Mark Duggan's Death - Calls For A Public Enquiry

It is easy for many a journo to point at a large official organisation like the police. They wander around in a bubble where they convince themselves that they are not there to get involved, merely report. The truth is they generally have the protection of their large employer and the police in order to do their job and then to retreat to the nice middle class area where they live and go to trendy eateries with their mates. Once they are on the wrong end of a kicking, or have an 8" kitchen knife at their throat the police suddenly becomes their best friend.

On the other side of the coin it is very difficult for the police, or any large public organisation, to defend itself. There are always the shouts of, "you are here to protect us", even when the toad who has suffered was destined for a path as a career criminal from the day he dropped.

As to community leaders: I observed the rise of a lefty community leader from his beginnings as a union bag carrier in the local car body plant factory. He started to push himself into stuff outside the factory, he soon made a name for himself by attending every protest, complaint and march possible making sure he was always photographed by the local paper. He also stuck his nose in the local labour party and evntually raised his profile enough to stand for the council and a few years later as an MP. He didn't make it as an MP. But that is why people get into these causes and try to become a face in the media.
Within news reporting, there is such a thing as Right to Reply.

So (for example), if you accuse me of something and (for example) a newspaper chooses to report it, I must also get a request for a response/counter-response. In many cases, the failure to get a response (as distinct from me/someone refusing to give a response) should be enough to stop publication as Right to Reply hasn't been discharged.

I have seen less-than scrupulous news editors, on a slow day, think up a rumour, call someone and get them to make an outraged statement, then ring an opposing party and get an equally outraged counter-statement. That's not news, it's shit-stirring. It does go on, and many news journalists deserve their shitty reputations.

The line of 'being there to observe' is a cop-out. If something is being reported, it should be done in context (that word so beloved of the BBC).

So, in an entirely hypothetical case [/SARCASM], if I'm a bad lad in a taxi with a handgun in a sock, and the police in setting out to stop me committing a criminal act or a murder shoot me dead at the point when I'm possibly armed and not complying, and the officers involved are subsequently exonerated in a proper criminal enquiry, then that should be referenced in full in any follow-up stories.

The police and other organisations often know far more than ever reaches the public domain but cannot for numerous reasons divulge the full extent of an individual's activities. That may be to protect their own officers, others within the community who may have worked with them, or even the methods by which intelligence has been gained.

Most people would be surprised at the levels of forensic sophistication displayed by even the lowliest of criminals. The 'sock' discussion above is an illustration but even the electronic sophistication of street gangs can be appreciable. In the case of career criminals, it behoves them well to be smart and anything that they can pick up which helps them will be used. To give more away than necessary would therefore hand the initiative to the criminal.

In many cases, wrong-doers' families and cohorts know this and will use it to their advantage. Equally, though, many news journalists will too. Often, they know far more than they publish but are acutely aware of just how much they can and can't publish. Witness the number of cases where, after a conviction, the convicted's full history is then publishable (but not before).

It's entirely possible though to publish something which allows an element of reading between the lines. Increasingly, though, in my perception, the tendency is to publish the inflammatory and pay scant attention to the rest.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm sure Harry Stanley and Jean Charles de Menezes share your unequivocal support of individuals who are shit at their job.
In fairness to those involved, in the event of countering an assumed suicide attack, all your options are sh1t.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Oddly, the surveillance officer who sat next to Menezes on the tube did not slightly consider him a threat. Would you sit next to someone you thought 'might' be a bomber? The pricks that shot him were shit at their job.
As I understand it, the kill team was in a different communications loop and, once dispatched by their CoC, could reasonably only operate on the basis of their briefing as per SOPs. What would have been said if they'd hesitated and the target had gone bang?

There were mistakes made, but by the targeting and command teams. I find it very hard to blame those who believed they were closing with a suicide bomber and went in anyway.
 
As I understand it, the kill team was in a different communications loop and, once dispatched by their CoC, could reasonably only operate on the basis of their briefing as per SOPs. What would have been said if they'd hesitated and the target had gone bang?

