complete capitulation.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

celebrate the class in itself...


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

I've read this, the riot thread and the IWCA stuff a few times, and well, I still find the whole writing off of a section of our young people as lumpen as pretty astounding.​
I don't for one minute believe that they are, or that they cannot become either re-connected into the communities where they live as well as society, or become politically aware and part of struggle. But where the fuck are the opportunities and options?​
And if they're already feeling abandoned with little hopes and aspirations, whilst being bought up in a neo-liberal world that constantly celebrates the pursuit of material goods over social value, then how the likes of working class groups on top of our political class writing them off is going to ever effect change then I'm at loss to understand ​


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

here's a decent take on the riots.

http://thecommune.co.uk/2011/08/13/or-does-it-explode/


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What he may or may not have said in a meeting some 17 years ago is of no interest to me and has no bearing the analysis I posted. The reason I posted it was because I thought it was a damn sight more nuanced than the one dimensional cartoon caricature of the riots as a lumpen black gang rebellion driven purely by opportunism and self interest. Frankly the 'arguments' presented by you and your your cohorts on this thread sound like they were writen by Ian Duncan Smith, Theresa May and David Starkey!



I very much doubt you'd find his contribution terribly 'nuanced' if he'd actually clapped his little hands in anticipation of black immigration being reversed?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

revol68 said:


> like reducing the working class to another fucking identity group...



Like multiculturalism then ?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

keep dreaming of a nice "hard working decent" working class, a sensible one whose needs and desires can be neatly put onto a council election manifesto...


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Like multiculturalism then ?



precisely dickhead, the IWCA are totally within it's logic of representation.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> I've read this, the riot thread and the IWCA stuff a few times, and well, I still find the whole writing off of a section of our young people as lumpen as pretty astounding.​
> I don't for one minute believe that they are, or that they cannot become either re-connected into the communities where they live as well as society, or become politically aware and part of struggle. But where the fuck are the opportunities and options?​
> And if they're already feeling abandoned with little hopes and aspirations, whilst being bought up in a neo-liberal world that constantly celebrates the pursuit of material goods over social value, then how the likes of working class groups on top of our political class writing them off is going to ever effect change then I'm at loss to understand ​



Liberals don't seem to have much trouble with the left writing off who swathes of white working class do they? Funny that.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Liberals don't seem to have much trouble with the left writing off who swathes of white working class do they? Funny that.



Eh?

The left shouldn't be writing off any working class people.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Liberals don't seem to have much trouble with the left writing off who swathes of white working class do they? Funny that.



who is talking about liberals you arsehole.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

revol68 said:


> precisely dickhead, the IWCA are totally within it's logic of representation.



As well as being among the very first to politically reject it. Why not tell us again about how Sf/IRA have near zero support in working class areas in the Six Counties. You'r practically an expert on that subject compared to the arena your currently entering.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> Eh?
> 
> The left shouldn't be writing off any working class people.



Agreed, but the lumpen by definition aren't working class.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> As well as being among the very first to politically reject it. Why not tell us again about how Sf/IRA have near zero support in working class areas in the Six Counties. You'r practically an expert on that subject compared to the arena your currently entering.



when did I claim they had near zero support you muppet? I said they never had majority support within working class catholic areas until the ceasefire, bit of difference like, no?

still I can tell you about how Sinn Fein are implementing neo liberal reforms against the working class.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Agreed, but the lumpen by definition aren't working class.



so there were no people with jobs involved in the rioting and looting? Nope

are all the unemployed lumpen now?

define you fucking terms idiot.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

revol68 said:


> so there were no people with jobs involved in the rioting and looting? Nope
> 
> are all the unemployed lumpen now?
> 
> define you fucking terms idiot.



Do a modicum of research before you embarass yourself any further.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Do a modicum of research before you embarass yourself any further.



what into your working definition? That's what I'm doing by asking you to define your use of the term lumpen.


----------



## newbie (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The analysis we're pursuing is as a result of overwhelming evidence, empirical, theoritical and historical and the rest of society is worthy of little or no consideration by them. They have set their face against, in particular working class society, on a daily basis. It is the communities themselves that demand that action is taken. Ultimately it's a case of picking sides. With the working class and the standards they believe in or against them. There is always an alternative - complete capitulation.


No community has a single voice or thinks in a single way.

I understand that's your view, but it doesn't answer my questions.  What are the longer term and wider implications if your side prevails?

You must have thought about it, what do you want to happen?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

newbie said:


> No community has a single voice or thinks in a single way.
> 
> I understand that's your view, but it doesn't answer my questions. What are the longer term and wider implications if your side prevails?
> 
> You must have thought about it, what do you want to happen?



What are the longer term implications if 'your side' prevails? Have you thought it about that? Would you be happy to live in an area where they had the whip-hand. Would any of the apologists on here?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

FWIW, quite a few of us do live in areas where we are already blighted by a lot of shit.

If anything, my immediate reaction when loads of youth were all attempting to break into a row of little shops near me (thwarted by the police as it happened - funny how we couldn't get a copper out to tackle anti-social for love and money until the Olympics and Westfield were being built!) as well as what I was seeing elsewhere was to lock em all up and throw away the key.

But that doesn't stop me disassociating the sort of social and economic conditions that contribute to scenes such as rioting, burnt out dumped cars, violence from happening. I say contribute carefully. And yes, it hurts our neighbourhood and working class people here especially.

At the same time, I remain a firm believer (however misguided some might view it) that a lot of those involved aren't a lost 'lumpen' generation, and I find the idea of 'sides' somewhat unhelpful - we've had plenty of that rhetoric in the past here from the police, politicians, council, local community action groups as well as half-hearted 'schemes' and they only ever manage short-term surface improvements - but they never tackle root problems.


----------



## Sue (Dec 23, 2011)

And how to tackle the root problems is the question. Can't see this is even being considered or is likely to be at the moment.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I very much doubt you'd find his contribution terribly 'nuanced' if he'd actually clapped his little hands in anticipation of black immigration being reversed?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> FWIW, quite a few of us do live in areas where we are already blighted by a lot of shit.
> 
> If anything, my immediate reaction when loads of youth were all attempting to break into a row of little shops near me (thwarted by the police as it happened - funny how we couldn't get a copper out to tackle anti-social for love and money until the Olympics and Westfield were being built!) was to lock em up and throw away the key.
> 
> But that doesn't stop me disassociating the sort of social and economic conditions that in areas where I am still contribute to scenes such as rioting, burnt out dumped cars, violence from happening. I say contribute carefully. And yes, it hurts our neighbourhood and working class people here especially.



In all areas the IWCA conducted door to door surveys, what was loosely termed, anti-social behaviour came top of the list. From a political perspective the biggest hurt inflicted on the local community came in the shape of a deep demoralisation that anything would or could be done. This demoralisation leaked into all areas of potential political actvity from resisting cuts to taking part in elections. For example when the iWCA first considered standing a candidate in Blackbird Leys the turn out in ward was approx 12 per cent - and the incumbent Labour party were perfectly relaxed about it. Locals were paralysed from taking action by screams of 'vigilante!' from the same politicians. And when with  local backing the iWCA took on the crack-dealers who came out in their defence - the local plod.

The root cause is  of course 30 years of neo-liberalism, resulting in significant societal change in terms of an obscene redistribution from the bottom to top. One of the consequences has been the emergence of the new lumpen. Not simply youth, much less colour coded, these are classified as a sub class who have long ceased to meet the economic criteria generally associated with being a member of the working class. Inevitably the code they live by, tends over time to change too.  Out and out criminalityis seen as a rational choice when faced with the alternative.

Capitalism has produced the nouvea lumpen. But capitalism has also produced the new right across Europe too. What both have in common is that they sneer at weakness and are emboldened by timidty.

By all means produce strategies to help boil it down to the 'irreconcilables' but once that is done, what remains will have to be dealth with one way or the other. Why must they be dealth with? Because all the evidence shows that even prior to the financial crisis the lumpen are growing. And as with the fascists, if you can't deal with them when they are small, what chance have you do deal with them when they are big?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

the best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend. what did the iwca do to bring 'the lumpen' onside?


----------



## newbie (Dec 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What are the longer term implications if 'your side' prevails? Have you thought it about that? Would you be happy to live in an area where they had the whip-hand. Would any of the apologists on here?


It's your viewpoint that's being discussed, not mine, I'm simply trying to understand what it is you're getting at.  I think it's reasonable to ask what it is you're seeking to achieve.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Sue said:


> And how to tackle the root problems is the question. Can't see this is even being considered or is likely to be at the moment.



As far as mainstream politics is concerned, it's not an issue worthy of consideration. Tackling social issues means conceding that Capitalism causes social issues, which is pretty much in opposition to the current "blame the victim" stance.
As for politics outside of the mainstream, those narratives are as constrained as ever by the dominant political discourse, so all that those of us to the left of the mainstream parties can do at the moment is keep on keeping on, explain the issues in a non-dogmatic way and hope to convince people to our narrative. By "people", I of course mean "all people", not just a particular target group that suits my particular ideological predicates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

TBH I don't see the IWCA as a negative force. It does slightly annoy me that the analysis does seem to come down on the side of an idealised stakhanov. From the victory against fash on the streets, onto victory against.....enemies within the w/c?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend. what did the iwca do to bring 'the lumpen' onside?



'Onside'? What do we say? Can you please stop using sexual abuse against the female caretaker, can you stop setting fire to the bin chambers, can you stop selling drugs on the stairs and then pissing on them, can you stop terrorising the old folk, can you stop raping the daughters of our supporters?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> TBH I don't see the IWCA as a negative force. It does slightly annoy me that the analysis does seem to come down on the side of an idealised stakhanov. From the victory against fash on the streets, onto victory against.....enemies within the w/c?



What class do you think the vast majority of the fash belonged to then?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 24, 2011)

newbie said:


> It's your viewpoint that's being discussed, not mine, I'm simply trying to understand what it is you're getting at. I think it's reasonable to ask what it is you're seeking to achieve.



Simple. Identify them. Isolate them. Prevent them doing what they're doing, or drive them out.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 24, 2011)

you think the majority of the people involved in the london riots are serious drug dealers and rapists?

weirdo


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

and black. If you don't mention the blackness you are a liberal


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What class do you think the vast majority of the fash belonged to then?



In the UK? The lower middle classes, in the direct experience of myself and my family, going back to the 1920s.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'Onside'? What do we say? Can you please stop using sexual abuse against the female caretaker, can you stop setting fire to the bin chambers, can you stop selling drugs on the stairs and then pissing on them, can you stop terrorising the old folk, can you stop raping the daughters of our supporters?



So the people you're talking about don't actually consitute "the lumpen" so much as a *section* of a (growing IMO) underclass whose circumstances are strongly influenced by the fallout from neo-liberalism.

You get asocials across the classes, Joe, they're not merely present as an element of a broadly-defined "working class".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Simple. Identify them. Isolate them. Prevent them doing what they're doing, or drive them out.



30 or more years ago, doing such things with deeply anti-social members of the community wasn't necessary. Local authorities could be relied on, to a great extent, to enforce tenancy conditions strictly. The disempowerment of local authorities to do so now, mostly through the massive contraction of available social housing, is yet another result of neo-liberalism.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 24, 2011)

Councils like Haringey closing 8 of their 13 youth centres isn't exactly helping either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'Onside'? What do we say? Can you please stop using sexual abuse against the female caretaker, can you stop setting fire to the bin chambers, can you stop selling drugs on the stairs and then pissing on them, can you stop terrorising the old folk, can you stop raping the daughters of our supporters?


i was thinking less of appeals to individual people and more of campaigns or measures taken to reduce the incidence of such anti-social behaviour - perhaps something like class war's no muggers no burglars sticker only taken to the next level. i'm supposing from your reply you didn't experience much success with your approaches.

what do you think political groups could do in the future to change people's behaviour - do you feel more sympathy for the ira's methods of curbing anti-social behaviour?


----------



## newbie (Dec 24, 2011)

I can believe elements of a community might unite to drive out a few individuals who've set up an identifiable crack house and that action attracting reasonably widespread support locally.

The postcode gangs don't only include incomers though, in places they're deeply rooted with local relatives spanning generations. If they are part of a class apart (and I'm not discounting that at all) isolating them will require uniting not just a few blokes in the pub but also the relatives, their friends and neighbours and so on. The people who've known the troublesome 16 year old from nursery school but don't want their current behaviour.

Asking a community to shun its own is asking a lot.

Who does the asking?

How do they do it? There's no formal mechanism for persuading people that social conformity needs to be enforced. Which means there's no real way to delineate or assess the sides, no way to gauge the support for preventing the class apart misbehaving or for driving them out.

How do those who take it upon themselves to deal with the problem gain community legitimacy?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What class do you think the vast majority of the fash belonged to then?


 
Yeah, the weight of teles and clothing were all that stopped the rioters from goose stepping down the road. Can't sieg heil when you've a rack of nicked clothing on one arm, can ya.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the UK? The lower middle classes, in the direct experience of myself and my family, going back to the 1920s.



Think again.Anyone who has physically come up against them or lived in an area where they have been active would find that there is a substantive working class element to facsism.I  have worked in engineering, building sites and hospitals alongside ex BUF members, NF, BNP and even on one occasion a BM members.

