John Ward January 12, 2014 MARK DUGGAN: THE FARCE OF DOVES BEING RELEASED ON BEHALF OF AN ARMED DRUGS DEALER

Doves for a gun-owning dead drugs dealer

Great Britain, 2014: a nation sinking under the weight of non-stop bollocks

There is just a possibility (it’s a remote one, I know) that some people in Britain can still tell sh*t from putty. The next two articles at The Slog are aimed at them. If you’re an anti-cop tribalist or pro-Boris dupe, then you won’t like these next two posts at all I’m afraid. But there’s not much I can do about that.

Bollocks #1: the brainless, twisted irony of “a vigil” for Mark Duggan

These are the facts established about Mark Duggan and his milieu. On the whole (leaving aside the flat-earthers) none of them are disputed:

1. He was a member of the Tottenham ManDem (TMD) gang. The gang is known (and has been apprehended in the past) dealing drugs and carrying guns.

2. TMD was involved in a long-standing feud with the London Fields Gang. TMD members have an established historyof robbing rival drug dealers and turning up at nightclubs with guns.

3. Duggan was also a senior member of The Star Gang, an off-shoot of TMD.

4. Karl Lokko, a former south London gang leader, has testified under oath to say that in order to be a member of such gangs, you have to carry a knife (a criminal offence) then to have used it (a serious criminal offence) then to have access to a gun (a criminal offence) then to have fired it (a very serious criminal offence).

5. Mark Duggan had been arrested a number of times for “serious” offences. In 2003, he was investigated over the murder of Gavin Smith at the Broadwater Farm Estate in Tottenham but there was not enough evidence to charge him. Duggan was just 19 years old at the time. He had multiple convictions for receiving stolen property and cannabis possession beyond a level for personal use.

6. DNA evidence has proved that underworld drug dealer Kevin Hutchinson-Foster passed a gun to Mr Duggan previously involved in the pistol-whipping of a customer in a Hackney barber’s shop in Hackney. But the victim in that case was unwilling to cooperate…aka, scared to death.

7. Police made a balls of keeping Duggan under surveillance in the 48 hours before his death, but did establish that he had taken possession of a gun in the hours before the shooting. The also tried to mislead about how exactly he’d been shot. However, when asked to decide whether police ‘did the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster’, 10 said yes and 2 said no.

8. The jury voted 10-2 that, at the fatal shooting, Duggan had the gun in his possession in the minicab. Only 1 member of the jury believed the police planted the gun at the scene: nine said Duggan threw the gun away as soon as the minicab was apprehended, 1 said he threw it away on the pavement, and 1 honestly didn’t know.

9. The shot below shows how railings and undergrowth were easily available for Duggan to throw the gun away. Note the police officers guarding the parkland behind the railings after the gun has been found. The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Mark Duggan reached to get the gun from his sock in order to throw it away: the police officer who killed him mistook this action for an imminent gun attack, and shot him twice.

On the basis of the above nine points, I find the lachrymose and staged act of releasing doves at the police station last night surreal to the point of sick propaganda.

One the basis of the above nine points, I need someone to explain to me (a) why Duggan’s brief found the verdict “perverse” (b) why his family were “astonished” at the verdict and (c) how demonstrators at the vigil were able credibly to chant, “No justice, no peace”, and “Who are the murderers? Police are the murderers”.

One final question: does anyone in the pro-Duggan lobby think the dead man didn’t deal drugs, and never carried weapons? And if so, can they explain why and how, given Karl Lokko’s testimony, he was able to become an influential member of two drug gangs?

Drugs and guns kill people. Mark Duggan dealt drugs and carried guns. His social deprivation was very likely an influence on his behaviour. But thousands of Tottenham residents in a similar position don’t do either of those things. This is why, today, they are alive, and Mark Duggan isn’t.

Now obviously (it seems) I’m reaching these entirely deranged conclusions because I am middle class whitey and therefore what else would you expect me to do? But if I am once more aghast at the ability of the agenda’d folks to delude themselves, I am equally lost for an explanation as to why people still smile and say they like Boris Johnson, in spite of an Everest of evidence to show that he is an unmitigated sh*t.

Stay tuned for more on that.

Yesterday at The Slog: Why there is no Resistance in Britain

105Comments

Add yours

1

Tony on May 29, 2016 at 5:49 pm

A bit late to this party but felt the need to comment. Ethnicity aside MD was linked to a hitman who had supposedly accepted a contract on 3 serving police officers, and was linked to a gang started in part by a guy who is suspected to have taken part in the murder of PC Blakelock.Whilst I don’t feel the facts add up in this case and i wont support a “shoot first ask questions later” policing approach I think it fair to assume that public safety would be first and foremost, and police intel would certainly have been aware of the fact that he had links to potential cop killers. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mark-duggan-linked-alleged-gangland-3013115
http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/item/5841-crime-lord-of-the-rings
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362416/David-Hunt-gangland-monster-labelled-rough-diamond-Hacked-Off-QC.html
Moving in those circles would certainly make me extra vigilant to any movements made by the suspect. A policeman will, like anyone else, want to go home at the end of their shift

LikeLike
2

John Ward on January 17, 2014 at 10:07 am

Interesting how many plonkers who hide behind false email addresses are keen to excuse the crimes of a black man.

LikeLike
3

Malcolm Etc on January 17, 2014 at 3:43 am

Interesting how so many white middle-aged men are keen to police the grief of a black family.