There were mistakes made, but by the targeting and command teams. I find it very hard to blame those who believed they were closing with a suicide bomber and went in anyway.
That, and as posted above sixty is talking cobblers, the surveillance officer was the one who pinned him down so SO19 could take the shot without him being able to press the button. Not the actions of someone who felt he posed no threat.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Your choice of course. I've never used the negative mong buttons myself as they're for the weak.
...and the bald, apparently.
 
Within news reporting, there is such a thing as Right to Reply.

So (for example), if you accuse me of something and (for example) a newspaper chooses to report it, I must also get a request for a response/counter-response. In many cases, the failure to get a response (as distinct from me/someone refusing to give a response) should be enough to stop publication as Right to Reply hasn't been discharged.

I have seen less-than scrupulous news editors, on a slow day, think up a rumour, call someone and get them to make an outraged statement, then ring an opposing party and get an equally outraged counter-statement. That's not news, it's shit-stirring. It does go on, and many news journalists deserve their shitty reputations.

The line of 'being there to observe' is a cop-out. If something is being reported, it should be done in context (that word so beloved of the BBC).

So, in an entirely hypothetical case [/SARCASM], if I'm a bad lad in a taxi with a handgun in a sock, and the police in setting out to stop me committing a criminal act or a murder shoot me dead at the point when I'm possibly armed and not complying, and the officers involved are subsequently exonerated in a proper criminal enquiry, then that should be referenced in full in any follow-up stories.

The police and other organisations often know far more than ever reaches the public domain but cannot for numerous reasons divulge the full extent of an individual's activities. That may be to protect their own officers, others within the community who may have worked with them, or even the methods by which intelligence has been gained.

Most people would be surprised at the levels of forensic sophistication displayed by even the lowliest of criminals. The 'sock' discussion above is an illustration but even the electronic sophistication of street gangs can be appreciable. In the case of career criminals, it behoves them well to be smart and anything that they can pick up which helps them will be used. To give more away than necessary would therefore hand the initiative to the criminal.

In many cases, wrong-doers' families and cohorts know this and will use it to their advantage. Equally, though, many news journalists will too. Often, they know far more than they publish but are acutely aware of just how much they can and can't publish. Witness the number of cases where, after a conviction, the convicted's full history is then publishable (but not before).

It's entirely possible though to publish something which allows an element of reading between the lines. Increasingly, though, in my perception, the tendency is to publish the inflammatory and pay scant attention to the rest.
My biggest lesson in the media came when I started at Army Information Services (AIS) in HQNI. The blokes employed there were in the main journos who had crossed from Fleet Street and the Beeb to working for the MoD, there was a steady rotation of officers who provided the inhouse military input to statements and press releases. Then there was us.

As part of my introduction to possibly picking up the phone and speaking with a member of the media, and generally seeing and hearing what was going on in relation to what was reported publicly I was given some schooling. The boss man, a Brigadier equivalent, nice bloke with lot's of time for his troops, gave me a couple of insights into the media profession. One such insight was to lay three single sided incident reports in front of me and ask me to read them. The reports read like three similar but, different enough to be three seperate incidents. The lesson was that one report was the actual one received from the commander on the ground, suitably polished by his CO. Another report was the write up for the press release produced by AIS, the final report was taken from a newspaper article reporting on the actual incident.

The variation of the reports was enough to make the unknowing (me) think that it was potentially three seperate incidents. The fact was it was one incident written up and reported in three different ways. Reading through them a second time I could pick out the facts that indicated they were all the same incident. To the untrained punter reading the report in a paper on the way to work the impression given was not what actually happened. I have very rarely trusted the news since the time spent with those erudite gentlemen.
 
My biggest lesson in the media came when I started at Army Information Services (AIS) in HQNI. The blokes employed there were in the main journos who had crossed from Fleet Street and the Beeb to working for the MoD, there was a steady rotation of officers who provided the inhouse military input to statements and press releases. Then there was us.