What would be the lower middle classes anyway?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> You're from some where else telling me what my own backyard is like. Ok the my local knowledge of living here must be highly wrong I mean having to see it each and ever day makes me entirely clueless about my own area.
> 
> Really you fucking child grow up.
> 
> ...



Sorry Gareth but I can't take you seriously about your yard and ting after receiving some info from posters on here about you which amongst other things slightly betrays this 'those of us you left behind' fantasy. I can put up with members of the petite bourgeoisie, although they should have the decency to be 'out' , but not people who vote Lib Dem and who are into hot air ballooning .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> Councils like Haringey closing 8 of their 13 youth centres isn't exactly helping either.



I tend to forget about youth centres, given Lambeth administrations also tend to forget them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Yeah, the weight of teles and clothing were all that stopped the rioters from goose stepping down the road. Can't sieg heil when you've a rack of nicked clothing on one arm, can ya.



Or even a sack of basmati.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Think again.Anyone who has physically come up against them or lived in an area where they have been active would find that there is a substantive working class element to facsism.I have worked in engineering, building sites and hospitals alongside ex BUF members, NF, BNP and even on one occasion a BM members.
> 
> What would be the lower middle classes anyway?



So because you've worked with w/c fascists that means that you're right? Get a grip. 
I've lived on averagely-bad inner city south London council estates for most of my life, and the one thing I've never come across is any concentration of hard-righters. Individual racists, yes, but not more than that. When we had NF problems in the late '70s where I was living in Battersea they weren't local, they came from Wandsworth and Putney. The overriding sentiment on most of the estates I've lived on has been "we're all in the shit together". Perhaps that's different the other side of the Thames.

Lower middle-classes = people who divorce themselves from w/c culture and w/c communities. We're not necessarily talking about the artisans and tradesmen, but basically about the people Thatcher was aiming at with her RtB policy and privatisation shares.
Not "lower middle classes" as per Orwell when describing his upbringing in "genteel squalor".


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So because you've worked with w/c fascists that means that you're right? Get a grip.
> I've lived on averagely-bad inner city south London council estates for most of my life, and the one thing I've never come across is any concentration of hard-righters. Individual racists, yes, but not more than that. When we had NF problems in the late '70s where I was living in Battersea they weren't local, they came from Wandsworth and Putney. The overriding sentiment on most of the estates I've lived on has been "we're all in the shit together". Perhaps that's different the other side of the Thames.
> 
> Lower middle-classes = people who divorce themselves from w/c culture and w/c communities. We're not necessarily talking about the artisans and tradesmen, but basically about the people Thatcher was aiming at with her RtB policy and privatisation shares.
> Not "lower middle classes" as per Orwell when describing his upbringing in "genteel squalor".


 
so these fash from Putney and Wansdworth how did they come across as divorced from w/c culture?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> so these fash from Putney and Wansdworth how did they come across as divorced from w/c culture?



Because they were projecting their assumptions about working class culture onto a setting (several council estates in Battersea) where it had little traction. Making an assumption that merely because a white person lives on an ethnically-heterogeneous estate, they'll be open to racist politics was divorced from both the reality and the history of working class culture in the area.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 26, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Sorry Gareth but I can't take you seriously about your yard and ting after receiving some info from posters on here about you which amongst other things slightly betrays this 'those of us you left behind' fantasy. I can put up with members of the petite bourgeoisie, although they should have the decency to be 'out' , but not people who vote Lib Dem and who are into hot air ballooning .


Enough 'hot air' on here already anyway.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So because you've worked with w/c fascists that means that you're right? Get a grip.
> I've lived on averagely-bad inner city south London council estates for most of my life, and the one thing I've never come across is any concentration of hard-righters. Individual racists, yes, but not more than that. When we had NF problems in the late '70s where I was living in Battersea they weren't local, they came from Wandsworth and Putney. The overriding sentiment on most of the estates I've lived on has been "we're all in the shit together". Perhaps that's different the other side of the Thames.
> 
> Lower middle-classes = people who divorce themselves from w/c culture and w/c communities. We're not necessarily talking about the artisans and tradesmen, but basically about the people Thatcher was aiming at with her RtB policy and privatisation shares.
> Not "lower middle classes" as per Orwell when describing his upbringing in "genteel squalor".



So what your saying is that working class people who bought their council flat are transformed instantly into middle class - and proto fascists too boot?

As to your previous point if you had direct experience of confronting fascists _en masse_, you would have very litlle doubt as to the class they majority hailed from.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 26, 2011)

newbie said:


> I can believe elements of a community might unite to drive out a few individuals who've set up an identifiable crack house and that action attracting reasonably widespread support locally.
> 
> The postcode gangs don't only include incomers though, in places they're deeply rooted with local relatives spanning generations. If they are part of a class apart (and I'm not discounting that at all) isolating them will require uniting not just a few blokes in the pub but also the relatives, their friends and neighbours and so on. The people who've known the troublesome 16 year old from nursery school but don't want their current behaviour.
> 
> ...



Obviously if the lumpen are entrenched then the area is probably already lost. As for legitimacy it needs to community first of all to raise the issue then its a matter of mobilising that same community in pursuit of a course of action. Not always as you'll appreciate it the same thing - or indeed the same people.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i was thinking less of appeals to individual people and more of campaigns or measures taken to reduce the incidence of such anti-social behaviour - perhaps something like class war's no muggers no burglars sticker only taken to the next level. i'm supposing from your reply you didn't experience much success with your approaches.
> 
> what do you think political groups could do in the future to change people's behaviour - do you feel more sympathy for the ira's methods of curbing anti-social behaviour?



The IWCA approach where is was implemented to the full in for example Blackbird Leys, worked very well in the teeth of opposition from Labour Council, media, police - not forgetting the criminal element themselves.

The IRA approach was very severe - but then it was a recognised war zone - and in many cases it was done reluctantly in response to pressure from their supporters on the ground. Failure to respond in the absence on a recognised police force would inevitably mean a collapse in morale over time. In addition the greater the hood influence locally the greater the purchase of the authorities in terms of general intelligence, informers and so forth which would of course effect  ability to operate militarily.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> 30 or more years ago, doing such things with deeply anti-social members of the community wasn't necessary. Local authorities could be relied on, to a great extent, to enforce tenancy conditions strictly. The disempowerment of local authorities to do so now, mostly through the massive contraction of available social housing, is yet another result of neo-liberalism.



30 years ago there wasn't a visibly violent lumpen either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So what your saying is that working class people who bought their council flat are transformed instantly into middle class - and proto fascists too boot?



Don't put words in my mouth, eh? People who moved away from their working class roots.



> As to your previous point if you had direct experience of confronting fascists _en masse_, you would have very litlle doubt as to the class they majority hailed from.



I've had plenty of experience, Joe, from the late '70s until I could no longer walk without aid in the mid '90s. My experience informs my opinions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 30 years ago there wasn't a visibly violent lumpen either.



No? Perhaps these people you continue to refer to as "lumpen" weren't as visibly violent? Perhaps there were other channels for their aggression?. Had you bothered to consider that?


----------



## newbie (Dec 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Obviously if the lumpen are entrenched then the area is probably already lost.


well that's great swathes of South London written off then, and probably most other innercity areas! The area is lost, give up hope all who enter, here be dragons. Does your prescription really offer nothing at all to those of us who live cheek by jowl with the lumpen?

Where are these places where the class apart are not entrenched: provincial cities, industrial towns, white flight suburbs, isolated estates, student ghettos, where? What characterises them and what distinguishes them such that they have don't have the social problems evident in the lost areas? Are there sufficient such areas that there could be more than an isolated case or two of your ideas gaining momentum?



> As for legitimacy it needs to community first of all to raise the issue then its a matter of mobilising that same community in pursuit of a course of action. Not always as you'll appreciate it the same thing - or indeed the same people.


What community? Neighbourhood Watch type groups have been mobilising and highlighting these issues for ages, but it's farfetched to imagine that curtain twitchers speak for the whole community. By and large their course of action has involved calling for greater policing, more restrictions, etc. If that's what people call for will you help them try to achieve it?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 27, 2011)

There is some intersting stuff from Kautsky on the 'slum proleriat', a term that the British CP used in the 1930s when discussing fascism and its support base.



> The conditions of existence and struggle of this class are entirely different from those of the wage-earning class. Just as the former are indispensable to the well being of society, so the latter; the slum proletariat, are useless, yes, even harmful, for they are pure parasites.
> Both carry on a struggle against existing society; both are propertiless and disinherited: both must combat the existing form of property. But the working proletariat fights openly as a mass, its weapons are solidarity and economic indispensability, its aims the changing of the laws regarding property. The slum proletariat fights individually and secretly, its weapons are lies and breach of confidence; its aim is not the changing of the property laws, but the possession of the property of others.
> Contact with the slum proletariat and acceptance of its war methods cannot but compromise and disorganize the proletarian movement.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2011)

What happens when you lose the economic indispensibility though?

... and it'd be arguable that rioting isn't entirely individualistic ...


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 27, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What happens when you lose the economic indispensibility though?
> 
> ... and it'd be arguable that rioting isn't entirely individualistic ...


 
When will this happen on a permanent basis?

Is looting collective gain or for the gain of self selected individuals?


----------



## newbie (Dec 27, 2011)

intersting stuff from Kautsky said:


> Both carry on a struggle against existing society; both are propertiless and disinherited: both must combat the existing form of property.


Simply not true in the modern Britain.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 27, 2011)

newbie said:


> Simply not true in the modern Britain.


 
what both don't need to  combat the existing form of property?


----------



## newbie (Dec 27, 2011)

What's not true is that both are propertyless.

There's surely no debate about the "wage-earning class" because that includes such a huge number of property owning stakeholders.

To what extent the class apart are propertyless is more questionable. However because there are plenty of propertyless people who are not at all lumpen, the propertyless/stakeholder division doesn't actually tell us very much..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> When will this happen on a permanent basis?
> 
> Is looting collective gain or for the gain of self selected individuals?



1) Dunno about the first.

2) What I had in mind regarding rioting was more to do with the rioting part of the rioting, rather than the looting part.

The 'collective gain' would be taking the streets back from the cops, however briefly. Or something along those lines.

The JRF survey makes it pretty clear that this is a strongly felt issue which had a significant role in motivating events.

The survey records numerous quotes to the effect of - 'No respect from the cops, even in our own neighbourhoods' etc.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No? Perhaps these people you continue to refer to as "lumpen" weren't as visibly violent? Perhaps there were other channels for their aggression?. Had you bothered to consider that?



I would contend that the nature, scale, motives and targets for the violence and the consequences thereof are very different today.  Moreover, it needs to be stressed that lumpen is first and foremost and economic category. Those who are not in work and not looking for any is one of the key criteria. Basically because once that decision is arrived at, how one views the world is over time likely to be radically altered.  In essence it all about taking out what you haven't put in - not making a contribution even on a voluntary level - on principle.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

newbie said:


> well that's great swathes of South London written off then, and probably most other innercity areas! The area is lost, give up hope all who enter, here be dragons. Does your prescription really offer nothing at all to those of us who live cheek by jowl with the lumpen?
> 
> Where are these places where the class apart are not entrenched: provincial cities, industrial towns, white flight suburbs, isolated estates, student ghettos, where? What characterises them and what distinguishes them such that they have don't have the social problems evident in the lost areas? Are there sufficient such areas that there could be more than an isolated case or two of your ideas gaining momentum?
> 
> What community? Neighbourhood Watch type groups have been mobilising and highlighting these issues for ages, but it's farfetched to imagine that curtain twitchers speak for the whole community. By and large their course of action has involved calling for greater policing, more restrictions, etc. If that's what people call for will you help them try to achieve it?



What is that makes you think South London is a lost cause?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> There is some intersting stuff from Kautsky on the 'slum proleriat', a term that the British CP used in the 1930s when discussing fascism and its support base.



Interesting.