LikeLike
4

Ian on January 16, 2014 at 2:15 am

I make light of Dominic Noonans recent career but he too knew the Pakistani importers and spoke Urdu conversationally. Mark Duggan would have been fully aware of his Uncles business dealings and the riches they brought. Anybody who doubts his intended trajectory is either ignorant or desiring to forment trouble. That the Police killed him first is just good fortune for Mr Duggans enemies.

LikeLike
5

Ian on January 16, 2014 at 1:56 am

The most pertinent post here! The Police need to be absolutely crystal about actions that result in death, let alone the ruining of someones life. For my money Mr Duggan was an aspiring career criminal for the circumstantial and hearsay alone but the Police taking a pick and mix attitude to press briefing I put my palm to my face.

LikeLike
6

Ian on January 16, 2014 at 1:51 am

You refer to the looting of 2011, the Noonan families power is very depleted in Manchester, they are scorned by the current crop of career criminal brass. In 2011 the city was carved up on the morning before the event. Dom Noonan had a very small patch bordered by the North of Piccadilly Gardens for his home patch was North Manchester. He was filmed by some young lads living in a flat above premises in Oldham street. A shitty flat screen was delivered to the pavement by him, that is his level in the world of criminality. His brother Desmond was of a different stripe and indeed a big time criminal in Britain before his death at the knife of Mr McDuffus. The more interesting question of my post is who had the city centre and who had the West of the city centre and Salford.

LikeLike
7

Ian on January 16, 2014 at 1:35 am

WAS a “major player”. Uncle Desmond was shanked by Derek McDuffus on the Merseybank estate some years back. Mark did indeed know semi-fluent Urdu speaker (for he was a big time smack dealer in m/cr) Desmond and made visits along with auntie.

LikeLike
8

Fabooka De Stait on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Yes, it probably was too long for you. That is why you can’t appreciate it, or come out with anything but tripe in response. Also, I would not fancy being someone of your background trying to assess what kind of conditions I have been in. What do you view yourself as ? I assume you have some major gripes, as that would appear to be the reason for your blog. Or are you merely a disillusioned member of the chattering classes, who likes to air his views in public ?

I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Threat assessment in civil policing, in a supposedly democratic country, does not equate to shooting people dead, who you are unsure about. Do you think this should be the norm ?

If you are going to answer, do so in the context within which the statement is made. You see, that is the problem with superficial people such as yourself. You incorrectly assume, that you have some divine moral high ground authority ingrained, and you feel you can pass off ill founded judgements about situations and circumstances that you have no empirical knowledge of yourself. This is perfectly illustrated by the fact that it is you, who is actually attempting to promote the idea of two wrongs making a right, which is indeed, a flawed principle. This is evidenced by you attempting to suggest that if Duggan was a wrongdoer, then it was perfectly acceptable for the police officer to make a mistake and shoot him. That is, if he actually was mistaken in the first place.

P.S. Most of the Police have not been under fire. Although, there are still rather a lot of dead people who have been unfortunate enough to encounter them. I suppose you would be as sympathetic to all those families too.

LikeLike
9

John Ward on January 15, 2014 at 2:14 pm

An over-long thread bsed on the flawed principle that two wrongs make a right.
Given his record, the idea that Duggan “was therefore no threat” is the conclusion of an armchiar revolutionary. Clearly chum, you’ve never been under fire.

LikeLike
10

Fabooka De Stait on January 14, 2014 at 10:49 pm

You are missing the point on this issue, by quite a long way. Citizens cannot be expected to abide by laws that are not applicable to those that run society, nor the apparatus that they seek to implement that control through.

You go on about offences of carrying knives, or guns, like these objects are inherently bad in themselves. Rather it is the people you believe to be carrying them you fear, irrespective of whether they are armed or not.
Poverty, and total design of the nation by those in power, create the endless cycle of violence in areas like the ones you mention; it is a sociological fact.

The people of this country should be armed for their own protection. Who do these political figures and power brokers think they are ? They treat the people with utter contempt, like little children who need to be chastised and told everything they can and cannot do. They feel everything is good, and pleasant, as long as we are all going in the direction they want.

Heaven forbid, if you do something that may interfere with their dominance, that they have schemed and killed for, in order to attain over many centuries.

Anyway Analyse this :

If I were a lawyer for the family I would need to express the following:

Officer V53 says he saw Duggan exit the vehicle, and then he raised a gun like object in a sock. It was at this point that I fired several shots.

O.K. but he never had the gun like object in a sock on him did he. So you shot him and he fell down and died shortly
afterwards. As such, you have identified explicitly, the correct object and correct covering that you later supposedly found. Therefore, it is absolute lies that you say you saw him with the exact same object in his hand, when it was not in his hand. Although, you amazingly recovered the specifically identified item later.

How did you manage this ?
He did not have it in his hands when he was shot, and if he had thrown it out of the vehicle before he alighted, you yourselves would have not had time to see it and identify it correctly as it flew through the air.

So the reality is you shot him, not knowing if he was a threat to you at all at the very least. When combined with the several witnesses who say that he in fact appeared to be surrendering. Why then did you shoot him, given that you could not have seen a gun like object in a sock ?

The fact that you have then later found the exact item as described, leads to a more than likely scenario, that you or your colleagues did actually plant the items in order to give credance to your statement, as to your reasons for shooting him in the first place.

You cannot have thought you saw a gun in a sock when he never had one. To state this when he did not, means you had prior knowledge of a gun in a sock that would be used as reason to shoot. Or, your statement has not fully conveyed what actually occurred during the tragedy. Thus, you have simply implied by way of non truth, that you thought he had the gun in his hand, which was in the sock that you later found, as an excuse for your unlawful killing of an unarmed man.

