Blogs

Diane Abbott’s idiocy reaches new levels

10 January 2014

12:43 PM

10 January 2014

12:43 PM

On the evening of the Mark Duggan verdict, Diane Abbott MP tweeted the following:

If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) January 8, 2014

 

Well, Diane, your bafflement is because you weren’t inside the court room for three months listening to the evidence, were you, you idiot?  Does she think her tweet was helpful? Why does she not devote herself to tackling gun crime within the young black male community – or does she think that it is not a problem, a disproportionate problem, and that the reason we hear about it so often is because we’re all racists? She’s tweeted some daft and mischief making stuff in her time, but this one, I think, is the worst of the lot.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • jerry templewing

    Diane racist No,no,no… She merely hates white people. She is also not a hypocrite .. That is a large mammal , with big teeth and a Lairy attitude.

  • Lindum

    Abbott is a nasty nasty racist. With a strange pretentious accent to boot.

  • StephanieJCW

    “Why does she not devote herself to tackling gun crime within the young black male community ”

    Why should she? Because she’s black? I don’t see why she should devote herself to such a cause anymore than any other politician.

  • StephanieJCW

    I genuinely don’t see what outraged you about the tweet. It was a question – and a fair one. Obviously if she was not in the courtroom she would have had no need to question how the verdict was reached but she wasn’t. The judge instructed the jury to return an unlawful killing verdict if they thought Duggan was unarmed. He was unarmed, the jury accepts that but the verdict was that it was lawful.

    Now there may be many actual valid reasons for that, of which we are unaware – but lacking that information I don’t see what’s wrong with posing a question.

  • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

    Just imagine her without the wig, it can’t be just weave-on it’s soooo fake. Reach for the barf bag.

  • Riz

    It’s a valid point she makes- what is killing an unarmed individual to be called?

    • Eddie

      Unarmed? He had just collected a gun and was armed. So what if he threw the gun away seconds before the armed police arrived – how are they to know that, especially if Duggan then pointed his fingers or a mobile phone at them?
      Killing an individual like this is called justice and the vast majority of British people support the police here – though the tiny minority of always-angry victimhood-craving blacks and their supporters from the liberal loon wing of media hypocrisy (looking at yer Channel 4 news) get al the air time, of course., to spout their lies and hatred.

  • roger

    I thought when the law changed and we all gave up our guns (a CZ75 in my case ) i hoped the country would get settled down, but government stupidity has meant it hasn’t. In the time i lived in Abbotts constituency there were five murders within half a mile of my house , all unsolved.
    The policing of London is no longer fit for purpose, I have seen enough police incompetence to write twenty pages of comment.
    We need a total rethink.
    I’m not against armed police, when i was seven i saw a policeman guarding my school bus with a .303 rifle, but we need to stop the slide to an occupying force, how many police live in the centre of London? Even the section houses sold off to developers.
    When i was young most policemen just had a truncheon but were backed up by Mr. Pierrepoint and his noose. Walk softly and carry a big stick.

  • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

    We all now Abbott is a donkey, just ignore her (i never voted for her ,and i was a long time Stokey ).
    On the other hand the Duggan inquest transcripts are well worth reading. You need to select the witnesses to study and then go to the right dates, but reading a few days of police testimony will show that all is not well in the attempt to stem gun and drug crime in London. The bit about well known informers (you-know-who Broadwater celebs) is very disturbing.
    The armed policing of London is just not good enough. It seems to be all show (show of force?) but never where needed in time yet heavy handed when it’s not needed, i won’t bore readers with the long list of problems, we need a Mayors special commission.

  • http://ajbrenchley.com/namaskar Swanky

    She calls herself a politician? Can’t even be bothered to wear a near-the-neck but not choker necklace. Don’t get me started on the jacket (cut and colour). And the hair….

    • DougS

      Don’t stop just when you’re in full flight Swanky – give her both barrels. You haven’t mentioned posture, voice or gestures yet!

  • Mike

    There’s some very strange extrapolations of Abbots tweet by many posters here that defy explanation other than to suggest the posters themselves have a racist or political agenda and refuse to engage with the facts.