----------



## newbie (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What is that makes you think South London is a lost cause?


your assertion that "Obviously if the lumpen are entrenched then the area is probably already lost."  coupled with my own observations about how interwoven into society around here they are.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I would contend that the nature, scale, motives and targets for the violence and the consequences thereof are very different today. Moreover, it needs to be stressed that lumpen is first and foremost and economic category. Those who are not in work and not looking for any is one of the key criteria. Basically because once that decision is arrived at, how one views the world is over time likely to be radically altered. In essence it all about taking out what you haven't put in - not making a contribution even on a voluntary level - on principle.



and so here we have it, the celebration of the work ethic and the mystifying notion of putting into society.

tell me you utter fucking cunt of a clown what I put back into society when I go work in a call centre bothering people for financial services, survey and other useless shit whilst they try and make the kids dinner? What am I puting back into society when I go work in some shitty shop selling shit that no one needs. Or even to hark back to days when people worked in manufacturing in the UK producing all sorts of tat, use values that make sense only within a society totally subsumed to exchange value? Or working in an arms factory, is that putting back into society?

your politics are like a bad impression of a 1930's stalinist, your notion of the working class is pathetic based as it is on some retarded work ethic.

cunts like you are the real fucking danger to the working class, producing as you do divisions of deserving and undeserving, between the employed and unemployed and aiming your guns at those with an immediate critique of the alineation of wage labour. You think the working class can only fight back and win when cunts like you have rustled all the bad little proles back into factories and call centres, when youse have imposed your work ethic.

well here's the thing, structural unemployment is not going down, global warming shows the nihilism of work for works sake, the government are desperately trying to scapegoat those on benefits, immigrants and out of control youth for problems that are inherent to the contradictions of capitalism, and what are cunts like you doing? Fuck all but wanking off over a nostalgic notion of a working class that never existed other than as an imagined panacea for the complexities of class struggle.

fuck you and fuck work!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The IWCA approach where is was implemented to the full in for example Blackbird Leys, worked very well in the teeth of opposition from Labour Council, media, police - not forgetting the criminal element themselves.
> 
> The IRA approach was very severe - but then it was a recognised war zone - and in many cases it was done reluctantly in response to pressure from their supporters on the ground. Failure to respond in the absence on a recognised police force would inevitably mean a collapse in morale over time. In addition the greater the hood influence locally the greater the purchase of the authorities in terms of general intelligence, informers and so forth which would of course effect ability to operate militarily.



not to mention the fact you can't have unlicensed criminals running around, you've got to have structures in place for proper criminality to suceed, some people allowed to extort, others allowed to sell drugs and y'know people who are connected with certain people being allowed to walk around like swaggering bullying cunts.

not to mention none of the IRA's harsh measures actually worked and infact what they produced was a class of hood even more brutal and nihilistic than before.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> There is some intersting stuff from Kautsky on the 'slum proleriat', a term that the British CP used in the 1930s when discussing fascism and its support base.



what's interesting about anything a counter revolutionary cunt like Kautsky has to say, his and the CP's notion of revolution never got beyond either good little well disciplined workers voting in socialist parties to administer the state and the factories in "their interest" or in later years the revolutionary subjectivity of T-34's.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

newbie said:


> your assertion that "Obviously if the lumpen are entrenched then the area is probably already lost." coupled with my own observations about how interwoven into society around here they are.



Well, that very much comes down to the accuracy of your observations and the definition of entrenched?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> not to mention the fact you can't have unlicensed criminals running around, you've got to have structures in place for proper criminality to suceed, some people allowed to extort, others allowed to sell drugs and y'know people who are connected with certain people being allowed to walk around like swaggering bullying cunts.
> 
> not to mention none of the IRA's harsh measures actually worked and infact what they produced was a class of hood even more brutal and nihilistic than before.



You got all this from the same fellas that told you about the over-hyped riots that cost around £300 million or was it from reading someone like Kevin Myers?  The point I'm making is that it is painfully evident that your right-wing caricature of how the repubican movement conducted itself is not based on any first hand knowledge. Though it is true that your description fits exactly how Loyalist paramilitaries operated. Of course your hardly the first to suggest that what works on one side of the peace wall works just as well on the other side. The British have been doing that for decades.  Of course the respective votes for SF and PUP say something very different.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> cunts like you are the real fucking danger to the working class,



Happily, cunts like you aren't. Frankly I think you need help.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> You got all this from the same fellas that told you about the over-hyped riots that cost around £300 million or was it from reading someone like Kevin Myers? The point I'm making is that it is painfully evident that your right-wing caricature of how the repubican movement conducted itself is not based on any first hand knowledge. Though it is true that your description fits exactly how Loyalist paramilitaries operated. Of course your hardly the first to suggest that what works on one side of the peace wall works just as well on the other side. The British have been doing that for decades. Of course the respective votes for SF and PUP say something very different.



sorry but I've friends from both sides and whilst gangsterism is a much larger problem in loyalist areas the fact is that plenty of it went on under the IRA's watch during the troubles. I have experience of loyalism first hand and plenty of my friends from republican areas including people I know who were involved in republican politics have talked of gangsterism and cunts using their positions within the republican movement to bully and intimidate people within their own communities to their own ends. I'd suggest it's you who lacks knowledge.

anyway that was just a little aside, care to address my points about your perpetuation of the work ethic.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> 1) Dunno about the first.
> 
> 2) What I had in mind regarding rioting was to do with the rioting part of what happened, rather than the looting part.
> 
> ...



Again as has been pointed out many times before it is inevitable that there will be certain amount of chaffing between crimimal and elements and the plod. Even though the rioters/looters were generally youngsters, some 75 per cent already had convictions. As for the JRF survey - ipso faction rationalisation probably sums it up best.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2011)

I thought you lot were keen on surveys?

Or aren't they 'objective' unless you do them?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Happily, cunts like you aren't. Frankly I think you need help.



I refer you to my previous reply.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Again as has been pointed out many times before it is inevitable that there will be certain amount of chaffing between crimimal and elements and the plod. Even though the rioters/looters were generally youngsters, some 75 per cent already had convictions. As for the JRF survey - ipso faction rationalisation probably sums it up best.



oh those convicted you clown, now think about how they caught people for looting and rioting and the like, would it not be likely that those already with records would be targetted, wouldn't it be much harder to catch those with no record?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I refer you to my previous reply.



so no thoughts on how the irrationality of capitalism and work has led to the breakdown of any sense of "putting into society" via wage labour, no thoughts on how this break down of the work ethic isn't so much a problem to be remedied but actually represents a potential step forward towards a proper critique of capitalism?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 27, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I thought you lot were keen on surveys?
> 
> Or aren't they 'objective' unless you do them?



Yes we do surveys, door to door, but for the purposes of intelligence gathering. Not for the purposes of propaganda.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes we do surveys, door to door, but for the purposes of intelligence gathering. Not for the purposes of propaganda.



intelligence gathering LOL


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes we do surveys, door to door, but for the purposes of intelligence gathering. Not for the purposes of propaganda.



So why glibly dismiss what the JRF surveys are indicating as 'ipso facto rationalisation'?

One of the things that always impressed me about the IWCA was their willingness to take on board uncomfortable viewpoints if survey evidence showed that they were genuine concerns to working class communities.

Yet you seem to be dismissing the very strong indications in the JRF surveys about issues with the police and ownership of neighbourhoods to suit your preconceived ideas.

That's a bit disappointing to be honest. I'd expect that sort of thing from Boris Johnson but not someone representing an organisation like the IWCA.


----------



## newbie (Dec 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Well, that very much comes down to the accuracy of your observations and the definition of entrenched?


entrenched was your word, perhaps I'm misreading your intent.  I described what I mean earlier _"deeply rooted with local relatives spanning generations. If they are part of a class apart (and I'm not discounting that at all) isolating them will require uniting not just a few blokes in the pub but also the relatives, their friends and neighbours and so on. The people who've known the troublesome 16 year old from nursery school but don't want their current behaviour._

_Asking a community to shun its own is asking a lot."_

Perhaps South London is a red herring, I'm just trying to get an idea of what sort of areas you think your ideas might work in.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've had plenty of experience, Joe, from the late '70s until I could no longer walk without aid in the mid '90s. My experience informs my opinions.



While it is true that the leadership conforms to the lower middle class edict, Griffin, Edmonds, Lecomber, Stuart, Tyndall ...etc other than that I would imagine the vast majority of AFA members would reject with your assesment.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 28, 2011)

newbie said:


> entrenched was your word, perhaps I'm misreading your intent. I described what I mean earlier _"deeply rooted with local relatives spanning generations. If they are part of a class apart (and I'm not discounting that at all) isolating them will require uniting not just a few blokes in the pub but also the relatives, their friends and neighbours and so on. The people who've known the troublesome 16 year old from nursery school but don't want their current behaviour._
> 
> _Asking a community to shun its own is asking a lot."_
> 
> Perhaps South London is a red herring, I'm just trying to get an idea of what sort of areas you think your ideas might work in.


 theu

If the community is itself almost entirely lumpen is the only way they would be 'asked to shun their own'. Grnted their are areas where the gangs have the whip hand. Other than the areas where the working class have been run out or sufficiently subdued, there is no reason why the strategy shouldn't work. As long as the local population are prepared to stand up and be counted.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 28, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> When will this happen on a permanent basis?
> 
> Is looting collective gain or for the gain of self selected individuals?



"The rioting was not just about police numbers...it was about selfishness and greed...[the rioters] were helping themselves to Xboxes and DVD recorders...that had nothing to do with Mark Duggan."

'Young rioters had grown up in hyper-individualised times, where they felt entitlement to consumer goods but little responsibility to fellow citizens'.

Which racist said this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> While it is true that the leadership conforms to the lower middle class edict, Griffin, Edmonds, Lecomber, Stuart, Tyndall ...etc other than that I would imagine the vast majority of AFA members would reject with your assesment.



Feel free to imagine away, Joe, just as you appear to imagine that only AFA members would have a valid opinion.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Feel free to imagine away, Joe, just as you appear to imagine that only AFA members would have a valid opinion.



Well in terms of effectively fighting fascists, or in terms of undertaking work in working class communities - with some success and credibility, AFA clearly do have a valid opinion.

Those criticising the approach might want to now set out their alternative approach and give some examples of where it's worked or even been noticed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well in terms of effectively fighting fascists, or in terms of undertaking work in working class communities - with some success and credibility, AFA clearly do have a valid opinion.
> 
> Those criticising the approach might want to now set out their alternative approach and give some examples of where it's worked or even been noticed.



I'm not criticising them or saying that their opinion is invalid. It's fairly obvious (perhaps not to you, though) that all I'm saying that theirs isn't the *only* valid opinion.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not criticising them or saying that their opinion is invalid. It's fairly obvious (perhaps not to you, though) that all I'm saying that theirs isn't the *only* valid opinion.



Fair point, but that's not what I was saying was it? I'm asking those critical of the approach to set out their alternative and to explain when and where it has had some success or credibility.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

What's bothering me right now is Joe Reilly glibly dismissing the JRF research, apparently because it doesn't fit his preferred interpretation, with none of the claque of posters who apparently share and support his viewpoint calling him on it.

I really can't get past that apparent intellectual dishonesty without some sort of convincing justification. Why is survey evidence worth listening to when the IWCA do it and not when the JRF do it? Or when it says stuff that you don't like?

I expect that sort of dismissal of evidence from say Michael Gove, but not of people who I'd previously thought might have something worthwhile to say about this sort of issue...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 29, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Those criticising the approach might want to now set out their alternative approach and give some examples of where it's worked or even been noticed.



"If not this then what" etc etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Fair point, but that's not what I was saying was it? I'm asking those critical of the approach to set out their alternative and to explain when and where it has had some success or credibility.



Then why do so in a reply to my post? Would it really have been too much effort to start a new one to ask that question?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What's bothering me right now is Joe Reilly glibly dismissing the JRF research, apparently because it doesn't fit his preferred interpretation, with none of the claque of posters who apparently share and support his viewpoint calling him on it.
> 
> I really can't get past that apparent intellectual dishonesty without some sort of convincing justification. Why is survey evidence worth listening to when the IWCA do it and not when the JRF do it? Or when it says stuff that you don't like?
> 
> I expect that sort of dismissal of evidence from say Michael Gove, but not of people who I'd previously thought might have something worthwhile to say about this sort of issue...



"Person who subscribes to a dogma behaves dogmatically" shocker!!!


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> 30 years ago there wasn't a visibly violent lumpen either.



kids today eh

no doubt you'll be able to back this up with evidence of soaring crime figures over the last 30 years


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I would contend that the nature, scale, motives and targets for the violence and the consequences thereof are very different today. Moreover, it needs to be stressed that lumpen is first and foremost and economic category.



you're off message - on the renegades thread it was argued that economics was not the key factor of the 'nouveau' lumpen, it represented a new class formation based around morality



> Those who are not in work and not looking for any is one of the key criteria. Basically because once that decision is arrived at, how one views the world is over time likely to be radically altered. In essence it all about taking out what you haven't put in - not making a contribution even on a voluntary level - on principle.



so does this include single mums, disabled people, homeless people, or are you just talking about the couple of hundred thousand on JSA who are alleged to be actively avoiding work - if so you're lumpen class doesn't appear to be very big

it's an interesting take though - you can see how labour got to workfare and atos whilst still pretending to be left wing and pro-working class


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2011)

By the criteria Joe presents, I'm *totally* _Nouveau Lumpen_. I'm disabled, I don't work and don't look for work.
Thing is, as you say, those who actively avoid work are a minority. ONS and DWP research could only find a fluctuating "population" of 80,000-120,000 of such people, UK-wide every time they looked since the mid-'90s. Most of the rest of us can't work in the sense of how the government might describe work. The homeless have their lives to worry about, the single parents their children. The disabled - most of us who're bad enough to qualify for disability-related benefits - have a double problem: Our conditions often mean we can't commit to a regular pattern of employment, which makes us not-very-desirable to potential employers, and; potential employers are scared of the implications of hiring us even when there are jobs to be had.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

I think quite a few of us would be heading to the gulag


----------



## cantsin (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I think quite a few of us would be heading to the gulag



with Uncle Joe O Reilly etc slamming the prison train doors shut behind us.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 29, 2011)

revol68 said:


> and so here we have it, the celebration of the work ethic and the mystifying notion of putting into society.
> 
> tell me you utter fucking cunt of a clown what I put back into society when I go work in a call centre bothering people for financial services, survey and other useless shit whilst they try and make the kids dinner? What am I puting back into society when I go work in some shitty shop selling shit that no one needs. Or even to hark back to days when people worked in manufacturing in the UK producing all sorts of tat, use values that make sense only within a society totally subsumed to exchange value? Or working in an arms factory, is that putting back into society?
> 
> ...