You cannot have the story both ways. You either saw the gun in his hand in the sock, which you could not have. Or you shot him, and then used what you found as the reason for the killing.

It is impossible that you could accurately describe, what was not actually there. Only to find the exact same items as you describe after the fact. One statement is not true.

If you admit the second you are blatantly lying about the first ! Yet, if you admit the first, you can only be guilty of the second. Either way, both scenarios are then a fabrication ! This leaves you to be in the position of a liar, no matter which avenue you take.

A more likely scenario, is you shot him anyway knowing that he probably had a gun, and found the gun later.
This leaves you in the situation of killing an unarmed man who was therefore no threat, whether you attempt to convey that as your belief or not. Thus, as it stands, you are in the least instance guilty of manslaughter. At worst, you are in fact guilty of murder. As you have purposely shot an unarmed man, who you knew was unarmed at the time, and was then no threat to you or your colleagues.

Your statements would suggest this to be the case, and you have then tried to cover this act up.

Furthermore, you cannot state what you thought to be the truth that he opened fire on you or your colleagues by way of suggesting your fellow officer’s radio was hit by the supposed bullet that he was meant to have fired. Forensic investigation actually proves that the round that hit your colleague was fired by you, at Duggan.

As such, you have lied about the reason for discharge again. Then attempted to use an alibi, based on even more lies of an event and situation that did not actually occur at all.

Hmm ! What happens when they think they can shoot us for being perceived as any kind of threat to them ?

LikeLike
11

maxter on January 14, 2014 at 6:02 pm

The police are legally allowed to lie to you during first contact through to arrest and interview. This is one of the primary causes of ongoing dishonesty in the force.

LikeLike
12

Hieronimusb on January 13, 2014 at 11:26 pm

You make some very brave assumptions about the likely behaviour of the gun carrier. Unfortunately, such a view would not satisfy anyone tasked with guaranteeing the safety of the public. The police often get it wrong, and this is often for reasons which are unforgivable, but in this case I find it hard to condemn their actions out of hand.

LikeLike
13

essiritussantos on January 13, 2014 at 10:01 pm

Altergoman
replying to a much earlier point ,no i am not,am saying the police are acting out of fear & that is clouding there judgement,that is no defence at all

LikeLike
14

MickC on January 13, 2014 at 9:06 pm

And just where was Duggan going to go?

The silly thing is thinking that he would “shoot his way” out of it. To where? Did he have a fold up helicopter as well as a gun?
As with Raoul Moat and the unfortunate barrister, a single man with a gun surrounded by armed police is going nowhere! Presumably even Duggan would eventually tire and fall asleep (Moat certainly did)-at which point dog goes in followed by copper with truncheon, and thats that.

There are two sort of people who should not watch the Sweeney-children and the police.

LikeLike
15

Peterloo on January 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm

Have to agree with Cornelius on the sock point: I have handled a number of pistols (automatic and revolvers) and unless it was a very specialist firearm or in an ankle holster (or he was wearing socks that would have tourniquet his lower leg), then he would not be able to take a step without it clattering to the ground.

LikeLike
16

Peterloo on January 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Guns are not illegal in the UK. Possessing them without first having been vetted and approved as fit to possess them is.

LikeLike
17

OyiaBrown on January 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.

LikeLike
18

Hieronimusb on January 13, 2014 at 1:39 pm

In an ideal world, Duggan would have been apprehended, disarmed, arrested and sent for trial. However, when an armed criminal chooses to go into a public space, the potential for members of the public and police to be injured or killed is the most important risk to be managed and it is clearly the duty of said police to neutralise that threat as quickly as is humanly possible. The suggestion that police dogs could be used in such a scenario is really very silly indeed, as is the use of hindsight to construct alternatives for resolving the situation differently. The police could not have known that Duggan wouldn’t discharge his weapon with fatal consequences for others, they could have handled it better, perhaps, but the only casualty was the individual posing the threat. Surely, the message here is: by illegally carrying a firearm in public (or elsewhere), you take your life into your own hands and place the lives of others at risk.

LikeLike
19

Peterloo on January 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm

A a policeman shot dead trying to apprehend him is ok?

LikeLike
20

Cornelius Townedge (@seti2342) on January 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm

I think it’s pretty clear that Duggans gun was in the car, providing he had one!

I don’t think it left the car until the police removed it post-shooting. An educated guess; but the only logical conclusion given the evidence.

LikeLike
21

Peterloo on January 13, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Oh dear nuggy, so he was holding cannabis beyond a level for personal use but this does not make him a drug dealer? Was he just keeping it safe for his friends?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and sh*ts like a duck, its more than likely a duck..

LikeLike
22

Altergoman on January 13, 2014 at 12:02 pm

JW,

You state that MD left the cab and reached into his sock and threw the gun over some railings, stone pillar and bushes and the police marksman shot him twice as he thought he was shot at.

As I understand it their were no MD fingerprints on the gun as it was in a sock that had been in the cab: MD’s fingerprints were found on the box that was, apparently carrying the gun, but left in the cab.

MD must surely lobbed the gun the 10 to 20.5 metres the police say he threw the gun just to clear the railings etc. but crucially MD, as I understand it was then facing the marksman that shot him.

Again as I understand it the marksman was either directly in front and parrallel to the cab or to MD’s left.

My point, the gun was found around 30 degrees to Md’s Right so at least that relative to the marksman.