    The tweet – If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled,

    The tweet doesn’t mention the colour of the dead guy, it doesn’t raise any racial or inequality issues so why have so many jumped on this vigilante bandwagon making it out to be something its not.

    Perhaps those tunnel vision posters should re-read this tweet and try and understand what it really means. That is, how can a jury clear a police officer of unlawful killing when the dead man was NOT armed, this fact was supported by the police and yet they shot and killed him, narrowly missing an innocent taxi driver and shot another police officer in the process. Even an insider in the MET called it a major f*** up like the Menezes slaughter and any objective person would agree with that.

    • John Border

      Clear and to the point.

      I will be interested to watch the rabid droolers defend this killing. Tomorrow it could be them.

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/namaskar Swanky

        You’ve made your uninteresting point. Now bug off.

        • John Border

          Thanks Wanky.

    • Ronnie Palmer

      Clear and to the point +1!

      • Mike

        Thanks, at least a few here understand where I’m coming from instead of getting on some racist bandwagon based on tunnel vision interpretation rather than looking at the facts objectively.

  • Junis

    The author of above article is himself an idiot because he was also not in the courtroom listenting to the alledged ‘evidence’. It is funny how ‘white’ Britons do not like the behaviour of their own police officers . That is until the targets of ‘white’ police officers are non-white. When that happens ‘white’ Britons will always find a reason to defend the former as many comments under this article will show.

    • John Border

      I am white and will if needed slag the police, as they are getting out of control. But don’t give me crap about white Britons as you do. Your post is racist.

    • Lancastrian_Oik

      Pure racism.

      You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Junis

        I am telling the truth and you know it. 🙂

        • Eddie

          You have a Muslim name. That explains everything…

  • MikeF

    The best guess about this case seems to be that Duggan – a known criminal who certainly had earlier in his final journey collected a gun – got out of the car with, maybe, a mobile phone in his hand and that a police officer reacted instantly by shooting him on the presumption that he was holding a gun. What happened then is unknown – except to the police officers involved – but it does not seem impossible that they found the gun inside the car and then ‘constructed’ the scenario in which Duggan was purported to have thrown the gun away before he was shot. That would account for the statement by the officer who fired the shots that Duggan appeared to have in his hand a ‘gun-like’ object wrapped in a sock – in other words exactly what was ‘found’ ten or more feet away – despite the fact that he did not. As such the jury’s verdict is not perverse – the officer very likely did genuinely believe Duggan had a gun in his hand – but could have been arrived at in any case.
    Ms Abbott has, however, unwittingly highlighted something that is happening in our society. That is that juries drawn at random from the population at large can only be as good as that society. But our society is now being debased – not by ‘racism’ but by the sectarian doctrine of ‘anti-racism’ of which she is a proponent – and so is the law and its implementation.

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    Hook, line, and sinker – here lies the problem of tweeting – it’s not just pointless but positively moronic and dangerous. A good education teaches us that points of view, opinions, analyses, discussion etc., require the quality and quantity of TIME and THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION which tweeting is designed to obliterate. But of course, people driven by one topic agendas – like Abbot and Fry for example – conveniently forget all this when indulging themselves in the madness of their own self-righteous self-promotion, and, lets be honest – their own ignorance. Justifying mass immigration and multicultural/multisocial foolishness is now an INDUSTRY for which folk like Abbot are LOBBYISTS and tweeting heaven sent. May her god have mercy on her soul and ours when Tottenham becomes the first borough in London to resemble Beirut. Did you know that half-wit Rio Ferdinand has x million followers? I rest my case…

    • John Border

      ‘I rest my case…’ sez bonkers. Thank God.

      I know nothing about Ferdinand and dont care – but how do you know he’s a halfwit?
      If you cant say, then you’re the halfwit.

      • Cornelius Bonkers

        Yo JB,
        Well, how’s this. Have you heard RF’s learn-ed discourses to camera? Do you know nothing of his drug issues and his amazingly incompetent excuses? Oh, and how about his tweets and his shortcomings as a role model? Now, I don’t get all that “role model” stuff myself; but RF had made plenty of the need for setting a good example to the yoof. So, mmm! I’d make so bold as to say that his wits might be less than fully baked.. unlike those of Abbot which although twisted and stunningly stupid are nonetheless rational in the sense that they are of a piece with her deeply held prejudices.
        Best regards

    • John Border

      A flatulent bag of wind.

