Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So far LD's analytical thinking seems to have stretched to 'tomatoes are red, fire engines are red, fire engines are tomatoes'. Not really worth pursuing or countering.


Like Santerme says, have a little patience, the truth will out.


It strikes me that there are a number of strands to this sorry tale.


The looters is a red herring, low lives and cynical opportunists, always take advantage of this sort of situation for personal gain.


The shooting. Once we look past the ins and outs of the immediate incident we seem to have two things to really consider, why it doesn't seem non-sequitur to many of the locals interviewed that a 'good man' would of course carry a weapon for protection, and why the same community feels that recourse to the police is simply not an option.


Police harassment/brutality. The met has changed immeasurably over the last 20 years, especially in terms of race sensitivity and relations, yet problems persist, stop and search is still both routine and seemingly arbitrary and still causes tension*. On the other side of the coin, met moral is at an all time low, the police seem not to be able to do anything about drugs on the streets and the concomitant violence.


Social tensions; as stated by some unemployment is rising, yet with an increase of disenfranchisement there have been swingeing cuts to social services, outreach, youth work and youth clubs with a resultant increase in gang activity and simmering social tensions. Simmering things do often boil over.


Whether or not one agrees with the cuts and I make no judgement here, there were a million warnings from analysts, commentators, politicians and most importantly those on the ground that this sort of thing was an inevitability, and so it has proven.....again.....


*I should add that I think race here is also largely a red-herring and it's more to do with the attitude of the police to youth in the area rather than to colour.

This thread is a paragon compared to what is going down on other forums. If you haven't registered for another local forum (you need to register to view) urban75 (originally started as a Brixton forum) than I would highly recomend it. It probably has a younger profile than EDF but moderated arguements run on with hundreds of contributors from the anarchist left to the informed middle to the Daily Mail right. They also link to all the live twitter feeds and it would appear a section of youth have found their new summer's sport. What is worrying is that a lot of these kids are probably the gangs getting together informally so that they have critical mass to go on the rampage. With the backdrop of an economic depression and with the financial crisis only in Act 2 at the moment (when countries go bust) things don't look to good.

Sorry if my cynicism re: the police is seen as encouraging rioting - that is not what my intention is.


I have been involved in protests and even direct action and have seen the actions of the police first-hand in those situations. Plus I know someone who is close to the family of Duggan and the stories in the press regarding his death did not correlate with what was seen by witnesses.


It now seems some of my cynicism was not unjustified.


MP, thank you for your very thoughtful post. I feel that you have highlighted the problem very well. These situations don't just come out of the blue. Anyone with half a brain can predict the circumstances that can result in the kind of rioting we have seen over the weekend.


It's not about being a wooly liberal or appologist. It's about understanding human nature and triggers.


The government were warned by many people that this could happen, but they continued with their cuts and continued to let the bankers and other elites to carry on as normal.


I feel resentful. I am unlikely to go and set fire to someone's car as I have a means of expressing my opinions and know how to lobby decision makers if I so chose.


The under-educated and societally disconnected youths who went to the police station for answers on Saturday have expressed their resentment differently.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Why would the bullet be police issue if Duggan

> supposedly shot the cop?


You are jumping to conclusions, based on scant evidence. The bullet is a hollow point. They are used by police, but not exclusively. They do not know, as yet, which gun it came from.

Those poor under-educated and societally disconnected youths have expressed their desire to commit crimes against their own neighbours and then extended that outwards via the aptly described social networking sites.


It is true anyone with a brain can see the gravy train being jumped on.


My heart bleeds for them, that is my cynicism coming out.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The under-educated and societally disconnected

> youths who went to the police station for answers

> on Saturday have expressed their resentment

> differently.


I think you need to do a bit of separation here. There was a protest on Saturday afternoon by friends and family of Mark Duggan who, quite justifiably in my opinion, wanted some answers to some pretty valid questions.


Then came the bandwagon jumpers on Saturday night. I'm guessing that most of them had never met, nor knew of, the dead man.

The initial riot outside the police station which was a reaction to the death of Duggan and the alledged assault by the police on a young woman.


The further rioting later on was reportedly mainly angry young men.