Was the marksman so bad the he failed to see the gun being thrown to the right and then mistook the phon (a blackberry reportedly and silver) in MD’s other hand?

The throwing action must have been obviously away from the marksman surely?

Hogan-Howe stated unequivocally on tv the other night that MD exited the cab with the gun.

Surely a re-enactment of the shooting, even elsewhere but with accurate measurements would clarify many things and given witness statements plus contempory video this should have been done?

JW your list of nine points relies heavily on guilty by inference rather than guilty by jury in a criminal court.

What is the difference between an inquest and a criminal case other than the difference in jury numbers?

Do inquests require verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities?

Finally on tv on the day of the verdict they showed video kaken just after the shooting identifying one policeman in the park on the other sideof the railings to MD and 2 policemen (one presumeably the marksman) to left of the cab and in the road.

Finally, finally why did the marksman appear to be giving MD medical assistance?

I would have thought SOP would have required him to Not be the policeman administrating aid.

LikeLike
23

Broke Back Merchant Banker on January 13, 2014 at 11:13 am

You lost the argument when you accused John of being prejudiced. You won’t find articles like JW’s in the MSM. I suppose the eight members of the jury that decided it was a lawful killing are prejudiced too. It took a lot of balls for JW to post this article… dog you certainly are – my guess is you’re a bitch !

LikeLike
24

Altergoman on January 13, 2014 at 11:05 am

Ghost,

Are you really saying any armed policeman who kills in any police raid should be able to have ‘fear’ as their defence?

I hope not as your comments are, to me, on the whole worthy of analysis.

LikeLike
25

old dog on January 13, 2014 at 9:26 am

John , a bit of self control required here old chap, when a story tickles your prejudices there’s even more reason to adopt a critical eye, confirmation bias n all that, 10 minutes research comparing police statements in this case and Hutchinson – Foster’s would show that it’s all a load of bollox,

You let yourself down there, never mind your knee jerk faragists lapped it up.

LikeLike
26

INVESTORS: FIVE REASONS WHY MONEY MUST DIE | The Slog. on January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am

[…] Yesterday at The Slog: The white doves of peace-loving gang-leaders […]

LikeLike
27

Roland Bonlett on January 13, 2014 at 8:53 am

Yes Cornelius, I’ve heard similar stories myself…. it all bodes ill.

LikeLike
28

Impoverished Psychologist on January 13, 2014 at 8:40 am

Indeed RB, well put – and if the authorities took your points to heart we might have a chance of restoring some sort of consensus for policing for the public good instead of revenue collection as you pointed out.

LikeLike
29

Friendly Fire on January 13, 2014 at 7:00 am

Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?

Unanimous yes by the jury.

LikeLike
30

MickC on January 13, 2014 at 2:50 am

I said he should have been tried-not that he was innocent. I don’t know whether he was or not.

My view is that the police resort to guns rather too frequently, when dogs could be used.

LikeLike
31

Cornelius Townedge (@seti2342) on January 13, 2014 at 1:34 am

And take a look at your friendly neighbourhood bobby these days; armed to the teeth and happy to play the local bully rather than the bloke who’d tell you the time and use common-sense. Anyone will tell you the police are deliberately hiring young men with (bad)attitude. Even the older more experienced old-school cozzers who have been pushed out of the force.

LikeLike
32

Cornelius Townedge (@seti2342) on January 13, 2014 at 1:30 am

Most of the stuff in this article is just hearsay, some of it just plain wrong. For example , the gun wasn’t in his sock. It was in a box, wrapped in a sock. The taxi-driver(who was there) and the other eyewitness both said he did’nt have the gun and that it remained in the car.

Anyone who’s head isn’t residing in their derriere would ask who had an incentive to lie about what they saw… the 2 independent witnesses, or the coppers who f****d up the ‘operation’.

I’m not crying into my dinner over this mans death, hardly Menezes or Tomlinson; but it’s clearly an example of a massive cock-up(everything about the operation) and a police officer being, at the least, trigger-happy.

This was followed by the leak by plod of outright-lies, Duggan shot at police etc etc; as well as the total disregard for Duggans family (he had 6 children) and led to some of the worst rioting in decades in the capital & across UK.

LikeLike
33

Professor Metwetwe jnr on January 12, 2014 at 11:35 pm

@ JW
Your patronising is water off a ducks back chap.
The officer went off half cock. Duggan should be in Court.
No accusations, just observations.

LikeLike
34

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 11:23 pm

sorry i should of made myself clearer.

i said he might be an innocent victim dident say that he was i just think we are taking a lot of the things police and the msm tell us about him as fact when they might not be.

ive seen the smears they tried to do on Steven Waldorf and john Charles demenzis.

im not saying this case is the same but i don’t think we can rule it out.

LikeLike
35

Hieronimusb on January 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm

If you consider the idea that he was an innocent victim, as nuggy is clearly suggesting if you read his entire thread (“there’s no evidence he was carrying one” etc), to be “nonsense” and “fairly vomit making”, then what is the purpose of your penultimate sentence? Do you, for instance, think that Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was wrongly convicted?

LikeLike
36

Roland Bonlett on January 12, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Exactly…. and whatever happened to ‘discretion’ and common sense… all subsumed to mindless quotas. Seriously, quotas in regard to crime? You are right too.. a policeman just looks like a paramilitary goon nowadays, an escalation if ever I see one… Then there’s the whole tazer thing – In the right circumstances fair enough, but all too often seen used on the old, infirm, mentally ill or just severely agitated… actions that just smack of bullying in many respects. I know these things may be rare, but they do represent a position that the police seem to be manoeuvred into, again by the politics.