      • Cornelius Bonkers

        I rest my case

        • John Border

          Thank god! No more windbaggery from a self confessed bonkers buffoon.

          • Cornelius Bonkers

            Yes, I agree, and in your windbaggery you have much in common with Ms Abbot. Signing off now…

            • John Border

              Off for a bit of todger tampering? It’s harmless so get stuck in! Just don’t stick out your tongue during your repetitive action!!

              It’s bonkers innit!?

              Bless

              • Cornelius Bonkers

                I fear I’m a bit too old for any repetition.
                Bless too!

                • John Border

                  Dont give up trying. Picasso was up for it at 80.

                • Cornelius Bonkers

                  the best advice

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/namaskar Swanky

                  May be, but it didn’t change the fact that he was an egomaniacal sexist Communist. (The last is worst, though I don’t like the other faults, either.)

  • Bonkim

    Much ado about a common criminal – no loss to society.

    • John Border

      And you might be next for a killing – but as you say, it’s no loss. Your family wont complain if you’re shot down, unarmed. Sh*t happens eh? Nor will I feel sad.

      • Bonkim

        Banquo’s Ghost riding on a headless horse eh John Border? I am prepared to accept that you are a half-wit Troll not to be taken seriously,

        My worry is the six children this criminal has brought to earth all dependent on my tax-money. Not sure if his tribe has ever earned their keep.

  • John Border

    Not a single word of this article disproves Abbot’s case. Nothing. But then you write for the Sun dont you?

    • pedestrianblogger

      “Not a single word of this article disproves Abbot’s case”. What case? Abbot says that she is “baffled” by the jury’s decision. I don’t doubt that she is. Unlike the jury, she didn’t hear the evidence and, unlike the judge (who would have directed the jury on the Law), she has no legal training. I am sure that she is baffled by all sorts of things but, credit where credit is due, she has a very good nose for a bit of race-baiting. Al Sharpton would be proud.

      • John Border

        Your post is the same as the article. It does not show why Abbott is an idiot.

        She says she is baffled because the bloke was unarmed so how could they reach the decision they did. Quite reasonable – any normal person would feel the same.You dont need legal training for that, nor be present. You werent present but formed a view as she did..

        That aside, your post and the article still do not show why Abbott is an ‘idiot’.

        If you base that on not being in court for three months listening, then you too are an idiot by the same token for neither were you.

        • pedestrianblogger

          Oh dear. I will try to explain again leaving out as many long words as possible. I did not form a view. I was neither baffled nor not baffled by the verdict because I was not privy to all the evidence and was not directed on the Law by the judge. She did form a view. If Abbott thinks that trial by jury is a waste of time and that the uninformed opinions of “normal” and “reasonable” people such as you and she should be the means by which cases are decided, then she is indeed an idiot and a dangerous one too.

          • John Border

            You didnt form a view?

            ‘she has a very good nose for a bit of race-baiting.’ You liar; that’s a view.

            ‘If Abbott thinks that trial by jury is a waste of time’…is that what she said? Of course you’re lying again and I easily found you out.

            There’s more but you are so dishonest and , dare I say,thick, then I wont bother.

            The bloke, however unpleasant, was unarmed. Would you like such an execution for your family? Get out of it, you fake.

            • pedestrianblogger

              Oh God. I simply don’t have the vocabulary to explain this to you in terms that you would understand. I can only assume that you are about twelve and (how to put this without giving offence?) otnay ootay rightbay. Cheerio.

  • John Border

    ‘Well, Diane, your bafflement is because you weren’t inside the court room for three months listening to the evidence, were you, you idiot? Does she think her tweet was helpful? Why does she not devote herself to tackling gun crime within the young black male community – or does she think that it is not a problem, a disproportionate problem, and that the reason we hear about it so often is because we’re all racists? She’s tweeted some daft and mischief making stuff in her time, but this one, I think, is the worst of the lot.’

    In this bilge, there’s not a single word to refute what Abbot said. Nothing.