Here lies the difference between those who are pro working class and those who just see it as something to chat about amongst the other isms that they learnt about at college.There have always been poor people but only under capitalism has there been a working class.

What is a working class if it has no work?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 29, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Here lies the difference between those who are pro working class and those who just see it as something to chat about amongst the other isms that they learnt about at college.There have always been poor people but only under capitalism has there been a working class.
> 
> What is a working class if it has no work?



Well yes, the notion of a 'working class' used to be quite important to those who profess to be Marxist. However large sections of the cobweb left have spent the last 40 years imagining how socialism could arrive without the need to involve most of the unwashed (unless from a minority group)


----------



## cantsin (Dec 29, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well yes, the notion of a 'working class' used to be quite important to those who profess to be Marxist. However large sections of the cobweb left have spent the last 40 years imagining how socialism could arrive without the need to involve most of the unwashed (unless from a minority group)



'last 40 yrs '? ah, so it was the 60's that shook our belief in a good honest days toil,  and now of course with 'minority groups' to do all the work , there's no chance of the lazy , post 60's proles getting back to what they know best.

Are there any hoary old Tory canards you *aren't* willing to re-dress / re- package in your attempts to distance yourself from  the 'cobweb left' ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 29, 2011)

cantsin said:


> 'last 40 yrs '? ah, so it was the 60's that shook our belief in a good honest days toil,  and now of course with 'minority groups' to do all the work , there's no chance of the lazy , post 60's proles getting back to what they know best.
> 
> Are there any hoary old Tory canards you *aren't* willing to re-dress / re- package in your attempts to distance yourself from  the 'cobweb left' ?



The notion that the working class, those who sell their labour via work, will play the decisive role is not a Tory canard. The concept of the nature and role played by the lumpen isn't either.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> kids today eh
> 
> no doubt you'll be able to back this up with evidence of soaring crime figures over the last 30 years


 There's no need. Look at the shooting in Salford and the stabbing in Foot locker in Oxford St on Boxing Day and tell me this was routine in the 70's. One a possible gang initiation murder and a equally senseless post code one. Over to you.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you're off message - on the renegades thread it was argued that economics was not the key factor of the 'nouveau' lumpen, it represented a new class formation based around morality



No it didn't that just what you said it was about.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What's bothering me right now is Joe Reilly glibly dismissing the JRF research, apparently because it doesn't fit his preferred interpretation, with none of the claque of posters who apparently share and support his viewpoint calling him on it.
> 
> I really can't get past that apparent intellectual dishonesty without some sort of convincing justification. Why is survey evidence worth listening to when the IWCA do it and not when the JRF do it? Or when it says stuff that you don't like?
> 
> I expect that sort of dismissal of evidence from say Michael Gove, but not of people who I'd previously thought might have something worthwhile to say about this sort of issue...



Where is the evidence of intellectual dishonesty? The whole affair is politically loaded. For example papers like the Independent and Mirror published rogue's gallery of suspects which were almost exclusively white, while in the Mail they were almost exclusively black.

So conclusions drawn by the Guardian backed survey are also likely to be influenced by the politics of the publication in question: for example it reported _'as few_ as 19 per cent were in gangs'. 'As few'? Out of the 30,000 estimated to have taken part?

In the same way it led it with a headline: 'Mark Duggan unarmed' but the subsequent story did not justify the headline in any way shape or fashion. Politics again.

I also saw a fairly extensive interview with some rioters on Sky News - to begin with the parroted the usual justification favoured by liberals - drawing comparison wth the City, the failure at interviews (one boasted of setting fire to shop where he had failed an interview - 'payback' he called it - a 100 per cent criminal response - 'I'll make society sorry') antagonism against the police and so on.

However it wasn't so long before they were snickering at what they'd looted - 'I'll be watching this interview on my new flat screen tv!'.

Ultimately for those who still claim the riots were politically motivated or even justified - ask yourself this?

If the problems were with the City, the police or the Government, why was it that it was JD sports and not the banks, Downing St, or Canary Wharf that were targeted?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> There's no need. Look at the shooting in Salford and the stabbing in Foot locker in Oxford St on Boxing Day and tell me this was routine in the 70's. One a possible gang initiation murder and a equally senseless post code one. Over to you.



is joining a gang more lumpen than joining a football firm then.  are murders over which team you support sensible?

the crime figures don't back up your assertion, that's pretty hard evidence you are choosing to ignore


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No it didn't that just what you said it was about.



well it wasn't, in fact I was arguing that there was an economic factor

care to answer the question I posed then, in the light of this new position, which claimants do you consider lumpen, people on health related benefits, single mums, who?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Here lies the difference between those who are pro working class and those who just see it as something to chat about amongst the other isms that they learnt about at college.There have always been poor people but only under capitalism has there been a working class.
> 
> What is a working class if it has no work?


Unemployed people aren't working class?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The notion that the working class, those who sell their labour via work, will play the decisive role is not a Tory canard. The concept of the nature and role played by the lumpen isn't either.


Unemployed? Full time parents? Disabled? None of them are working class now?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> There's no need. Look at the shooting in Salford and the stabbing in Foot locker in Oxford St on Boxing Day and tell me this was routine in the 70's. One a possible gang initiation murder and a equally senseless post code one. Over to you.


No one ever got murdered in the 70s, oh no


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No one ever got murdered in the 70s, oh no



it  was good honest working class crime back then

not like these new fangled gangs with their mobile phones and trainers


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> <snip> So conclusions drawn by the Guardian backed survey are also likely to be influenced by the politics of the publication in question: for example it reported _'as few_ as 19 per cent were in gangs'. 'As few'? Out of the 30,000 estimated to have taken part? <snip>



The context of reports that: "only 19% (in London, rather lower elsewhere) of those arrested were known gang members" was that the government's own figures showed that Ian Duncan Smith was arguably incorrect to claim (with, apparently, the IWCA) that the rioting was primarily gang-driven.


> The analysis of arrests says that 13% or 417 individuals were identified as being affiliated to a gang by the 10 police forces who suffered the most extensive disorder.
> 
> "Outside London, the majority of forces identified fewer than 10% of all arrestees as gang members, and only two non-London forces estimated figures in excess of this – West Yorkshire (19%) and Nottinghamshire (17%). For these two forces, these percentages only represent relatively small numbers of arrestees (13 and 20 respectively)," says the Home Office report.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role

Now you might choose to dispute that conclusion, but the use of the phrase "only X percent" does make sense in that context and doesn't function in the way you seem to want to claim that it does, as evidence invalidating the data presented in "Reading the Riots", for example the following.







http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/09/data-journalism-reading-riots


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Oh yes, and JD Sports is owned by the 43rd richest private company in the UK and hence makes a shitty example of lumpen elements turning on their own class rather than attacking capitalist institutions.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> is joining a gang more lumpen than joining a football firm then. are murders over which team you support sensible?
> 
> the crime figures don't back up your assertion, that's pretty hard evidence you are choosing to ignore



Ask yourself a sensible question: how many people football fans were stabbed to death in 30 years of violence - then ask yourself how many teenagers/children were stabbed to death (by other teenagers/children) due to a football affiliation in the previous 30 years and you have your answer.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Wasn't there looting during the Brixton riots in the 80s?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Oh yes, and JD Sports is owned by the 43rd richest private company in the UK and hence makes a shitty example of lumpen elements turning on their own class rather than attacking capitalist institutions.



Oh I see, the selection of JD Sports was _politically_ motivated was it?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> well it wasn't, in fact I was arguing that there was an economic factor
> 
> care to answer the question I posed then, in the light of this new position, which claimants do you consider lumpen, people on health related benefits, single mums, who?



Once again - we've been through all this before. Which of is us is Bill Murray?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Wasn't there looting during the Brixton riots in the 80s?



Yesm but more like pepper on soup - it's all about proportion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> While it is true that the leadership conforms to the lower middle class edict, Griffin, Edmonds, Lecomber, Stuart, Tyndall ...etc other than that I would imagine the vast majority of AFA members would reject with your assesment.


are you really of the opinion griffin's lower middle class?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No one ever got murdered in the 70s, oh no



Again I put the same question to you: If you can't point to the phenomenen of gangs of children attacking other children with wolf-like ferocity as we have seen on numerous occassions in London particularly in the last decade, then you must logically accept that there is some novel but deadly pathology in play.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> are you really of the opinion griffin's lower middle class?



Griffin and Anderson were I think both boxing blues at either at Cambridge? So, in those two cases a tad higher on the social chain perhaps.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yesm but more like pepper on soup - it's all about proportion.



Hmmmm. The August riots this year played out differently in different places. In Birmingham, it seemed to be pretty much all about looting. Tottenham and Hackney seemed more like the Brixton riots to me, with lots of people fighting the police. Wikipedia has this to say about the 1981 Brixton riot "Two pubs, 26 businesses, schools and other structures were set alight as rioters went on a rampage. Hundreds of local residents were trapped in their houses, locked in by either police or rioters.".


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Oh I see, the selection of JD Sports was _politically_ motivated was it?



I note you don't care to address bernies post previous to the one you have quoted


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Hmmmm. The August riots this year played out differently in different places. In Birmingham, it seemed to be pretty much all about looting. Tottenham and Hackney seemed more like the Brixton riots to me, with lots of people fighting the police. Wikipedia has this to say about the 1981 Brixton riot "Two pubs, 26 businesses, schools and other structures were set alight as rioters went on a rampage. Hundreds of local residents were trapped in their houses, locked in by either police or rioters.".



In the IWCA article it points to the Hackeny/Tottenham as distinctly more old school in intent and appearance, in that they were anti-police. Gangs were the driving force in Hackney for business reasons, and given that Duggan was considered a player then it is entirley logical that gangs played a pivotal role in Tottenham too.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Again I put the same question to you: If you can't point to the phenomenen of gangs of children attacking other children with wolf-like ferocity as we have seen on numerous occassions in London particularly in the last decade, then you must logically accept that there is some novel but deadly pathology in play.



you see I don't, someone could have easily made the same case in the 70s regarding football violence and in fact people did.  my perception is that things are probably less violent than they were when I was growing up and the gangs to me look no different to the bored alienated young people, often from shit backgrounds, that have always existed.  they just look different because they are influenced by the current culture.

where you see a novel and deadly pathology I see fashion.

that's the problem with subjectivity.  in this case however the evidence as exists appears to fall on my side.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Would someone like dessie noonan be considered lumpen?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Oh I see, the selection of JD Sports was _politically_ motivated was it?



Who claimed it was?

That was *your* example pal, not mine.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The context of reports that: "only 19% (in London, rather lower elsewhere) of those arrested were known gang members" was that the government's own figures showed that Ian Duncan Smith was arguably incorrect to claim (with, apparently, the IWCA) that the rioting was primarily gang-driven.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role
> 
> ...



It is disengenous of the Guardian to claim that because 'only' 19% were gang members that it safe to conclude that the analysis 'gang-driven' is incorrect. Did they actually think or expect us to believe that to invalidate the term gang-driven (with _driven_ the operative word) the over-whelming majority of the 30,000 that are estimated to have taken part nationally would have to be gang-members, or alternatively the majority of those arrested would be?

Following that logic because no more than one or two AFA members were arrested or hospitalised at Waterloo, out of an estimate of 80 plus, can it then be safely assumed that militants played a periperal role in the violence?

Or equally, because the overwhelming majority of those involved in the Battle of the Bogside were not card-carrying membes of the IRA, then the republican movement would have little more than a negligible influence on events?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> It is disengenous of the Guardian to claim that because 'only' 19% were gang members that it safe to conclude that the analysis 'gang-driven' is incorrect. Did they actually think or expect us to believe that to invalidate the term gang-driven (with _driven_ the operative word) the over-whelming majority of the 30,000 that are estimated to have taken part nationally would have to be gang-members, or alternatively the majority of those arrested would be?
> 
> Following that logic because no more than one or two AFA members were arrested or hospitalised at Waterloo, out of an estimate of 80 plus, can it then be safely assumed that militants played a periperal role in the violence?
> 
> Or equally, because the overwhelming majority of those involved in the Battle of the Bogside were not card-carrying membes of the IRA, then the republican movement would have little more than a negligible influence on events?



That's better. You're actually making a coherent case for your point of view, rather than dismissing evidence out of hand.

Well done.


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The context of reports that: "only 19% (in London, rather lower elsewhere) of those arrested were known gang members" was that the government's own figures showed that Ian Duncan Smith was arguably incorrect to claim (with, apparently, the IWCA) that the rioting was primarily gang-driven.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role
> 
> ...



No doubt someone's posted this before, but the methodology used is interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/reading-the-riots-methodology-explained?INTCMP=SRCH

Especially these bits:

'In September we advertised on the Guardian website for researchers with skills in interviewing and good links with riot-affected communities. More than 450 people from across the country applied. A team of 30 was selected and trained with funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. They spent October interviewing people who had been involved in the riots in six cities: London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Nottingham, Salford and Manchester...