LikeLike
37

Iain on January 12, 2014 at 10:34 pm

There would seem to be a trend over time to politicise, centralise and dehumanise the respective police forces in Britain. Is this the march of progress, the continual fight for economies of scale, or a deliberate ploy to alienate them from the public?
They were once established to be servants of the people. They have now been hijacked by politicians to become yet another branch of enforcers of central government. diktats.
What the police represent and how they are to function is better actioned on a localised basis and the extended control by central government and creeping militerisation needs to be stopped in it’s tracks and debated by the people, not politicians.

LikeLike
38

MickC on January 12, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Nuggy is right. Duggan should have been arrested and tried. That is how the system is supposed to work.

And what happened to police dogs? Replaced by guns, apparently.

If the Met can try to fit up a member of the Cabinet, they can try to fit up anyone.

Having said which, the current ” he was an innocent victim” nonsense is fairly vomit making.

LikeLike
39

cachaciero on January 12, 2014 at 8:56 pm

@RB Not at all a very astute observation, sums up my feelings.

LikeLike
40

Hieronimusb on January 12, 2014 at 8:55 pm

No you didn’t Roland, they were good points, fairly made.

LikeLike
41

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 8:39 pm

are you of doing anything other then personal abuse.

are you capable of actually having a reasoned argument.

LikeLike
42

Roland Bonlett on January 12, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Sorry, I burbled on a bit there…

LikeLike
43

Roland Bonlett on January 12, 2014 at 8:36 pm

There is another factor at play here I might suggest… In the politicians mania for minute control of our every-day lives to the point of making it difficult to leave the house without committing some minor crime – myriads of traffic offences, ever stricter (and actually pointless) MOT strictures (air bag lights for gods sakes), Failure to have this, failure to do that, TV licence nastiness and so on and so forth, the list seems to grow by the day. The general public is developing a distinct uneasiness with those who inevitably have to enforce most of this nonsense. This is alienating the police from the public further and not helping matters one iota. I’ve always thought there was a time when you saw a policeman and thought “aah there’s a man I might want to see if there’s trouble”, now it’s more like “Oh god, what am I doing wrong that he might pull me up for”. I do think the police still have genuine support for all their ‘original’ remit – solving serious crime, murder, violent assault and serious nuisance but the politicians have now made sure that they are seen as something to be avoided, mere ‘corporate enforcers’ who seem efficient only in the enforcement of largely petty statute nonsense… largely for revenue I might add. All this breeds a festering low level resentment amongst the populace…this is all the fault of the politicians.

LikeLike
44

Iain on January 12, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Julius the elder, the arial photographer or wihelm the son?

LikeLike
45

Monk on January 12, 2014 at 8:03 pm

According to grammar-monster.com, these are easily confused words, so it’s hardly surprising if those who are easily confused, are confused……

I can’t help wondering if those releasing the doves are familiar with the pioneering work of Wilhelm Neubronner?

LikeLike
46

Mo on January 12, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Don’t worry, the police are going to confer with the ‘leaders of the community’ & no doubt ‘lessons will be learned’ & ‘bridges will be built’ so that ‘it can never happen again’. So that’s ok, innit?

LikeLike
47

beenzontoste on January 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm

There seems to be some confusion regarding the use of the words: their, there and they`re. The latter slightly different in essence, being, `they are`. Just thought i would bring that up.

LikeLike
48

Viking Jack on January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm

@ Nids : “It’s a very dangerous state of affairs when the police are seen as weak.”

Indeed it is, and it’s not only happening in Blighty.

Headline article 1 – Aachen:

“A police officer pursued a single offender and was suddenly faced with ten to 15 people who insulted, threatened and hounded him. The policeman managed to escape and called for reinforcements, but they also needed to withdraw. Those are the first lines of an article in the Aachener Zeitung (further details only with payment). Perhaps one of our readers from the Aachen area know more details about this incident in the highly ‘bereichert’ Elsassstraße.”

‘bereichert’ = ‘enriched” = a pseudonym for an immigrant ghetto, more often than not Muslimic. The general media response to this incident has been dismal!

Headline article 2 – Hamburg:

“In the second attack on the Hamburg Davidwache within just one week, yesterday evening autonomous left-wing extremists injured three police officers. A group of several dozen leftists initially chanted police hostile slogans in front of the police station in the St. Pauli district. As several police officers exited the police station to deal with the matter they were suddenly attacked by the mob.

—

Only a week ago the Davidwache was the target of an attack by 300 rioters. A day later, 4,700 radical leftists carried out a violent demonstration in Hamburg. 120 police officers were injured, some seriously.”

In the meantime, the Hamburg police have declared the districts Altona, St. Pauli and Sternschanze to ‘Danger Zones’. Should the name St. Pauli sound familiar, that is where the Beatles did their Hamburg gigs back in the early 60s and the infamous Reeperbahn is to be found there. It’s perhaps no longer the place to go for a cheap s—g, it could cost you your life!

Headline article 3 – Berlin:

“Berlin – Bild informs about 25 danger zones – Police overwhelmed

Berlin – Crime is conquering the neighborhoods.

More than 25 streets, squares, subway lines and parks in the capital are considered by the police as “crime contaminated areas”. What exactly is that?

62,000 offenses, but only 2,000 convictions.”

The Berlin Senate are now busy trying to avoid degenerating to the state Hamburg is in. And please note, such things are also happening elsewhere – for example, last summer several hundred Kurds went on the rampage against the police in Mannheim.