  • Colonel Mustard

    I felt contempt for the mouthpieces on the QT panel when they all referred to him as “Mark”, as though he was an old family friend. But their pious sanctimony about his death, obediently walking the mawkish line along the piles of flowers and teddy bears lest they “offend”, was vomit inducing. You could almost see the cogs whirling.

    • John Border

      Your post is indeed, “vomit inducing”.Liddle has not a scrap of comment to disprove Abbot’s claim. Neither have yuou.

    • Simon M

      It’s fear I tell you, look up who mark duggan’s uncle is, the family will always be the same for generations to come.

  • David Webb

    Yes, but carefully nursing a unjustified sense of grievance in the black “community” has been a goldmine for Diane Abbott. Her salary, expenses and pension have all benefited from it – and the icing on the cake is that she has the money to send her son to a private school, away from all that nasty multiculturalism, which she claims to support, but opts out of when it comes to her son. Nice, eh? She’s actually laughing at the blacks of Hackney and Haringey, but they don’t realise it.

  • Beth Dawson

    Hasn’t immigration been a wonderful thing! We’ve gained the grasping hypocrite Diane Abbott, black gun crime, Romanian pickpockets, Asian gangs raping young white girls and Islamic terrorists etc. etc. And as we see our institutions such as the traditional hub of our communities, the pub, close because immigrants don’t use them we won’t worry because we can always buy a bagel or a currie!

  • Ronnie Palmer

    Who is the Mod for this thread, is it you Rod?

  • K BB

    There’s a lot of idiots in this country and they deserve some representation. (It was an old Labour MP who said that – don’t remember who though).

  • BoiledCabbage

    She is obviously going for the Al Sharpton Racial Incitement Prize [see Sharptons’ inflammatory attempt in the Guardian]. The dumber the speech, the more attention you get, apparently.

    Frankly, the Police could do a bit more shooting and it would improve London hugely.

    • Eddie

      Indeed, and if Abbott’s face were to be an exact expression of her inner beliefs it would not be black at all – it would be painted white, with a huge red nose, big round eyes and a bright red afro wig, for Diane Abbott is truly the number one ethno-clown in the country.

  • Eddie

    Abbott is a proven racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25Wfvw1uzM

  • General_Patten

    Diane Abbott – racist.

    • Eddie

      I don’t want to give you nightmares, but take a peek at this monstrosity:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKRi6VyEv-k

      • Tim Reed

        Good God! Child abuse!

        • Eddie

          Yes, it is a wee bit ‘North Korea re-education camp’, isn’t it?
          Note how the teacher grills ONLY the white kids in the class (5 in a small minority) when talking about gun crime, thereby taking teacher idiocy to, well, the same stifling pc multi-culti madness level it’s been at for quite some time. His leading questions are classics of indoctrination.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    Those members of the jury are ordinary people. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a famous M.P., or anyone else to criticise what the jury found.

    Anyway, the head of the Met. has said something about the armed police being kitted out with video cameras in future – or so I’ve read somewhere.. I suppose this would prevent the need for a jury should anything like Mark Duggans killing happen again.

  • Daniel Maris

    There’s a change in mood. Diane Abbott is now officially irrelevant.

    It’s time for commentators like you Rod to start mapping out what we need to do to take us to a better place.

  • starfish

    Is it just me or are there a lot of ‘police murderer trolls’ around tonight?

  • Mike

    The irony of all the sycophants of police summary execution of wrong doers and innocents is they’ll be the first to complain and whine if the boot was on the other foot.

    Lets say they tackled an intruder in their homes, attacked or even killed them and the police were called. They’d end up in the local nick and kept there for several days or more whilst plod, ‘plod’ away deciding what to do about it. They won’t be left at home to get over their ordeal and they certainly wont be given time with their family to get their story straight as they’ll be separated.

    If they were subject to this sort of treatment they might have a completely different perspective of the police sitting in a cell whilst mulling over their defensive attack of some low life in their home !

  • arnoldo87

    “Well, Diane, your bafflement is because you weren’t inside the court room for three months listening to the evidence, were you, you idiot?”
    Yes indeed. Why would anyone contradict the conclusions of a body that had been listening to evidence for months?
    Maybe you can tell us, Rod, because this is exactly what you did when the Hutton enquiry came to its conclusions.