As part of my introduction to possibly picking up the phone and speaking with a member of the media, and generally seeing and hearing what was going on in relation to what was reported publicly I was given some schooling. The boss man, a Brigadier equivalent, nice bloke with lot's of time for his troops, gave me a couple of insights into the media profession. One such insight was to lay three single sided incident reports in front of me and ask me to read them. The reports read like three similar but, different enough to be three seperate incidents. The lesson was that one report was the actual one received from the commander on the ground, suitably polished by his CO. Another report was the write up for the press release produced by AIS, the final report was taken from a newspaper article reporting on the actual incident.

The variation of the reports was enough to make the unknowing (me) think that it was potentially three seperate incidents. The fact was it was one incident written up and reported in three different ways. Reading through them a second time I could pick out the facts that indicated they were all the same incident. To the untrained punter reading the report in a paper on the way to work the impression given was not what actually happened. I have very rarely trusted the news since the time spent with those erudite gentlemen.
I know exactly where you're coming from. I can think of one writer I know who will constantly try to find conspiracy in even the most open and mundane of stories. The results are farcical.

For example, the Department for Transport announced the launch of the new motorway enforcement cameras, known as Highway Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System 3. This is the third generation of HADECS, hence 'HADECS 3'. It's a generational upgrade, That's it. No more. But, no. He went spiralling off trying to put together a story about how the previous two generations had failed, waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, etc. Complete fruit-loop who was convinced he was at the cutting edge of investigative journalism.

There's a lot of confirmation bias out there. Many journalists will look for what they want, rather than what there is.
 
As I understand it, the kill team was in a different communications loop and, once dispatched by their CoC, could reasonably only operate on the basis of their briefing as per SOPs. What would have been said if they'd hesitated and the target had gone bang?

There were mistakes made, but by the targeting and command teams. I find it very hard to blame those who believed they were closing with a suicide bomber and went in anyway.
Some armchair experts on here currently slagging the police for their actions, would also be complaining on here about their lack of action.
 
There's a lot of confirmation bias out there. Many journalists will look for what they want, rather than what there is.
Made up news often sells better than reality.
 
is he still dead?
perhaps the met police could get the ouija board team in and let him talk to his mum.
or he could dis the met for slotting him when he was only off to have a party and 5kg of moroccan pure.
 
Not sure if it's just me but very occasionally you wake up and wonder; 'was I perhaps wrong?' or 'maybe I misjudged that'.

But then you see that a tedious, dim, elderly racist has reacted and it becomes clear that you were correct all along.

Yup, and I gave you another dumb for that post as well.
 
That woman, as you called her, will be in the House of Lords within 10 years
Is that because all the Ghanian cleaners have gone home or because she's given up waiting the £millions of compo to roll in?
 
I can see it now ...

Constable X. Why did you shoot at Mr Duggan 13 times?

'Cos I only had 13 rounds in my magazine sir.
Hislop walt.



To be honest, any excuse to post my favourite Private Eye front page.
 
Well, if we're being fair, an unarmed man was shot. The usual 'honest belief' and crocodile tears defence again was proven to be a Get Out of Jail Free card.
And long may it continue to be, although "crocodile tears" is harsh IMHO.

Edited to add, having read the rest of your posts on this thread, I now presume you're working on upping your SJW profile. What's next, sending letter bombs to animal experimenters, or posting ringing endorsements of hunt saboteurs? Or maybe you could wear a blue top hat and wonder around Parliament Square with a megaphone and a starry flag.

Best of luck, keep this up and you'll be a shoo in for a seat on the Fabian Society board.
 
Last edited:
is he still dead?
perhaps the met police could get the ouija board team in and let him talk to his mum.
or he could dis the met for slotting him when he was only off to have a party and 5kg of moroccan pure.
Maybe like Bugsy he will come back to life only to be shot again.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top