We could be in for a hot summer here in the Fatherland – and it will have nothing to do with so-called global warming!

LikeLike
49

Broke Back Merchant Banker on January 12, 2014 at 6:01 pm

A vigil for a sociapathic miscreant – the releasing of white doves. What next , martyrdom ?
Next we will be hearing Duggan bought the gun for hid own personal protection; uet there will be nothing said about the lives that would have enivetively been lost had the police not shot Duggan and recovered the gun he would have used for who knows what.

We all know what happened when an un-armed police officer reasoned with Raol Moat, he got both barrels in the face and blinded for his trouble… any of you barrack toom lawyers want to make any comments on this subject…. I doubt it.. RETARDS !

P

LikeLike
50

Iain on January 12, 2014 at 5:44 pm

The gun enabled crime statistics for London from 1999 to 2009 averaged around 3000/year. As a result of this it is inevitable that the police have armed response units. It is also a given that if a police officer feels directly threatened or a member of the public is directly threatened then whover is posing the threat is likely to be shot. That part of the equation is probably acceptable to all except the target.
Where a problem arises is that the subsequent analysis of events is claimed to lack clarity and transparency. In the case of suspected terrorism suspects being shot inevitably obfuscation occurs to protect methods and manpower. and a rational person would accept that this unfortunately is necessary. However if a suspected crimminal is shot the subsequent enquiry should be totally in the public domain, warts and all.
I am guilty of having little confidence in the police but I do accept that at times they are put at risk and need to be able to neutralise that risk.If that involves a suspected gunman being shot then sh** happens. BUT they also need to be able to demonstrate that risk to any subsequent enquiry. If that requires carrying a video as well as a gun then that is the road to follow.

LikeLike
51

Patriot on January 12, 2014 at 5:43 pm

“Drugs and guns kill people.” Nonsense! Drugs don’t kill. Idiots taking drugs kill themselves. Similarly, guns don’t kill. People misusing guns kill. BTY, more people are killed by hammers and baseball bats. Shall we make them illegal too?

LikeLike
52

JC on January 12, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Very well put. The only thing I can think to add sitting here in the US is the pitiful fact that violence and criminality have been glorified all around the block, high and low. And I’m not thinking of contemporary ‘gangsta’ culture. More of what cinema long ago descended to — casting attractive people as villains and making some of the lowest moral imbeciles ever found into heroes and heroines for general worship and emulation. Think of the movie ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ just as one instance –say it’s the Hollywood smash of the 70’s starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. View that and then look up the facts on those two creatures, the real B&C — it’s enough to make a person sick to contemplate their innocent, hapless, random victims killed indiscriminately for nothing & then, voila, the movie version where one is made to feel that the G-men who finally gunned them down at great risk and no other choice were the ‘bad guys.’

Perhaps my memory is faulty there, but there are numerous examples of the point I’m trying to make.

LikeLike
53

alexei on January 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm

@OAH
Though I am against the quenelle ‘en principe’, bestowing it on The Establishment is probably a more suitable target than its usual intent. However, the danger of allowing it to perpetuate is that there will then be few grounds for stopping its morphing into something akin to Sieg Heil – which btw, it’s already resembling in certain French quarters.

LikeLike
54

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 5:27 pm

i think the fact only insult without arguing facts shows what a moron you are.

LikeLike
55

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 5:19 pm

Peter
Even accepting Pt 7, what about the other 8? Hmm?

LikeLike
56

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 5:17 pm

OAH

See also
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/mark-duggan-police-fit-ups-water-cannons-boris-johnson-riots-looting-drugs-chipping-norton-and-theresa-may/

LikeLike
57

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 5:13 pm

Anton
Johnny Slog’s audience continues to grow on Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, Google and Youtube….despite being regularly banned.
Anton’s Slog audience just shrunk to zero as a result of abusive mendacity….which is very different to dissent.

LikeLike
58

oldasiahand on January 12, 2014 at 4:26 pm

Don’t worry about police morale, they are cook of the hoop, as usual they have dodged any accountability and the report in the Independent this week about systemic corruption in the Met, the legal and political systems has sunk without trace. The Establishment will always close ranks against hoi polloi. Next thing they will make giving the Establishment a quenelle a crime! You can’t win. the game is rigged..

LikeLike
59

william on January 12, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Wikipedia and various articles in the Daily Mail,Manchester something..

LikeLike
60

Hieronimusb on January 12, 2014 at 4:13 pm

As Duggan had been convicted on at least two occasions, I’m not entirely sure where you are coming from with that one.

LikeLike
61

Mudplugger on January 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm

HomeCCTV…..
And maybe Ma Duggan’s aiming for a Life Peerage (victim division) – stranger things have happened.

LikeLike
62

Anton on January 12, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Johnnie does not like dissent, which is one of the reasons he is losing his audience

LikeLike
63

Roland Bonlett on January 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm

I actually DID laugh out loud at that John, thank you!

LikeLike
64

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 3:53 pm

if someones constantly being brought to court and then found not guilty it can mean 3 things. ever there very lucky.nobody’s brave enough to give evidence against them or there a victim of police harassment…

LikeLike
65

Plaudits for a London Mayor who puts tax cuts before public safety | The Slog. on January 12, 2014 at 3:38 pm

[…] Earlier at The Slog: Career drugs criminal in white doves release […]

LikeLike
66

NIDS LOVE BIG EYES on January 12, 2014 at 3:30 pm

It’s a very dangerous state of affairs when the police are seen as weak. Those of us in the outside world looked on in disbelief when rioting thugs went on the rampage and the police stood around and appeared to do nothing. We didn’t know the back story of why they appeared to do nothing, all we saw was the terrifying spectacle of chaos and carnage and the thin blue line dithering in the background. They looked weak and since the Duggan family are now going to “advise” the police on proper stop and frisk technique (per the Gnardian) an utterly barmy and ludicrous idea, I can only imagine what the morale in the police force must be like at this point.