  • arthurenglish

    She should stick to her main job of ceiling inspector.

  • Two Bob

    If only she was as nice as that lady on stargazing live last night.

  • post_x_it

    Rod, can you find a picture of her that doesn’t cause visual tinnitus for a fortnight?

  • Ronnie Palmer

    Seems a fair question! The officer who fired the lethal shot(s), says that ‘subjectively’ he felt in imminent danger from the deceased, hence the judges direction that his shooting could be considered lawful. This would be fair, reasonable and easy to understand had the deceased being pointing a gun in the direction of V53 or any other officer. The forensic analysis suggests that the deceased was not holding a gun at the time he was shot! So it is reasonable to question the judgement reached by the Jury of a lawful killing. Well done Diane!!

    • IainRMuir

      “The forensic analysis suggests that the deceased was not holding a gun at the time he was shot!”

      So foolish of V53 not to wait for the result.

    • Mike

      Well put and a perfect example of how the legal system skewed the juries deliberations by a judges direction. No wonder many are unhappy with the jury decision despite it not being their (juries) fault. Its a brave jury that makes its own mind up and ignores interference by a judge and gives him/her the two finger salute.

    • Baron

      What would your take on the incident be if the V53 didn’t shoot Duggan, but Duggan shot him?

      • Ronnie Palmer

        My take couldn’t be that Duggan shot the officer, as that is not what happened. However, in truth the deceased put himself in this position and the self-fulfilling prophecy of the MPS that he was armed and extremely dangerous played out fully. I don’t believe that it was easy for the Police in anyway, acknowledging what they believed they would confront, however the defence of subjectivity (remember the case of the farmer who found an unarmed intruder in his house and shot him with a shotgun?), for the actions of the police marksman, creates a problem in law. Incidentally, tweeted by the MPS earlier today, http://content.met.police.uk/News/Firearm-officers-seize-handgun-in-Haringey/1400021882214/1257246745756, it can sometimes end so differently.

  • Eddie

    Having worked as a teacher, I can tell you the ‘politically correct’ theoretical basis to such codswallop. The thinking goes like this:
    We live in a racist society (and all whites are racist even if they don’t know it). Therefore, any wrong black people do (mugging, shooting, stabbing) is not their fault. Oh no, because it’s the fault of a racist society which has made them who they are…
    The feminists use a similar dodgy argument against men (who are to blame for al evil women do because women have had to live in a misogynistic society created by men. Hmmm….)
    In such a way so black people permanently enslave and infantilise themselves. Maybe they should read John Stuart Mill on Free Will? Or, even Harry Potter, for did not Dumbledore state that it’s the ‘choices we make, not our abilities, that make us who we are’ (borrowing heavily from Plato and Aristotle).
    Funny ain’t it too how Indian and Chinese persons manage to do so well despite all the masses and masses of awful racism out there? Anyone would think that racism was fabricated by those politicalorganisations wishing to exaggerate it with a view to claiming victimhood and claiming more public funding eh?

    • Ronnie Palmer

      Certainly agree with your point Eddie, there were choices and risks and the deceased has to bear responsibility for placing himself in this lethal position. However, this is not the same as saying that it is lawful for someone armed with a gun, to feel in imminent danger from someone who is not holding one.

      • Eddie

        The point is that the police gunman has to make a split second decision – before him is a known violent druggie gangsta who has just collected a gun. Whether he is actually holding a gun or not is not the issue – was he believed reasonably to be a threat holding a gun? Yes. That’s why he was shot.
        That gangsta Duggan is the victim of no-one but himself, Good riddance. I won’t waste my time feeling sorry for the scum of the earth; my sympathies are with the many who have to put up with such filth day in day out in our cities.
        Therefore, even if that suspect holds up a mobile phone, a finger, a mars bar to the marksman, that marksman is entitled to take him out. I do not believe Duggan held up his hands and lay on the floor; my guess is he made a shooting gesture to the ‘feds’ with his mobile phone and fingers.

        • Mike

          Nice one ! I believe someone was a threat to me so I killed him. I’m sure that will stand up well in court (NOT) unless I’m plod !