We wrote to 1,000 people convicted during the riots and offered them the opportunity to take part in the study. Researchers also visited their homes. But primarily, local contacts were used to find people who were involved in the riots but had not been arrested...

The Ministry of Justice gave Reading the Riots access to prisons, enabling interviews with about 13 people convicted for their involvement in the riots. However, a large majority of the 270 people interviewed for the project had not been arrested.'

So 'about' 13 of the 270 people interviewed (about 5%) had been convicted. It's unclear whether they were part of the 1000 convicted people contacted. Of the remaining 257 people, a large majority (they don't say how many) had not been arrested never mind convicted and had been found by local contacts. From the quote above, presumably local contacts of the researchers else why look for researchers with 'good links to the riot-affected communities'?

Looking at the researchers, there seem to be a lot of academics and journalists. How good were their contacts and how representative of the rioters? I'd say we have no idea and this makes the data gathered pretty dodgy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/reading-the-riots-blog/2011/oct/10/reading-the-riots


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> No doubt someone's posted this before, but the methodology used is interesting.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/reading-the-riots-methodology-explained?INTCMP=SRCH
> 
> ...



It'd have to be pretty dodgy indeed to render such strong findings _completely_ without significance. Which is apparently what Joe wants to claim.

That's where I'm having a problem with this stuff. I found "Dealing with the Renegades" nuanced and thought provoking.

I've found many of the claims made, apparently from that standpoint on this and other recent threads overly simplistic and more than a bit shifty in their handling of what appears to be contrary evidence.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> It is disengenous of the Guardian to claim that because 'only' 19% were gang members that it safe to conclude that the analysis 'gang-driven' is incorrect. Did they actually think or expect us to believe that to invalidate the term gang-driven (with _driven_ the operative word) the over-whelming majority of the 30,000 that are estimated to have taken part nationally would have to be gang-members, or alternatively the majority of those arrested would be?
> Following that logic because no more than one or two AFA members were arrested or hospitalised at Waterloo, out of an estimate of 80 plus, can it then be safely assumed that militants played a periperal role in the violence?



I think what is more significant is how little the people who actually took part appear to think this was gang motivated

certainly there was a criminal element that exploited the situation, but tbh I'd be surprised if anyone involved in anything truly heavy went near it, you don't go loot JD Sports when you've got a kilo of smack under your floorboards


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Would someone like dessie noonan be considered lumpen?



Not for me. He certainly operated with scant regard for the law, to put it mildly, but he didn't victimise vulnerable elements.  He was also an active anti-fascist, and pro-republican for two decades. Despite the reputation there was no Noonan financial empire. For me he was born in the wrong century. As a proprietor on the Barbary Coast he would have fitted right in!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Not for me. He certainly operated with scant regard for the law, to put it mildly, but he didn't victimise vulnerable elements.  He was also an active anti-fascist, and pro-republican for two decades. Despite the reputation there was no Noonan financial empire. For me he was born in the wrong century. As a proprietor on the Barbary Coast he would have fitted right in!


I don't know anything about him beyond what I read on the internet, but if even half of it is true, I really don't get how you square red action's relationship with noonan and the ideas you express here. It seems entirely contradictory to me.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Well to be fair I don't find the suggestion that some organised crime elements were keen to retaliate for a recent wave of arrests particularly implausible.

I just think that the available evidence strongly suggests a more complex set of forces at work, with that particular element being plausibly a significant one.

Where I got involved in the recent discussion was by suggesting that you can't understand this, as 39th Step appeared to want to, purely as individualism.

I wanted to suggest that some level of solidarity, identification with a community etc might well be involved in people kicking off against the cops.

The response was for 39th Step to immediately reframe 'rioting' as 'looting', presumably because that was easier to argue with, and for Joe to chime in and glibly dismiss some of the supporting evidence.

Not impressed by that.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> No doubt someone's posted this before, but the methodology used is interesting.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/reading-the-riots-methodology-explained?INTCMP=SRCH
> 
> ...



Cheers for digging that out Sue. I knew it was on here somewhere. I'd say only someone with a serious political bias would present/accept this as objective. Shoddy is the word that springs to mind.

Thirteen interviewed out of estimated 30,000 is another way of looking at it. Just short of comprehensive wouldn't you say?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I think what is more significant is how little the people who actually took part appear to think this was gang motivated
> 
> certainly there was a criminal element that exploited the situation, but tbh I'd be surprised if anyone involved in anything truly heavy went near it, you don't go loot JD Sports when you've got a kilo of smack under your floorboards



Why stab someone in the heart in Footlocker, or blow someone's brains out in Salford after asking for the time?

Just kids messing about? What's your definition of 'truly heavy', or indeed truly dangerous?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Why stab someone in the heart in Footlocker, or blow someone's brains out in Salford after asking for the time?



cos some people are violent cunts and always were



> Just kids messing about? What's your definition of 'truly heavy', or indeed truly dangerous?



theres a difference between the two.  back in my day there were lots of sketchy kids, usually carrying a weapon, and involved in low level crime, shop lifting, burglary, small time dealing and lots and lots of fighting.  they were dangerous, often that fighting escalated to people getting stabbed, even people not directly involved, but not what you'd call heavy, as in actively involved in organised crime

above these kids there was a layer that was, they were both heavy and dangerous and ran the show much as they still do now, the more together and older leaders of some of the more together and older gangs fall into that category


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well to be fair I don't find the suggestion that some organised crime elements were keen to retaliate for a recent wave of arrests particularly implausible.
> 
> I just think that the available evidence strongly suggests a more complex set of forces at work, with that particular element being plausibly a significant one.



And as I said above, we've no idea how dodgy or not the available evidence is, at least as given in the Guardian/LSE study.

A personal anecdote (why not). I know someone researching a Phd into social and political disengagement. She's moved to the estate she's mainly basing her research on and has now lived there for a couple of years. She knows quite a lot of people locally and you could say she has good links with the community.

However, she'll come out with stuff people have told her that I know is complete bollocks. Why do they tell her stuff that's not true? For some of them, if they spin her enough of a line, she'll fill in forms for them or help them out with x, y and z and maybe babysit for them and all the rest of it. And she's well meaning and nice and can't actually see they're taking her for a ride. I can't help but wonder how *true* her research will actually be.

When I looked at the list of the researchers used in the Guardian/LSE study, I thought of her. Imagine she's exactly the kind of person they were looking for to do their research. But how representative and truthful would her contacts actually be? I'd suspect not very.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Cheers for digging that out Sue. I knew it was on here somewhere. I'd say only someone with a serious political bias would present/accept this as objective. Shoddy is the word that springs to mind.
> 
> Thirteen interviewed out of estimated 30,000 is another way of looking at it. Just short of comprehensive wouldn't you say?



I'd be interested to see a challenge to the survey methodology articulated by a suitably qualified academic. I've been looking for such but so far without any luck.

I did however find another study of the riots, this time commissioned by the Cabinet Office: http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/the-august-riots-in-england-

Some interesting stuff in there, some consistent with the Guardian/LSE stuff, some showing other perspectives e.g. "I didn't join in 'cos I've just started an apprenticeship" etc.



> It was also the case that not everyone thought taking “free stuff” was entirely wrong, even if they didn’t and wouldn’t do it themselves.
> 
> “There was an opportunity to get something for free and they took it, whether that makes them bad people or not, I don’t know. It’s like if you find money on the floor and you pick it up and put it in your pocket. It’s an opportunity to take something, opportunists. All sorts of people did it, if they are bad for that, that’s up to you; you don’t know the reasons for it. Like some girl, she might need food or Pampers for her child. If the shop was open, already broken into. She has good intentions, but the opportunity is there to get something for free.” (Young person, Peckham)
> 
> ...


 source above


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

> 'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.'



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.asp

Just sayin ...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Unemployed? Full time parents? Disabled? None of them are working class now?




The working class previously viewed unemployment as a bad thing and wanted to avoid it all costs, there is now an element that embraces non-work and behave accordingly. Actively not wanting to work is not a trait of the working class and more to the point is widely seen to the case by the working class.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The working class previously viewed unemployment as a bad thing and wanted to avoid it all costs, there is now an element that embraces non-work and behave accordingly. Actively not wanting to work is not a trait of the working class and more to the point is widely seen to the case by the working class.



There were more than a few AFA activists in the 90s I knew who happily signed on.  For a lot of people, work is shit.  I don't get this obsession with work.


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2011)

Work or paid work? I know people who're unemployed but run children's football teams, volunteer at various things and are valuable members of the local community. I dont think anyone would say they were detrimental to their class/community.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> Work or paid work? I know people who're unemployed but run children's football teams, volunteer at various things and are valuable members of the local community. I dont think anyone would say they were detrimental to their class/community.



So being unemployed does not necessarily make you non-working class then?


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> So being unemployed does not necessarily make you non-working class then?



It doesn't necessarily make you detrimental to your class/community.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> It doesn't necessarily make you detrimental to your class/community.



That's not what I asked.


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what I asked.



So there's a difference between someone involved in a positive way in their community and someone who's not, someone who's always worked hard and been laid off (for example) and someone who's never contributed in any way. That's pretty obvious I would've thought? Not quite sure what it is you want me to say (or why)?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 29, 2011)

I can't work out what the IWCA position is, it seems a tad confused, given what is being posted on here, which I find surprising.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> Work or paid work? I know people who're unemployed but run children's football teams, volunteer at various things and are valuable members of the local community. I dont think anyone would say they were detrimental to their class/community.



thats why the idea of a 'no work ethic' is such a weak demarcation point.  what is considered valuable work is largely subjective, what is even considered work has the same problem.  if the number of nouveau lumpen are only the willingly and actively unemployed then it is tiny - its clearly not the case, many of the biggest plagues on their communities have jobs.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2011)

So the distinctions between deserving and idle poor from the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 are still to be taken as applicable?



Blagsta said:


> I can't work out what the IWCA position is, it seems a tad confused, given what is being posted on here, which I find surprising.



Some of the stuff on their site is a _lot_ more rigorous and valuable than what we're getting here.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 29, 2011)

Sue said:


> So there's a difference between someone involved in a positive way in their community and someone who's not, someone who's always worked hard and been laid off (for example) and someone who's never contributed in any way. That's pretty obvious I would've thought? Not quite sure what it is you want me to say (or why)?



so an 18 yr old who's worked hard, left school, lives in an unemployment blackspot, and has no real hope of work for the forseeable future - might not be involved in the local community ( big society style ? ) and  will " never (have) contributed in any way"  so far - lumpen / not lumpen ?

(not sure why I'm even getting involved tbh  , this stuff if judgemental/divisive/ arbritrary/reactionary  bollocks )


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2011)

Thing is, if your re-evalutation of Marxism makes you say stuff that sounds exactly like Ian Duncan Smith, does that make you ask questions or does it make you try to surpress dissent?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Here lies the difference between those who are pro working class and those who just see it as something to chat about amongst the other isms that they learnt about at college.There have always been poor people but only under capitalism has there been a working class.
> 
> What is a working class if it has no work?



You are a moron, the working class can only liberate itself by abolishing itself, the class struggle is not about universalising some idiotic work ethic, it's about abolishing it.

As a 16 year old reading Marx I was able to grasp that, no need to chat with muppets in a students union.

And a working class without work is called the unemployed, the army of reserve labour, it's not too hard to grasp.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Thing is, if your re-evalutation of Marxism makes you say stuff that sounds exactly like Ian Duncan Smith, does that make you ask questions or does it make you try to surpress dissent?



I don't think the cretins on this thread wanking on about lumpen this and that and getting all nostalgic for the days of well behaved proles with their work ethic have actually read Marx, otherwise they'd not talk such utter shite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I don't think the cretins on this thread wanking on about lumpen this and that and getting all nostalgic for the days of well behaved proles with their work ethic have actually read Marx, otherwise they'd not talk such utter shite.


I don't think reading marx stops people coming out with utter shite. It's not worked for eg the swp or cpsu, it's not even worked for you


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I don't think the cretins on this thread wanking on about lumpen this and that and getting all nostalgic for the days of well behaved proles with their work ethic have actually read Marx, otherwise they'd not talk such utter shite.



Well to be fair, that last comment of mine was written half a bottle of xmas booze after the others and isn't terribly coherent.

A better version of what I think I was trying to say might be:

"If you find yourself sounding like Ian Duncan Smith, then paying more attention to inconvenient evidence and thinking harder about it might be in order, rather than coming up with flimsy excuses to avoid listening to it ... "


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 30, 2011)

I still find all of this reduction of the rioters as being 'lumpen' really counterproductive tbh.

I've heard local councillors on the right in the past simply abandoning some of the youth this way (which were committing a lot of anti-social, etc.) and asserting 'they have no desire to ever work'. Completely excusing/washing themselves of the social, economic and environmental factors that have created these situations and going straight for the 'they're criminals' line.

And yet, we've had youth workers and church workers on street level manage to get some of these youth back out of crime and those that found solace in gangs, out of this life and into various projects and education again. We have a load of potentially talented musicians and sports-people around here, but I don't see much in the way of access/support for them, for example. And for youth that have already fell out of the education system from school, got caught up in petty crime which then spirals, no direction, surrounded by peers, with little all training and work opportunities (shops seem to want even A levels for Saturday staff, no industry), I'm not going to excuse the problems they create (because I've experienced it first-hand), but seriously, what the fuck else is there?