LikeLike
67

mro. on January 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Main problem is the police are not to be trusted as they are corrupt more so the upper echellons, whether the bloke was guilty or not, being shot dead is overkill.

LikeLike
68

Hieronimusb on January 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm

‘arrested for something is not the same as being convicted of it’

Wrongful arrest, wrongful acquittal and wrongful conviction are all possibilities in our legal system. Duggan, however, had been brought to court on multiple occasions and it seems highly unlikely that all of them were ill found.

‘should a man be condemned for his behavior in primary school when he was a small child.’

The question, rhetorical though it may be, is somewhat disingenuous. There is no suggestion that he was condemned for his childhood behaviour – violent though it apparently was. It is, however, a fact that dysfunctional behaviour of this kind at an early age very often continues into adulthood, and there is a body of evidence, in this case, to suggest that is what happened.

LikeLike
69

Pablo Solano (@Pabloshiels) on January 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm

You have to think to commit thought crimes

LikeLike
70

Pablo Solano (@Pabloshiels) on January 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm

If you are going to say something, say something. My 13yo son could string together better constructed and more comprehensible drivel. Countering every point with a negative achieves very little other than make you look like a moron.

LikeLike
71

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm

oh dear i seem to have committed some thought crimes sorry about that.

LikeLike
72

the ghost on January 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm

My point much better put Roland

LikeLike
73

Mazzzz on January 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Well put, Hieronimus.

LikeLike
74

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm

When my younger daughter was tiny, she had a comfort napkin called Nuggy.
No further comment is necessary.

LikeLike
75

the ghost on January 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm

William that is interesting,maybe that is why rioting took place in Manchester & not some other Cities,which then links in with a couple more that also saw rioting like Nottingham

LikeLike
76

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 3:00 pm

Roland
+1 x 1,000

LikeLike
77

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Quite so, Bill
This was my point the other day:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/mark-duggan-police-fit-ups-water-cannons-boris-johnson-riots-looting-drugs-chipping-norton-and-theresa-may/

LikeLike
78

John Ward on January 12, 2014 at 2:57 pm

Metwetwe old fruit
I’m sorry, genuinely don’t know what you’re saying, driving at, or accusing the officer of.

LikeLike
79

the ghost on January 12, 2014 at 2:56 pm

Whether you mourn is passing or not has little to do with it,
1 Something doesn’t add up,taking John points has facts,why stop a armed criminal in a Taxi,the poor taxi driver doesn’t seem to have got a mention in all of this at all,it borders on irresponsible.( i realise he could have asked the taxi to take them to were the gang would be endangering the taxi driver even more to apossible bigger shoot out)
2 The gun is a good distance from the Taxi
3 Apparently there is footage of the incident so why was it not allowed to be shown
4 For three days the police allowed the lie that he died in a shoot out to go unchecked
5 the police never sent around a officer to his parents,now i understand that could be dangerous but they could have asked the family to come to the police station( this may have happened)
6. i am on the side of the police here unlike in the case the Brazilian J.C Menezes was shot
7. the politicians are making a rod for the police to privatise it,endangering the police & the public in do so.
8. the police made a call in balance i have no reason to question that call,but what happened next was probably the result of the shooting of J C Menezes & the police & authorities panicked instead of having faith in there actions
9.This is because of the rash actions of other policeman,corruption that has left many feeling alienated & lost trust in the police force,leaving a police force mainly of very good men fighting to do a very difficult job even harder,we have seen it in the firebrigade,NHS were privatising through funding shortages are effecting highly trained people to find themselves between the Public & the politicians in a no win situation
i have no problem with the verdict,& it is in rather poor taste to try & make out that Mr Duggan was another JC Menezes in anyway at all.
Therefore the only point that worries me is the next police officers having to make the next call,i would hate one to die because of this incident & that is why both sides need to understand the importance of justice & balance & responsibility for invloved in this & all those that have to face such difficult decisions in the future
PS JC Menezes should never happen again but no policeman should die out of fear of action either

LikeLike
80

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm

arrested for something is not the same as being convicted of it

should a man be condemned for his behavior in primary school when he was a small child.

LikeLike
81

DavidC on January 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm

nuggy,
Interesting posts you’ve made, only insofar as they’re grammatically poor and the spelling is atrocious, are you a troll? Are you a regular poster? You need to investigate the difference between their, they’re and there. Are you American, offense is the preferred spelling in American English, while offence is preferred in British, Indian, Canadian, and Australian English.

DavidC

LikeLike
82

Hieronimusb on January 12, 2014 at 2:40 pm

Mark Duggan came from a notoriously criminal family – he was the nephew of Desmond ‘Dessie’ Noonan, and spent most of his teenage years in Manchester, having persistently displayed violent behaviour at his Broadwater Farm primary school. He held convictions for cannabis possession and handling stolen goods; he had also been arrested for murder and attempted murder and he associated with known, very violent convicted criminals. Sadly, the best that can be said for him is that he had few chances to be anything other than what he was: a danger to others. Inevitably, his death in circumstances which were confused by the abject failings of the Met, together with a deeply alienated local population, has lead to a perception of him in some quarters as being a martyr. The agendas in play are all too clear and palpable, what is not clear is how this society can come to terms with the antisocial behaviours which have been allowed to develop amongst both the governed and those who govern.