The filling of cars with loot appears to have been mainly older people not actually connected to the battles with the police.


So I would suggest there were three sets of people in all of this with three sets of general motivations.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The initial riot outside the police station which

> was a reaction to the death of Duggan and the

> alledged assault by the police on a young woman.

>

>

> The further rioting later on was reportedly mainly

> angry young men.

>

> The filling of cars with loot appears to have been

> mainly older people not actually connected to the

> battles with the police.

>

> So I would suggest there were three sets of people

> in all of this with three sets of general

> motivations.



All of which were unlawful, in spite of the 'alleged' assault.


You are getting to the point where the sublime has descended to the ridiculous.


The baseline on these incidents is only the investigators will have the full information and, in time, so shall we.

These investigators are humans, no? Or is it some sort of independent oracle we consult in times of unrest. interesting how the CCTV evidence is often the first to be taken by the police. I guess they hand it over when they have viewed it. One assumes the investigators will have the full information, nevertheless. They are not dependent on the police to collect evidence in situations like a shooting.
A ?BBC TV news report from the scene of the shooting made a point of the fact that IPCC investigators were, perhaps unusually, on the scene at the same time as police investigators. They could be seen there, with an IPCC legend on their protective clothing, alongside police investigators. I surmised that the police had possibly wanted to ensure that an independent investigation was being seen to be done.
The government were warned by many people that this could happen, but they continued with their cuts and continued to let the bankers and other elites to carry on as normal.


This is utter b******s. You are turning a rational government response to a decade of overspending into an excuse for violent behaviour. Student Socialist Worker seller level of argument: " D - - ".

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is utter b******s. You are turning a rational

> government response to a decade of overspending

> into an excuse for violent behaviour. Student

> Socialist Worker seller level of argument: " D - -".


I'm sure I saw loads of t-shirts on the news saying, "How Dare You Restrict Library Opening Hours" and "Weekly Bin Emptying NOW!". No, really...

I have it on good authority (I spoke to the sister of one of the girlfriends of an upstanding member of the community in Pontefract whose brother knew a bloke who caught a train to Luton where the chap who sat next to him knew how to spell Enfield) that much frsutration stemmed from the fact that Consumer Focus, the consumer rights group, will transfer to the Citizens Advice Bureau.


It was felt that there should be more 'Citizen-based Testing' that accounted for temporary loans from homeware stores in Tottenham.


Bloody Tories.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Another great job from Leon - sorted a consumer unit and EICR for me last minute. Highly recommend 
    • Admin, please move this if it's in the wrong section. Can anybody recommend a reasonably local dietician (or possibly nutritionist? Not sure what the difference is). My GP has suggested I see a dietician, but there isn't one attached to the practice. I have googled, but it's very hard to tell what people may be like from an online description, and I want somebody who is properly qualified. Alternatively, please PM me if you know of people I should avoid! Thanks x
    • A vet might be able to trace its owners if it's chipped. Also I believe twb who posts on here has a mobile scanner. Poor cat.
    • If you look at the application linked to in the OP, you'll see it's a Licensing Act 2003 one, in this case for the purposes of sale by retail of alcohol and for the provision of late night refreshment: "TAKEAWAY COFFEE/ HOT SNACKS 2300-0100". IF the shop counts as a Hot Food Takeaway, then section P48 of the Southwark Plan https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Southwark Plan 2022 reduced 1.pdf , which appears to be the latest one linked to on Southwark's site, will I presume be applied in any  planning application (Is there one?). It says: "New hot food takeaways will only be permitted where: ..... 3. The proposed location is further than 400 metres from any existing or proposed primary or secondary school’s boundary; ....." It incorporates  policy laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework, and thence the London Plan.  Over the years KFC, and others, have taken a  number of appeals against local planning authority decisions on Takeaways to the Planning Inspectorate.  Some have been allowed.  KFCs 'commentary on evidence contained in London Plan Topic Paper: Hot Food Takeaways', https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/nlp_ad_91.pdf may be of interest to some. I'm guessing it's referring to https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_plan_topic_paper_on_hot_food_takeaways.pdf of 2018, but haven't yet checked.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...