When I read some of the details that were released today in the cabinet papers about the post-riot aftermath of 1981, it feels that we're not only back here again but that parts of our communities never recovered from last time...



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> The disturbances came as Thatcher's early monetarist economic experiment plunged unemployment towards 3 million and her well-documented reaction to the first televised pictures of rioting and looting in Toxteth – "Oh, those poor shopkeepers" – illustrated the limited law and order nature of her response.



It seems to me (as someone simply living in a run-down part of town, not someone who is an academic playing with research data, or part of any political group) that the issues are certainly varied in the rioting we've seen this summer, but that decades of social and economic deprivation is still the primary driver, so accusing those of rioting and looting as just being 'lumpen' and neglecting them is going to do shit - if anything things are just going to get worse against a backdrop of further depression and neo-liberalism?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 30, 2011)

And I haven't got any answers as such, well other than the overthrow of capitalism/neo-liberalism obviously! And I must admit that the 'you can't have an opinion/observation without offering an alternative' thing that seems to have been thrown around here tbh just completely alienates me from anybody or group that uses it and I know it would those around me.

I've always done what I can where I live, and always looked to groups on the left, IWCA, etc. to hopefully form the wider visible opposition and alternatives. Yet, I don't know, reading this thread and others, etc. just leaves me incredibly despondent.

(Or perhaps that's because I've spent too long reading the 1981 cabinet papers and it all looks so similar).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The working class previously viewed unemployment as a bad thing and wanted to avoid it all costs, there is now an element that embraces non-work and behave accordingly. Actively not wanting to work is not a trait of the working class and more to the point is widely seen to the case by the working class.



Rose-tinted spectacles.
You're making sweeping statements about how "the working class", a mythical homogeneous mass of workers, viewed things, and how they differed then to what we have now.

The historical realities are that "the working class" has always, in effect, been "the working class*es*", because the class has always been stratified, has always contained elements who've lived by means other than "gainful employment", and I'd say that individuals and communities of the working classes have always acknowledged the existence of those elements, even if they haven't sanctioned their existence.
I've posted several times about John Benson's "The History of the Working Class: 1850-1939" (not a brilliant book by any means, but it's interesting), where he makes the point that as far back as the late-Victorian era, social scientists had quantified "working class incomes" as deriving from four main sources - employment, social insurance (for a minority), borrowing and the proceeds of crime, with the balance varying family by family. Not wanting to work for a pittance isn't new, neither is crime-as-occupation as opposed to "gainful employment".


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> where you see a novel and deadly pathology I see fashion.



Fucking umbelievable. Child murder as fashion? Gang rape as fashion? Is there nothing you aren't happy to be an apologist for? At best your a moral coward.

I suppose what this thread demonstrates most clearly, if it wasn't obvious before, is that it isn't just the lumpen the working class should steer well clear of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Fucking umbelievable. Child murder as fashion? Gang rape as fashion? Is there nothing you aren't happy to be an apologist for? At best your a moral coward.
> 
> I suppose what this thread demonstrates most clearly, if it wasn't obvious before, is that it isn't just the lumpen the working class should steer well clear of.



Thanks for that, Joe, you working class hero, you. With you to protect us, and tell us what to think, we're sure to go through life happy!

You self-righteous old tart.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rose-tinted spectacles.
> You're making sweeping statements about how "the working class", a mythical homogeneous mass of workers, viewed things, and how they differed then to what we have now.
> 
> The historical realities are that "the working class" has always, in effect, been "the working class*es*", because the class has always been stratified, has always contained elements who've lived by means other than "gainful employment", and I'd say that individuals and communities of the working classes have always acknowledged the existence of those elements, even if they haven't sanctioned their existence.
> I've posted several times about John Benson's "The History of the Working Class: 1850-1939" (not a brilliant book by any means, but it's interesting), where he makes the point that as far back as the late-Victorian era, social scientists had quantified "working class incomes" as deriving from four main sources - employment, social insurance (for a minority), borrowing and the proceeds of crime, with the balance varying family by family. Not wanting to work for a pittance isn't new, neither is crime-as-occupation as opposed to "gainful employment".


 
I might be wrong but I remember  that Benson book for a a lot more about  the wage structures and increase in working class spending power  due to the organised labour movement and the position of the working class as a working class than I do about proceeds of crime. He also wrote some intesting observations about working class solidarity ( and indeed thrift) when it came to looking after the most needy.

Not sure that I remember any conclusion re  "Not wanting to work for a pittance isn't new, neither is crime-as-occupation as opposed to "gainful employment" but it is years since I read it.

Which of course takes us back to the whole distinction between being  proletarint and being  poor. The history of the organised working class is one of striving for collective advancment not just individual.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I might be wrong but I remember that Benson book for a a lot more about the wage structures and increase in working class spending power due to the organised labour movement and the position of the working class as a working class than I do about proceeds of crime. He also wrote some intesting observations about working class solidarity ( and indeed thrift) when it came to looking after the most needy.



Yes, but I'm commenting on a specific point in the book, not the book _in toto_. 



> Not sure that I remember any conclusion re "Not wanting to work for a pittance isn't new, neither is crime-as-occupation as opposed to "gainful employment" but it is years since I read it.



No, that's *my* conclusion, based on Benson and a plethora of other historians.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Fucking umbelievable. Child murder as fashion? Gang rape as fashion? Is there nothing you aren't happy to be an apologist for? At best your a moral coward.



I think we've dealt with your creepy obsession with mass rape.  why are you so nostalgic for paki bashing, domestic violence and street brawls in shopping centres?



> I suppose what this thread demonstrates most clearly, if it wasn't obvious before, is that it isn't just the lumpen the working class should steer well clear of.



so that's it is it, internal class war declared.  not just the lumpen but anyone who disagrees with your analysis is now the enemy of the party.


----------



## ymu (Jan 15, 2012)

This seems like as good a place as any to post this:



> Black people are 30 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, according to new analysis which reveals that "racial profiling" has increased over the past year.
> 
> Researchers say the findings, based on government statistics, represent the worst international record of discrimination involving stop and search.
> 
> ...


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 15, 2012)

Sue said:


> Work or paid work? I know people who're unemployed but run children's football teams, volunteer at various things and are valuable members of the local community. I dont think anyone would say they were detrimental to their class/community.


If you'd have added scout leader I would have been worried......


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I can't work out what the IWCA position is, it seems a tad confused, given what is being posted on here, which I find surprising.





Joe Reilly said:


> Fucking umbelievable. Child murder as fashion? Gang rape as fashion? Is there nothing you aren't happy to be an apologist for? At best your a moral coward.
> 
> I suppose what this thread demonstrates most clearly, if it wasn't obvious before, is that it isn't just the lumpen the working class should steer well clear of.


And what class are gangsters.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2012)

lord save us from the kneecappings


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 27, 2012)

smokedout said:


> I think we've dealt with your creepy obsession with mass rape.




*London in grip of 60 gangs who do 'high harm'*





*Justin Davenport, Crime Editor*


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 27, 2012)

*Not Found*

The requested URL /standard-home/columnistarchive/Justin Davenport, Crime Editor-columnist-1342-archive.do was not found on this server.


----------



## newbie (Jan 28, 2012)

try this link


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> *London in grip of 60 gangs who do 'high harm'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the evening standard and the filth, your new best friends


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> *London in grip of 60 gangs who do 'high harm'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that is bollocks on so many different levels.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

That article's a _melange_ of unsupported stats and guesstimates, and as for the comments...


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 28, 2012)

smokedout said:


> the evening standard and the filth, your new best friends


 
Needless to say you and your cringing lightweight-liberal deniers have no problem quoting police (or is it 'the filth'? ) and media when it suits - including the almost completely bogus Guardian survey introduced on here earlier with such fanfare.

So, let's summarise you position: you first try to deny that criminal gangs were central to the riots, then you try to deny there are criminal gangs, now you try and deny that criminal gangs might be involved in criminality!

All told it is a stance, which due to it's unerring consistency, is now quite probababy beyond parody.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 28, 2012)

Have you got any evidence that the Guardian survey was 'bogus' Joe, or are you still relying on bluster to back up that assertion?

I would be genuinely interested to see some convincing evidence that the survey in question was 'bogus' in the sense of being intentionally deceptive (as opposed to having limitations that are openly acknowledged by the researchers responsible for it)


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> So, let's summarise you position: you first try to deny that criminal gangs were central to the riots, then you try to deny there are criminal gangs, now you try and deny that criminal gangs might be involved in criminality!



that's nowhere near my position, but says an awful lot about your capacity to make up the facts to suit your argument


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2012)

> Individuals linked to gangs are involved in 16 per cent of London's drug trade, behind a fifth of stabbings, half of all shootings and 14 per cent of rapes.



so what about the other 86%, is that good old fashioned rape committed by the working class proper?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2012)

I'm sure there was another thread for some to expound on why anybody under 25 is an enemy of the working classes.

Rather than this one, which once upon a time was about a police hit on mark duggan and sloppy fit up job.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure there was another thread for some to expound on why anybody under 25 is an enemy of the working classes.
> 
> Rather than this one, which once upon a time was about a police hit on mark duggan and sloppy fit up job.



All together now: 'The liberals united will never be defeated!'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2012)

Its probably natural to despise your own failure.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

smokedout said:


> so what about the other 86%, is that good old fashioned rape committed by the working class proper?



No, but by the rest of London's population coming in at around 8 million.

Which merely emphasises the point that London's criminal gangs with numbers estimed at under 5,000  are disproportionately involved to a huge degree in all types of violent crime, including, shooting, stabbing and gang rape.

And yet these are the same type people you insist a progressive left must embrace as _allies_.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 29, 2012)

Still waiting for some evidence that the LSE/Guardian survey was 'bogus' Joe ... or is evidence something only 'liberals' do?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 29, 2012)

This stupid bitch should be torn limb by limb by a gang of savages:



(are Joe and Bill O' related?)


----------



## smokedout (Jan 29, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> No, but by the rest of London's population coming in at around 8 million.
> 
> Which merely emphasises the point that London's criminal gangs with numbers estimed at under 5,000 are disproportionately involved to a huge degree in all types of violent crime, including, shooting, stabbing and gang rape.



aren't criminals disproportionally involved in crime by their very nature, or do you we think we're all at

not very big your new and deadly class formation is it, they don't even make up the majority of criminals


> And yet these are the same type people you insist a progressive left must embrace as _allies_.



quite a leap there, and the exact opposite of everything i've said on both of the threads


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This stupid bitch should be torn limb by limb by a gang of savages:
> 
> 
> 
> (are Joe and Bill O' related?)




Coulters name has long been down on the list


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 29, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Have you got any evidence that the Guardian survey was 'bogus' Joe, or are you still relying on bluster to back up that assertion?
> 
> I would be genuinely interested to see some convincing evidence that the survey in question was 'bogus' in the sense of being intentionally deceptive (as opposed to having limitations that are openly acknowledged by the researchers responsible for it)


Another sweaty plan


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 29, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> No, but by the rest of London's population coming in at around 8 million.
> 
> Which merely emphasises the point that London's criminal gangs with numbers estimed at under 5,000 are disproportionately involved to a huge degree in all types of violent crime, including, shooting, stabbing and gang rape.
> 
> And yet these are the same type people you insist a progressive left must embrace as _allies_.


You and your little gang up here had no issues with using them to back up your bluster....oh and DC's crew to boot


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

smokedout said:


> aren't criminals disproportionally involved in crime by their very nature, or do you we think we're all at
> 
> not very big your new and deadly class formation is it, they don't even make up the majority of criminals.



They're not a class in themselves but they, and many of your rioter friends, are part of one. Toss away the shovel half-wit.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure there was another thread for some to expound on why anybody under 25 is an enemy of the working classes.
> 
> Rather than this one, which once upon a time was about a police hit on mark duggan and sloppy fit up job.



Your lazy conceit in expounding on a world of which you clearly know nothing is almost touching.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Still waiting for some evidence that the LSE/Guardian survey was 'bogus' Joe ... or is evidence something only 'liberals' do?



Is interviewing 13 out of an estimated 30,000 evidence these days then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

'I slapped a nazi once in 1982'


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> You and your little gang up here had no issues with using them to back up your bluster....oh and DC's crew to boot



It seems  being bitch-slapped off a stool in Belfast 20 years ago still smarts dosen't it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 29, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Is interviewing 13 out of an estimated 30,000 evidence these days then?



Claiming the study is 'bogus' as you do above, implies that it was deliberately promoting falsehood. You have yet to produce anything besides bluster to support this assertion.

You now imply that the researchers only interviewed 13 people. What actually happened is that they interviewed 13 convicted rioters among a larger sample of 270 people who came forward as having been involved in rioting. Perhaps a few of them _were_ bullshitting for whatever reason, but for your claim to be true, all of them except the 13 who were convicted would have to be lying about their involvement.

So, pretty clearly, what you are implying is so improbable as to be obviously false, and given that you use the number 13 and have hence obviously at least read a summary of what the researchers actually did (in the Daily Mail or someplace equally safe from liberal bias presumably) your claim deliberately implies something demonstrably false and hence provides an excellent example of a 'bogus' assertion.