LikeLike
83

Roland Bonlett on January 12, 2014 at 2:18 pm

I Agree with most of what John has said, although as a counterpoint to Mr Duggans ‘liability’ I would also like to point out that if the Met Stopped blatantly lying about events then they may garner a bit more respect from the wider public. It’s getting hard to believe anything the police say these days. Surely they have a responsibility towards the truth too…. acting otherwise gives people like the Duggans a ‘leg to stand on’.

LikeLike
84

Mark Deacon on January 12, 2014 at 2:16 pm

No mention of one thing … was he attempting to go straight?
Probably not hence I don’t feel I should care because likely he would have killed or maimed another tomorrow.

LikeLike
85

HomeCCTV on January 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm

I am quite perceptive in some ways. Its called common sense, my beef is with how the verdict is cast aside and how Duggans family and friends are being manipulated into thinking they are on some crusade for Steven Lawrence style justice.

It is ridiculous my friend.

LikeLike
86

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm

he may or may not be but what is the source of this information.

LikeLike
87

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 2:11 pm

yes its called the metropolitan police and its got all the idiots singing to its tune.

why calling duggens family dregs you dont know anything about them.

LikeLike
88

william on January 12, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Apparently, Mark Duggan’s uncle, one Dessie Noonan, is a major player in the Manchester crime world……

LikeLike
89

HomeCCTV on January 12, 2014 at 2:07 pm

There is a strange politically motivated force at work here, it is the same in the USA with Trayvon Martin. The dregs that constitute Duggans family ,they are merely having their grief manipulated. It all boils down to immigration and social change, Racism etc blah blah.

It hadnt ought to and to right minded people it doesnt, but this hidden political game is being played by some seriously nasty people I suspect.

LikeLike
90

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 1:57 pm

there not criminals as far as i know

LikeLike
91

FrankS on January 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm

The Duggan Family, like most criminals, has a cast iron sense of righteous entitlement, matched by a lead-lined immunity to shame. Hence their alleged astonishment at the verdict.

LikeLike
92

bill40 on January 12, 2014 at 1:51 pm

It seems the evidence thus far backs up Johns’ thesis, Mr Duggan should have avoided carrying weapons and the police could have done more to avoid shooting him. I wasn’t there and haven’t heard all the evidence so I’d like to raise a wider point.

Would anyone be genuinely surprised to find out the police were lying through their teeth? I have no evidence they did in this case but that is not my point. The fact the matter is even raised is the point.

LikeLike
93

petitb on January 12, 2014 at 1:50 pm

Are you completely nuts?

LikeLike
94

Lupulco on January 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm

Stuart, spot on.
What parents/elders forget is children do what their parents/elders do. Not what they say they should do.

LikeLike
95

Professor Metwetwe jnr on January 12, 2014 at 1:42 pm

One may have good reason not be impressed that a fully ‘trained’ police operative, with body protection, needs to jerk off before sighting the alleged weapon being pointed directly at him. This man should have been arrested and jailed.

LikeLike
96

John Ward – Doves For A Gun-Owning Dead Drugs Dealer – 12 January 2014 | Lucas 2012 Infos on January 12, 2014 at 1:41 pm

[…] http://www.hat4uk.wordpress.com / link to original article […]

LikeLike
97

Stuart on January 12, 2014 at 1:39 pm

If you play with fire, expect to get burned….

After all while Mark Duggan was growing up to become the model ‘Soldier’ that he was, what were his family doing to stop him from embarking on a life of crime?

Still Duggan’s family, and the ‘Community’, won’t bother answering such questions, far better to blame the Police and the Jury, as it avoids having to look in the mirror, and see what is looking back at you…

LikeLike
98

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm

that hardly makes him a gangster.

LikeLike
99

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 1:33 pm

theirs no evidence he was carrying one.

LikeLike
100

Iain on January 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Does anyone other than the underworld mourn his passing?

LikeLike
101

Friendly Fire on January 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Your normal crowd of supporters seem to have gone very quite on this one John. They should look at Venezuela and ask themselves some simple questions as to what they wish for.
It always seems to me that human beings in the main prefer to avoid conflict situations, which is why those that are good at exploiting it do so well.
The message here is surely a very reasonable one – if you carry an illegal fireman across a capital city you need to seriously watch out.

LikeLike
102

bagerap on January 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm

@nuggy
” He had multiple convictions for receiving stolen property and cannabis possession beyond a level for personal use.”

LikeLike
103

peterbild on January 12, 2014 at 1:00 pm

KW – subject to what Nuggy points out, little argument with most of your post. So what if Duggan isn’t an angel? I am more concerned with your point 7. It is unlike you to UNDERplay the misdeeds of TPTB, including gun-toting boys-in-blue. Above all you UNDERPLAY the seriousness of misusing intelligence which has been shown so often (Mitchell, Tomlinson, above all Menezes) to be faulty. ,

LikeLike
104

nuggy on January 12, 2014 at 12:52 pm

other than the word of the met theirs no evidence he was drug dealer.

he has no convictions any such offense,

LikeLike
105

FrankS on January 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Here’s a tip – invest in white doves. Roadside shrines of wilting flowers and teddy bears just don’t cut it – a dead solja deserves respec in the form of a release of white doves.

LikeLike