Tottenham and other disturbances / riots

[MC Prussian]

But if you look on Twitter and what not they're all like "shooting an innocent black man"

Why do you rely on this Twitter shit and what's this other "what not"?

Do you actually read proper newspapers or just regurgitate what others have chewed up for you beforehand?

[Guest MattP]

I won't mention where I got this from as I don't want people to be instantly influenced by it's content, but I agree with it almost entirely, especially the bit about how judge allowed mob rule to overrun the law inside the courts.

 

She looked like Vicky Pollard’s granny and spoke in a curious hybrid accent, a cross between Ali G and Liam Gallagher of Oasis. Manc meets Jafaican.

Carole Duggan, with her severe ‘council estate face-lift’ swept-back hairdo, could have wandered off the set of Channel 4’s Benefits Street after a session in the boozer with ‘White Dee’ and ‘Black Dee’.

Instead, she was the star turn on  Channel 4 News, standing on the steps of the High Court, face contorted in hatred, right arm thrust upwards in a clenched-fist Wolfie Smith salute and screeching: ‘No Justice, No Peace.’

 

Mark Duggan’s auntie was in no doubt that her darling nephew had been executed by the police and the jury had reached the wrong decision.

Inside the court, Duggan’s supporters screamed abuse and threatened members of the jury, who had to be smuggled out of a back door for their own safety.

 

Outside, the angry protests continued on the steps of the building. Mob rule had invaded the home of British justice.

As I wrote here when the inquest began in September, Duggan’s family and fan club were never going to accept any verdict which didn’t conclude that he was unlawfully killed. They wanted police officers put on trial for murder, regardless of the facts.

The tone was set from the start, when the coroner called for 20 seconds silence in memory of Duggan, who was shot by police in 2011.

 

It went downhill from there, with witnesses subjected to shouts of ‘liar’ and ‘rubbish’ from Duggan’s friends and family.

 

No witness or jury should ever have to endure this level of intimidation, yet His Honour Judge Keith Cutler continued to indulge the aggressive hecklers. In any other trial or inquest, the court room would have been cleared and those bent on disrupting proceedings would have been charged with contempt.

It was bad enough that there were few, if any, coppers in court and the task of keeping order was delegated to a handful of mainly elderly security guards.

Once again the police seemed paralysed by political considerations, just as they were when rioting broke out in the immediate aftermath of Duggan’s death.

This was always going to be a highly charged case, but that’s no excuse for not enforcing the law and caving in to anarchy.

Those who disrupted the court and ran amok at the end of the inquest should have been arrested on the premises. Failing that, they should have been detained yesterday morning. It’s not as if they were difficult to identify. It all happened in plain sight.

 

If the Met can scour the internet for perpetrators of alleged ‘hate crimes’, they should be able to spot a few violent thugs bang to rights in the public gallery at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Given the level of constant menace they had to suffer, it’s astonishing that the jury managed to remain level-headed and reach the right decision.

 

From some of the coverage, you might have thought this was a deliberate miscarriage of justice perpetrated by an all-white jury made up of Nigel Farage lookalikes in pin-striped suits, with rolled-up copies of the Daily Mail under their arms.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The jury comprised seven women and three men from North London, including the Borough of Haringey, where Duggan lived.

They were mostly young and many were mixed race, just like Duggan himself, chosen to reflect the diversity of the area.

We are told that given the ‘high bar’ set for a verdict of unlawful killing, they had no option but to reach the decision they did.

Their hands were tied by a biased legal system. But isn’t it just possible, given their local knowledge, that they didn’t buy in to the ‘lovable’ Mark Duggan myth perpetuated by his supporters and the gullible Left-wing media?

Channel 4 News on Wednesday night was a Mark Duggan Memorial Edition. Krishnan Guru-Murthy went into full Nelson Mandela mode. It was as if they’d set up the show in expectation of an ‘unlawful killing’ verdict and decided to go ahead with it anyway.

 

There’s no need here to revisit Duggan’s well-documented  criminal career and associates in order to see through some of the sentimental and misleading guff which has been spouted over the past 36 hours.

Yesterday’s Guardian was still maintaining that Duggan’s nickname ‘Starrish Mark’ referred to his ‘impish smile’ rather than his membership — some say, leadership — of the notorious North Star Gang.

One Duggan apologist, long-time Tottenham ‘rights’ activist Stafford Scott said: ‘Just because someone goes to get a gun, it doesn’t mean they are going in to attack mode and are going to kill someone.’

 

As for the allegation that this was a ‘racist murder’ and would never happen to a white man, try telling that to the family of Mark Saunders, who was shot dead by police in Chelsea in 2008.