You have yet to produce any plausible evidence or coherent argument that supports your claim that the LSE/Guardian research is 'bogus' however.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 29, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> It seems being bitch-slapped off a stool in Belfast 20 years ago still smarts dosen't it?


24 years ago arsehole. Did me a favour, if he wanted a joey then he had plenty of others to chose from.
Oh and I met Anna Sullivan a few weeks ago talking of that era.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 29, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> They're not a class in themselves but they, and many of your rioter friends, are part of one. Toss away the shovel half-wit.



you mean there are working class criminals after all and this isn't some new deadly disease?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure there was another thread for some to expound on why anybody under 25 is an enemy of the working classes.
> 
> Rather than this one, which once upon a time was about a police hit on mark duggan and sloppy fit up job.





Joe Reilly said:


> Your lazy conceit in expounding on a world of which you clearly know nothing is almost touching.



quite, button it oik, you're far too lumpen to be permitted a say


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 29, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You now imply that the researchers only interviewed 13 people. What actually happened is that they interviewed 13 convicted rioters among a larger sample of 270 people who came forward as having been involved in rioting. Perhaps a few of them _were_ bullshitting for whatever reason, but for your claim to be true, all of them except the 13 who were convicted would have to be lying about their involvement.



None of the above is true. Why would _all_ but the 13 convicted have to be lying for the survey to be condemned as bogus? The point is that the 'trained' researchers wouldn't be able to tell either way would they?

So while the conduct of the survey might otherwise have been pristine, unless there were gang members involved to verify and authenticate what was being said, the conclusion drawn were always going to be open to doubt and manipulation.

The fact that the people who commissioned it knew the conclusions would likely be as difficult to _unprove_ as to prove made their intentions dishonest from the outset.

Predictably, the Guardian led with the splash: 'Gangs not involved in riots!' The only people that could confirm that for definite were the very people _*not*_ interviewed. Surveys are designed to establish the facts - what happened here was that the survey was conducted to underwrite a political preference.

In all I'd say bogus, was being kind.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 29, 2012)

All of the 270 people interviewed would have to be lying about their involvment for your claim that only 13 people were interviewed to have any weight, hence your claim was bogus.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

Some sort of thread about qualitative research seems called for


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 29, 2012)

Well, Joe made a really stupid move in falsely claiming that the results were actually bogus, i.e. intentionally deceptive, and then trying to back that claim with an argument that was itself demonstrably intentionally deceptive.

Some of the stuff in his latest post though I think is a bit more interesting and potentially valid. The approach used clearly does have some fairly strong limitations.

That doesn't mean it has zero evidential value though, which is what I take it Joe wants to assert based on his previous posts made before he took aim at his own feet and started blasting with the 'bogus' assertion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

I don't see how a survey can be bogus unless the results have been concocted; if it has taken place it is a real survey. Where the differences are seems to me to be methodological. I expect somewhere the authors expand on their methodology, explaining why they believe the results based on that methodology have evidential value


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 29, 2012)

Here we go. Some definite limitations, but they're clearly not being deceptive about them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/reading-the-riots-methodology-explained

Problem for poor old Joe is that he apparently doesn't want any of this stuff to be treated as valid data about the riots, presumably because he thinks it messes with his lumpen thing somehow, so he just makes some shit up because that's easier than coming to terms with the actual survey data and perhaps, shock/horror, allowing his theories to be modified by evidence.

I for one would find it much easier to take such theories seriously if their proponents didn't try to glibly dismiss evidence that they don't like but rather accepted it as something their theories had to be able to account for in order to be credible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

If there's about five thousand gang members in london and three thousand people nicked thus far for the riots in london, and gangs still operate while many of those convicted from the riots were plainly not in gangs, or even lumpen scum, then the picture must be more complex than joe might like; after all, no one's saying 3000 gang members have been nicked or even 3000 members of the feral underclass have been arrested


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If there's about five thousand gang members in london and three thousand people nicked thus far for the riots in london, and gangs still operate while many of those convicted from the riots were plainly not in gangs, or even lumpen scum, then the picture must be more complex than joe might like; after all, no one's saying 3000 gang members have been nicked or even 3000 members of the feral underclass have been arrested



Well yes. Both the LSE/Guardian study and this one comissioned for the cabinet office, somewhat different in its methology, indicates that a number of motivations were in play, both for participating and not participating.

http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/the-august-riots-in-england-

One thing that comes out fairly strongly in the latter report is that while a significant number of the people kicking off in Tottenham would characterise their actions as a protest at the police handling of the Duggan shooting, this wasn't nearly as significant outside London. A chance to have a go at the hated police was a factor everywhere though, along with the opportunity to get in on something unique and exciting and the chance to nick cool stuff. A lot of the inhibiting factors cited seemed to me to relate to how involved in wider society the individuals were, with e.g. kids with apprenticeships they didn't want to lose holding back and people who were already branded as criminal scum figuring they had nothing to lose.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 30, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> You and your little gang up here had no issues with using them to back up your bluster....oh and DC's crew to boot



What is this lazy, personalised nonsense bignose? Does every thread now need to be about you?

I have PM'd you .


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 30, 2012)

LiamO said:


> What is this lazy, personalised nonsense bignose? Does every thread now need to be about you?
> 
> I have PM'd you .


Its never nonsense when its from your old pals is it Liam...never personalized is it...Does every thread need to be about old men being hypocrites either.
PM sent


----------



## LiamO (Jan 30, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> PM sent



Good. let's keep it fraternal and private.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Some of the stuff in his latest post though I think is a bit more interesting and potentially valid. The approach used clearly does have some fairly strong limitations.



The admitted 'strong limitations' didn't seem to have influenced, from the liberal/Guardian perspective,  the politically agreeable conclusions though did it? It has a 'a headline written earlier' feel about it. In the same way the Guardian splashed with 'Duggan not armed'. It is only when you read on you discover that the headline was not supported by the facts then either.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 30, 2012)

smokedout said:


> button it oik



In contrast to you pious posturing over the last 6 months the above at least gives the impression of being heartfelt.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 30, 2012)

The dogmatic abrasiveness displayed on this thread is grating to be honest.

Any more information released yet about the police killing of Mark Duggan?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 30, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> The admitted 'strong limitations' didn't seem to have influenced, from the liberal/Guardian perspective, the politically agreeable conclusions though did it? It has a 'a headline written earlier' feel about it. In the same way the Guardian splashed with 'Duggan not armed'. It is only when you read on you discover that the headline was not supported by the facts then either.



when I saw one of the academics who carried out the research being interviewed  he seemed genuinely shocked at the findings of the survey.  i don't think this is a political line at all - in fact the liberal left position (with a few examples of random trottery aside) that i have seen is far more inline with your own argument, dismissing the riots as nihilism/hedonism by renegades as best exemplified in david lammy's recent book

but anyway shall we stop this, its annoying people and what started out as a much more comradly debate on the other thread has turned into a pissing contest which helps no-one


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 30, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> if he wanted a joey then he had plenty of others to chose from.



And you with all the qualities of a gofer bar - loyalty


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 30, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> And you with all the qualities of a gofer bar - loyalty


Youve made a cunt of yourself on here many times but then youve always had a head start.


----------



## bignose1 (Feb 2, 2012)

Error


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/29/police-apologise-mark-duggan-death?newsfeed=true


Lets now draw a line under this, mistakes were made, bad apples....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Youve made a cunt of yourself on here many times but then youve always had a head start.


but i see you're doing your best to catch up, only without the good humour, wit and charm which are an integral part of jr's posts.


----------



## fat Andy (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/29/police-apologise-mark-duggan-death?newsfeed=true


 
Maybe I'm missing the point, but IIRC the Met informed his partner, which is what you would expect. He was an adult, not living with his parents, who had children. I wouldn't expect plod to tell my parents if the worst happened, Mrs FA would have to beat the brunt. At what point/age does the responsibility pass?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

fat Andy said:


> Maybe I'm missing the point, but IIRC the Met informed his partner, which is what you would expect. He was an adult, not living with his parents, who had children. I wouldn't expect plod to tell my parents if the worst happened, Mrs FA would have to beat the brunt. At what point/age does the responsibility pass?


Have you read the conclusions? Do you know what a  family liaison officer is?


----------



## fat Andy (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read the conclusions? Do you know what a family liaison officer is?


 
I know the role of a family liason officer very well, but am confused by the conclusions. Who in the family should be the prime point of contact. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but if you take this rather bland plod statement/apology to it's natural conclusion, you are going to need an awful lot more FLOs


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

fat Andy said:


> I know the role of a family liason officer very well, but am confused by the conclusions. Who in the family should be the prime point of contact. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but if you take this rather bland plod statement/apology to it's natural conclusion, you are going to need an awful lot more FLOs


So, in each situation it's the job of that person to establish not one (prime) but many (if needed) points of contact. They failed to in this situation. Hence the apology.


----------



## fat Andy (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, in each situation it's the job of that person to establish not one (prime) but many (if needed) points of contact. They failed to in this situation. Hence the apology.


Fair point, but at that stage, which will be totally chaotic, who calls the shots? Surely it should start with a N.O.K and then progress from there. How are plod expected to know/understand complex family make-ups right at the start. I'm not jumping to their defence, but I can't see how it's practically possible in the first hour or so. In this case, after that time, you would be up against the plod/IPCC ownership problem ( which is a whole new can of worms)


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

fat Andy said:


> Maybe I'm missing the point, but *IIRC the Met informed his partner, which is what you would expect*. He was an adult, not living with his parents, who had children. I wouldn't expect plod to tell my parents if the worst happened, Mrs FA would have to beat the brunt. At what point/age does the responsibility pass?


Where did you get that from, and why are you posting it as an IIRC comment on an article which says:



> Cerfontyne said a police family liaison officer had spoken to two members of Duggan's family at the scene and on the night of the shooting.
> The officer told the IPCC that he had told them with "99% certainty" that the dead man was Duggan.
> 
> He said the family members had asked the police not to go to the Duggan family home to formally notify his parents because it would be too much of a shock for them and had said they would do it themselves.
> ...


----------



## fat Andy (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> Where did you get that from, and why are you posting it as an IIRC comment on an article which says:


 
I read the full report and it certainly is a confusing situation. Duggan's partner was one of the family at the scene. We only have the FLO account suggesting that the family wanted to inform his parents, but his account is plausible, if uncorroborated. The Police would be unlikely to confirm 100% an identity as they would rely on visual or forensic means to confirm. It is also interesting that Mark Duggan's partner was acceptable to carry out the formal identification procedures.
If you try to imagine how a situation such as this should be handled, should the circumstances repeat (God forbid) it's hard to come up with a workable solution.
I don't think that there was a "correct" way to handle the initial FLO in this case


----------



## flutterbye (Mar 1, 2012)

I am going to be silly here and propose a theory that this murder and these riots were a planned form of social and economic engineering.
The following is merely conjecture....


Murdering a Tottenham resident, fobbing off the family, lying about the murder through the media was always going to lead to riots. There is a history, the police have never forgiven the community for the murder and the so-called cover-up of Keith Blakelock. They have always blamed the community for this, relations have never been normal since then.

The police were looking at slashed budgets so it was in their interests to allow the riots to foster in order to pressure the government to reverse their policies. They stood off and allowed people to loot, anyone with any experience with police in the UK should understand that that is just bizarre.

Economic growth had stalled and reversed in the UK since the tories took control, their policies are not only clueless, they go against standard methods of growing an economy during recession, you do not cut government spending during a downward growth trend you stimulate it by pumping more money into the economy. Economic growth was heading downward, what better way to give GDP a boost than to take money out of the insurer bank accounts and rebuild these burnt out buildings.

The riots remove the london hoodies and crims from the streets until after their olympics has finished, it would also continue to paint a picture in the mind of the British public of feral youth gone wild and something needing to be done.
Is there social engineering going on in the upper echelons of the conservative party?
What with the NHS being swapped for an unstructured private medical care model and work for a pittance employment schemes is there an attempt to recreate a class based victorian Britain?

This is not meant to be conspiraloonery - yes I know its a load of old bollocks  
Is it possible that in the private members clubs of Westminster somewhere, some dreamers schemed this whole affair over their fine vintage brandies?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

Don't need this sort of stuff.


----------



## bignose1 (Mar 1, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but i see you're doing your best to catch up, only without the good humour, wit and charm which are an integral part of jr's posts.


Pickmans...thats a very old post...sent during a rather juvenile pissing contest. JR for what its worth to you and the rest of them, was a guy I had a lot of time for but he crossed the line with the shite about Dave Hann which I know for a fact was a stitch up. And it continued after the fellah had died which was great for his family!!. I dont get drawn in now so this is the last Ill be posting on the matter. When you get a minute away from sucking JR's cock read what you wrote and then look at some of the posts that got posted during the 'fall out' Or for that matter the RA forum circa 2003...not a lot of wit and good humour there fellah....


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Pickmans...thats a very old post...sent during a rather juvenile pissing contest. JR for what its worth to you and the rest of them, was a guy I had a lot of time for but he crossed the line with the shite about Dave Hann which I know for a fact was a stitch up. And it continued after the fellah had died which was great for his family!!. I dont get drawn in now so this is the last Ill be posting on the matter. When you get a minute away from sucking JR's cock read what you wrote and then look at some of the posts that got posted during the 'fall out' Or for that matter the RA forum circa 2003...not a lot of wit and good humour there fellah....


i don't think a post from january this year is 'a very old post'. as for 'sucking jr's cock', i've not had too much time for him since we met outside the finsbury park tavern about 20 years ago when he took a friend of mine to task, in the style of a full and frank discussion, for producing a man u / celtic fanzine 'our day will come' (circulation perhaps 300) on the spurious grounds that he was making money off the back of the republican movement.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 2, 2012)

So the reading the riots study is throwing up a lot of information about the motivation for being involved in the riots. 

Th vast majority of respondents have asserted that anti police feeling was their main motivator.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2012)

There was a snippet in the _Metro_ today about police officers being surveyed about their thoughts on the riots, and that one of the biggest common elements to their responses was fear. Boys in brown pants.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2012)

Yes, see vid/audio here and on longer one on newsnight tonight. And here.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2012)

> "We arrested 300 people [in Salford and Manchester] and we sent a powerful message, *but a lot of people on the periphery got away with it*. Probably, if I was them, I'd have thought: yeah, I'd do it again, and probably get away with it next time."


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/01/reading-the-riots-police-fears


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2012)

Suggestions that the Reading the Riots people have been mugged by the OB here - this from police blogs and so on.


----------



## love detective (Jul 2, 2012)

> Chuck Gadget


 
what a fantastic name


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Suggestions that the Reading the Riots people have been mugged by the OB here - this from police blogs and so on.


 
No 2 is interesting.  Rioters probably did run away when police charge.  However, the police also ran away when the rioters charged, from footage I've seen.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> ...from footage I've seen...


 
M'lud!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Suggestions that the Reading the Riots people have been mugged by the OB here - this from police blogs and so on.


 
Some implication that the Met had representatives (perhaps the press officers mentioned in your link?) present but that elsewhere interviews with cops were confidential.


> Many expressed relief that interviews were confidential and, *Met aside*, that a representative of their employer wasn't present – making it easier when they wanted to moan about their workplace, whether over perceived poor strategies or inadequacies of kit.


 (my emphasis)

source


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Harwood found not guilty according to Guardian banner.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/26/mark-duggans-shooting_n_1915664.html

Apparently the polices version of events is that a police round went straight through duggan and hit the colleagues radio

(link doesn't say that, it was beeb news yesterday)


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2012)

So, If it turns out he did have a gun, will all of the rioters give the stuff they nicked in protest back?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 27, 2012)

I see the taxi driver who was apparently driving the cab has confirmed that Duggan tried to run from the car before he was shot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2012)

and we are confronted here by the officer identified as b 52 (well three but 2 is funnier) saying he had an 'ohfuck' moment when duggan drew on the officers. This gun, if we recall events, was actually found 10 feet away behind a wall.

Then the through and through that lodged into a colleagues radio. How does that work? are we to take it that the mets armed squad are incompetent enough to not only have a colleague positioned within their line of fire,but to also forget that an start shooting regardless?

the stench of bullshit m'lud,it makes my eyes water


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 28, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> I see the taxi driver who was apparently driving the cab has confirmed that Duggan tried to run from the car before he was shot.


 
That is the still 'unidentified' taxi driver remember. And why is he giving evidence in a trial of a man who merely supplied the gun, supposedly to Duggan?

What has any of that to do with the actual shooting - it all reads like a dry run - or a substitute for an actual trial/inquiry/inquest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> That is the still 'unidentified' taxi driver remember. And why is he giving evidence in a trial of a man who merely supplied the gun, supposedly to Duggan?
> 
> What has any of that to do with the actual shooting - it all reads like a dry run - or a substitute for an actual trial/inquiry/inquest.


from what i've read the testimony's all over the shop


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2012)

A380 said:


> So, If it turns out he did have a gun, will all of the rioters give the stuff they nicked in protest back?


i am sure the stores will welcome back empty water bottles and worn out trainers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> and we are confronted here by the officer identified as b 52 (well three but 2 is funnier) saying he had an 'ohfuck' moment when duggan drew on the officers. This gun, if we recall events, was actually found 10 feet away behind a wall.
> 
> Then the through and through that lodged into a colleagues radio. How does that work? are we to take it that the mets armed squad are incompetent enough to not only have a colleague positioned within their line of fire,but to also forget that an start shooting regardless?
> 
> the stench of bullshit m'lud,it makes my eyes water


 
It does smell bad. A standard fmj 9mm round*, whether from a pistol or a carbine, would have to play a game of dodgems to avoid hitting any dense matter (bones in other words) in a torso, and not lose enough energy that it wouldn't exit. Most through and throughs are limb hits. I'm sceptical that a through and through torso hit would leave the projectile enough energy to do much more than fall to earth a few feet behind the person who was shot, let alone hit a radio and lodge there. It's within the realms of possibility, but possible doesn't mean probable. 

*I'm assuming that the Met are abiding by certain laws and using standard FMJ ammunition, and that they're not using Glaser rounds (PTFE-coated, sometimes tungsten-tipped) on the QT.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 28, 2012)

Er there allowed to use whatever rounds they like as not covered by the geneva convention.
   Military issue 9mm is loaded considerably hotter than commerical ammo to function in open bolt sub machine guns the mp5 is closed bolt so fired at short  range its going to be moving a lot faster than the same round fired from a pistol.
 A jacket hollow point can go through 13 inches of ballistic jelly fired from a pistol so could go through.
  Glaser safety slugs are designed not to pentrate very far.

So could happen or the copper fucked up


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2012)

possible or not aside, both of you are ex military. It's considered bad form to open up on a target when one of yours is in the line of fire right? I've no shooting experience at all but even to me it seems like one of those basic things that you don't do?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 28, 2012)

Unless they are spectacularly unpopular  circular ambushes are never a good idea.
  Although shit happens.
  Once attempted to murder an oppo on a live fire range after bullet came past my head for the 2nd time.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 28, 2012)

Isn't it basically a uniformed version of 'those that can, do; those that can't, teach'?

With a food chain that goes:

squaddies > filth > screws


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Isn't it basically a uniformed version of 'those that can, do; those that can't, teach'?
> 
> With a food chain that goes:
> 
> squaddies > filth > screws> bailiffs


 

added


----------



## likesfish (Sep 28, 2012)

Plus the police have some odd ideas about armed police ex squaddie cant apply to be a firearms copper as too "conditioned"
Own a fire arms licence  be disqualified as a gun nut.
   Knew an armed copper who joined the TA to get extra range time things may have improved in sussex  sine then but you couldnt own  your own rifle to practise with but you were only allowed a 100 rounds a month to practice with 
   Considering they were apprently meant to take on terroists at gatwick that was a bit silly.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 28, 2012)

Tbf police are trying to avoid shooting innocents etc.

Army at the back of the manual on how to fight  in streets a buildings bring as much firepower as possible and use generously.
 As a footnote.
 Be aware there may be refugees hiding in cellars etc*
 * this was after if you see an opening if in doubt  post a grenade through it


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> from what i've read the testimony's all over the shop


 
It does indeed. Not to even compare notes is surely unprofessional? The other question no one seems to have asked is if the hard stop caused the confrontation why the 'hard stop' in the first place?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> and we are confronted here by the officer identified as b 52 (well three but 2 is funnier) saying he had an 'ohfuck' moment when duggan drew on the officers. This gun, if we recall events, was actually found 10 feet away behind a wall.
> 
> Then the through and through that lodged into a colleagues radio. How does that work? are we to take it that the mets armed squad are incompetent enough to not only have a colleague positioned within their line of fire,but to also forget that an start shooting regardless?
> 
> the stench of bullshit m'lud,it makes my eyes water



Whilst I agree that something stanks to high heaven, it's kind of an either/or. As in either Dugan shot the coppers radio himself, or the met are precisely that incompetent.

Personally, I think it's the latter.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Whilst I agree that something stanks to high heaven, it's kind of an either/or. As in* either Dugan shot the coppers radio himself*, or the met are precisely that incompetent.
> 
> Personally, I think it's the latter.


 

with the gun that was found 10 feet away behind a wall?


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> That is the still 'unidentified' taxi driver remember. And why is he giving evidence in a trial of a man who merely supplied the gun, supposedly to Duggan?
> 
> What has any of that to do with the actual shooting - it all reads like a dry run - or a substitute for an actual trial/inquiry/inquest.


after puzzling about this since the trial started I'm guessing that to charge this bloke with supplying Duggan with a gun they have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Duggan actually had a gun. 

The reports of the testimony from the taxi driver combined with that of the trigger pullers and added to that of the cop who found a gun (and a cannabis plant in a pot!) in bushes 5 meters away have left me pretty confused about what actually happened.  I hope the jury, who've heard it all, can make some brd sense of it.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 28, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> with the gun that was found 10 feet away behind a wall?


 
exactly - that's why it makes it perfectly plausible that the met managed to end up shooting at Duggan from multiple directions whilst also facing each other (which, whilst I'm no tactical expert, sounds like the the biggest school boy error going, if you're in the business of being a big bad, black balaclava-&-shiny-MP5k SWAT type...).  So the met are both incompetent, and lying.

Which reminds me, why in the original Total Recall, when arnie uses the hologram to trick all cohegans troopers, and they all stand in a circle shooting it so arnie can come and shoot them in the back, why do they not all end up shooting each other?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 5, 2012)

Witness contradicts police version, says she saw cops drag body out of minicab and then find the gun inside:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19816751


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 17, 2012)

Sky are reporting jury has failed to reach a verdict.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2012)

so what now? a re trial?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> so what now? a re trial?


Depending on the outcome of the PC MacFarlane trial, the Met might refine their narrative in any retrial to "aggressive community outreach".


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

Meanwhile, in China...



> Police cars have been overturned and set alight in Luzhou, Sichuan province, as thousands of people protest the killing of a driver by traffic police late on Wednesday night.
> 
> ...From Weibo: "Luzhou traffic police killed people, triggering a crowd of tens of thousands of people, they flipped a police car!"
> 
> ...


 






http://shanghaiist.com/2012/10/17/riot_in_luzhou_after_traffic_police.php


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Not worth being moralistic dave. People's responses come from context.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> ?


Are you not saying look how you *should* respond to a killing?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

No, I'm posting a quick link to another 'killed by a cop' story that is just coming out on a pre-existing 'killed by a cop' thread because I don't know anything more about it, certainly not enough to start a new thread on it when I'm about to go and have my dinner. Pretty straightforward.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Yeah. If it was so easy you wouldn't ask.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

?


----------



## OneStrike (Oct 17, 2012)

According to the guardian piece, Duggans prints were on the shoe box but he had no dna traces or prints on the gun or sock.  An expert in the subject saw no reason that an involuntary reaction as a result of being shot would have led to the gun being found 10-14 feet from where his body lay.  Also the police involved spent 8 hours together preparing their statements 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/17/mark-duggan-gun-no-verdict


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2012)

OneStrike said:


> Also the police involved spent 8 hours together preparing their statements


 
Their station should invest in a thesaurus, that way they won't have to spend so much time trying to corroborate/align/match/substantiate/confirm each other's statements without making them look identical/copied/duplicated/one and the same/tantamount, having conspired/colluded/contrived together to cook up/fabricate/concoct/contrive an invented/false/fake account every time things go tits-up.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

oops.  Police have apparently lied about the nature of Mark Duggan's injuries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> oops. Police have apparently lied about the nature of Mark Duggan's injuries
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194


they just can't help themselves


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2013)

I wonder what they told NI?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> oops. Police have apparently lied about the nature of Mark Duggan's injuries
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194


Not clear from that report what differs between the police and the pathologist...can someone enlighten me if they have the facts at their fingertips?


----------



## ymu (Jan 17, 2013)

I can't find a source with anything more than the "not consistent with" quote from the pathologist. Possibly because the details are trickier to report and this got tweeted from the court prior to the journalist writing it up properly?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2013)

> Stuart Denney QC, barrister for Mr Hutchinson-Foster, 30, asked the pathologist to imagine a scene in which Mr Duggan had got out of a minicab and was heading towards a wall beside the road while a police officer had got out of a car behind the taxi and was standing on the pavement closer to the road.
> 
> The jury has already heard evidence from a police officer known as V53 who described a similar situation leading up to the shooting.
> 
> ...


 
From this, and I'm not at all confident, I think that what is being said is that according to the wounds, Mark Duggan cannot have been heading towards the wall that "his" gun was found behind, but must have been heading the opposite direction. I'm not very good at visualising spaces though and I can't even work out what the road layout is in the first paragraph.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks BigTom, that's made it clear to me.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 27, 2013)

Interesting that the guilty verdict for the bloke who "supplied the gun to Duggan" has been reached.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 27, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Interesting that the guilty verdict for the bloke who "supplied the gun to Duggan" has been reached.


 

how many trials did it take?  to nail someone on a charge that adds veracity to the fucking circus act of police accounts as to what happened and why

/dc


----------



## likesfish (Feb 28, 2013)

Unfortuntly mr hutchinson-foster is guilty as a guilty thing already in jail for drug dealing then charged for beating the crap out of someone in a haridressers with the pistol and then finally for passing the gun to Mark Duggan.
  Not really a victim or patsy


----------