 

[ADK]

[Guest MattP]

 

[Samilktray]

Never seen the term 'wannabe gangster' used anywhere else, as much as it is on this forum.

This chap clearly wasn't a wannabe.

[Captain...]

If those are facts, that witnesses were being heckled and shouted at, then it is pretty shocking that the gallery wasn't cleared. 

 

I'd seen it reported before, her shouting "No justice, no peace!", bless she actually still thinks the riots were about Mark Duggan, nobody really gave a shit about your wannabe gangster nephew. The riots were not a memorial to him, they were the result of underlying frustrations, at best he was the spark that ignited, but it was going to happen one way or another. And nobody gives a shit that he was killed, a lot of people are actually glad he is off the streets, people are only concerned about the powers held by the police, even that hatchet job of an opinion piece admits that the jury had no option in light of the biased wording of the law.

 

Delusions of grandeur on her part I think.

[Zingari]

If those are facts, that witnesses were being heckled and shouted at, then it is pretty shocking that the gallery wasn't cleared. 

 

I'd seen it reported before, her shouting "No justice, no peace!", bless she actually still thinks the riots were about Mark Duggan, nobody really gave a shit about your wannabe gangster nephew. The riots were not a memorial to him, they were the result of underlying frustrations, at best he was the spark that ignited, but it was going to happen one way or another. And nobody gives a shit that he was killed, a lot of people are actually glad he is off the streets, people are only concerned about the powers held by the police, even that hatchet job of an opinion piece admits that the jury had no option in light of the biased wording of the law.

 

Delusions of grandeur on her part I think.

yes , that and the abuse of them . 

[Captain...]

Incidentally that Guardian article which still maintains that Duggan’s nickname ‘Starrish Mark’ referred to his ‘impish smile’

 

 

Police said he was a member of the Tottenham Man Dem (TMD) gang. More accurately, he was in a gang called North Star, a subset of TMD. His nickname was "Starrish Mark", some say a reference to his membership of North Star, others to his impish smile.

 

 

The article in full a fair and balanced account if you ask me: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots

 

I can't find any other accounts of witnesses and jurors being intimidated.

[Guest MattP]

Incidentally that Guardian article which still maintains that Duggan’s nickname ‘Starrish Mark’ referred to his ‘impish smile’

 

 

 

The article in full a fair and balanced account if you ask me: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots

 

I can't find any other accounts of witnesses and jurors being intimidated.

 

Pretty much every reporter in the courtroom stated it over the course of the trial.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-08/family-shout-at-jury-after-mark-duggan-inquest/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/08/mark-duggan-killing-was-lawful_n_4561863.html

 

I can't find any other sources that "starrish" may be related to his cute little smile.

[Zingari]

Incidentally that Guardian article which still maintains that Duggan’s nickname ‘Starrish Mark’ referred to his ‘impish smile’

 

 

 

The article in full a fair and balanced account if you ask me: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots

 

I can't find any other accounts of witnesses and jurors being intimidated.

Witnesses and jurors are more likely to be intimidated by the system and "advice" given to by the whole legal process that has admitted the "the  bar is set high  for a verdict of unlawful killing and they had no option but to reach the decision they did.

How nebulous is that ? How many of us given these restraints would dare do any other than follow advice from the judge ?

[Guest MattP]

Witnesses and jurors are more likely to be intimidated by the system and "advice" given to by the whole legal process that has admitted the "the  bar is set high  for a verdict of unlawful killing and they had no option but to reach the decision they did.

How nebulous is that ? How many of us given these restraints would dare do any other than follow advice from the judge ?

 

Witnesses are not given any advice regarding how a jury should reach a verdict.

[Captain...]

Pretty much every reporter in the courtroom stated it over the course of the trial.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-08/family-shout-at-jury-after-mark-duggan-inquest/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/08/mark-duggan-killing-was-lawful_n_4561863.html

 

I can't find any other sources that "starrish" may be related to his cute little smile.

 

They all state after the verdict was given, the impression given by the Mail piece is that it was on-going throughout the trial and they were trying to intimidate and influence the verdict.

 

The Guardian isn't maintaining that his nickname refers to his impish smile, just saying that some have claimed that is where his nickname comes from, others saying it is due to his gang links, which they also state as a fact, again the Littlejohn piece is suggesting the Guardian are in some way defending him by denying his gang links.

[Zingari]

Witnesses are not given any advice regarding how a jury should reach a verdict.

As far as I'm aware ,they are given "legal directions"  by judges when they retire to consider their verdicts.

Make of that what you will about how it affects the verdict.

[Guest MattP]

They all state after the verdict was given, the impression given by the Mail piece is that it was on-going throughout the trial and they were trying to intimidate and influence the verdict.

 

The Guardian isn't maintaining that his nickname refers to his impish smile, just saying that some have claimed that is where his nickname comes from, others saying it is due to his gang links, which they also state as a fact, again the Littlejohn piece is suggesting the Guardian are in some way defending him by denying his gang links.

 

It's been widely reported throughout the whole trial the friends of family have been shouting out during evidence, of course thats trying to influence the verdict and intimidate jurors.

[Guest MattP]

 

As far as I'm aware ,they are given "legal directions"  by judges when they retire to consider their verdicts.

Make of that what you will about how it affects the verdict.

 

 

Witnesses? They don't retiring to consider a verdict.

 

Of course Jurors get direction, they have to come to conclusion that is in line with the law, remember the shambles around the Huhne trial.

[Captain...]

It's been widely reported throughout the whole trial the friends of family have been shouting out during evidence, of course thats trying to influence the verdict and intimidate jurors.

 

Not saying you're wrong, or Littlejohn is lying, just not read it myself.

[Guest MattP]

Not saying you're wrong, or Littlejohn is lying, just not read it myself.

 

Apologies, from the way you always immediately jump to defend the indefensible I presumed you had.

 

I'm very uncomfortable with what we have seen over the last few days, jurors should feel safe in delivering a verdict, I fear greatly we are getting towards territory where that won't be the case and I fear even more the usual apologists will have an excuse for it.

[Zingari]

Witnesses? They don't retiring to consider a verdict.

 

Of course Jurors get direction, they have to come to conclusion that is in line with the law, remember the shambles around the Huhne trial.

sorry . yes i was referring only to the jurors being given legal directions .  

i still think witnesses can be intimidated just as much by the police lawyers and the whole legal system as they are by Dugg's thugs in the gallery though

This sort of intimidation is less obvious , but it's there all the same.

[Guest MattP]

Well from personal experience I never felt any pressure or intimidation as a witness.

 

Not served on a jury yet so I couldn't comment.

[Zingari]

Well from personal experience I never felt any pressure or intimidation as a witness.

 

Not served on a jury yet so I couldn't comment.

You probably weren't at a trial of a police officer accused of unlawful killing the outcome of which would possibly have more far reaching effects.

 

Most cases in courts are pretty much straight forward and the verdicts don't usually affect anyone much outside the courtroom , so you're unlikely to have been intimidated in any way .Just a case of "did chummy do it or not?" Who really cares ?

[Captain...]

Apologies, from the way you always immediately jump to defend the indefensible I presumed you had.

 

I'm very uncomfortable with what we have seen over the last few days, jurors should feel safe in delivering a verdict, I fear greatly we are getting towards territory where that won't be the case and I fear even more the usual apologists will have an excuse for it.

 

I don't defend the indefensible, I just generally don't trust newspapers, especially opinion pieces. I try to give a balanced response, rather than just calling people I don't know scum. If the only place I have read something is in a Richard Littlejohn column, I will take it with a very large pinch of salt.

[MrSpaM]

Since when is it alright for a police officer to open fire on somebody just because they think they might possibly have a gun?

[Captain...]

Since when is it alright for a police officer to open fire on somebody just because they think they might possibly have a gun?

 

When he is a known violent criminal and known to have recently come into possession of a lethal firearm, and when the police officer believes he is preparing to shoot.

 

I know there are some discrepancies in the report, but on the balance of probabilities, and the lack of any credible eye witnesses, you have to take the police officer's word for it. It was not a unanimous decision, and if the burden of proof was higher to beyond reasonable doubt, I don't think there would be an outcome as there isn't any actual concrete evidence either way.

[MrSpaM]

When he is a known violent criminal and known to have recently come into possession of a lethal firearm, and when the police officer believes he is preparing to shoot.

 

I know there are some discrepancies in the report, but on the balance of probabilities, and the lack of any credible eye witnesses, you have to take the police officer's word for it. It was not a unanimous decision, and if the burden of proof was higher to beyond reasonable doubt, I don't think there would be an outcome as there isn't any actual concrete evidence either way.

 

I'm also wondering why they didn't even bother calling an ambulance for him when he was still alive at the scene after they shot him, seems like they just let him bleed out on the street.

[Guest MattP]

I'm also wondering why they didn't even bother calling an ambulance for him when he was still alive at the scene after they shot him, seems like they just let him bleed out on the street.

 

Because he was dead within seconds?

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3970020.ece