          • Baron

            You wrong here, Mike. Years ago, a villain killed a policeman hidden in his garden. Baron forgets the villain’s name, but he got away with it because he convinced the jury he thought he was in mortal danger. Somebody must remember the case.

            • Daniel Maris

              It was a notorious white gangster – Kevin Noyes – I think. He eventually got put inside for killing someone in a road rage attack after somehow eluding justice for the killing of the police officer. He was apprehended in Spain I believe.

              He was one of those where there were suspicions he was actually being protected by corrupt police officers.

              • Baron

                Thanks, Daniel, that was indeed the case.

            • Mike

              I do remember this one off case now you mention it as it was Noye from the Brinks Matt Robbery at Heathrow.

              One could argue he got away with killing a policeman hiding on his property but I suspect what really went through the minds of the CPS were do we nail him on charges of conspiracy to handle the Brink’s-MAT gold where they had him bang to rights or try a manslaughter charge. Also I suspect the manslaughter charge would have carried less years than the armed robbery and that was another reason for not pursuing it.

              They opted for the former and he got sentenced to 14 years in prison for the robbery. The authorities in many countries will opt for the different offence if its a slam sunk rather than risk a charge if its not be a certainty. Al Capone was the most famous case in this respect.

              What I’m saying is that the authorities got Noye one way or another.

            • Lungfish

              Yes- Kenneth Noye was his name, he went on to stab Stephen Cameron to death in a road rage incident.

              • Baron

                Lupus, my friend, how have you been , long time, no hear. Things all right with you?

        • Ronnie Palmer

          The issue is not about a violent druggie gansta(sic), it is about his lawful killing! Your poor grammar is helpful though, as it gives great insight into you. Subjectivity traditionally has no place in law, however if this ruling now changes the common-law, then we can all feel free to apply subjectivity to an imminent threat defence, to and including the vitriolic garbage that pours from your two-fingers!

          • Daniel Maris

            No, the point is about what the police should do. Should they have let him proceed with his journey, carrying the gun – a significant event in the life of a chief gangsta? Or should they stop the car and intercept him given their knowledge. Clearly it had to be the latter. And as he was clearly unco-operative the tragic event ensued. Completely his fault as the jury decided.

            Society can’t afford to tolerate gun thuggery.

            • Ronnie Palmer

              The discussion is not about what the Police should do, it is about the law. I agree that the duty of care that the Police provide is to protect the Public and that the individual concerned reduced the options that the Police could provide under this duty and ultimately he holds that responsibility to himself. In saying that, where a clear and credible threat gives way to a subjective feeling of imminent danger, then protective provisions to us all are seriously compromised. And that is the real danger. Above this response somewhere is a link posted from a MPS Tweet earlier, where they apprehended individuals who had weapons in their van, in Hackney (I think). No doubt a similar hard stop played out, but with a differing outcome. As a black man I am in favour of the dispropotionate black crime, faced by fellow members of the black community, be addressed with imputiny by the Police, but sight of what should constitute as definitions of legality should not be lost. I recognise that it was not an easy call for the Police, but questions should be raised where actions by the Police do not appear proportionate. The initial task briefing to the CO19 team by the commnading officer, made this point clear, in that ‘a firearm should only be fired as a last resort, other methods must have been tried and failed..’ See bottom of Page 8 http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD000274_-_CD000282(1).pdf

              • Baron

                OK, Ronnie, point taken.

                A question for you then. Would you have raised the same points, as vigorously as you’re doing here, if the dead one was white? And be honest, it’s only a blog.

                Baron agrees with Mike here, race isn’t the issue for him, it seems to be for others.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Baron, the ‘elephant’ in the room as I raised earlier is that Duggan is half-white! So in putting that forward we can remove race from the discussion and focus on the actions of the individual and the Police. I raise the point vigoroulsy because I believe Diane Abbot actually raised a sensible point. The Judges direction to the Jury, removed objectivity in evidence from their decision making and blurs teh lines of what is legtimate and what is lawful.

                • Daniel Maris

                  I don’t think anyone disagrees the reality is Duggan was mixed race. But, given the nature of the way race is treated in our society, he will have been treated as “black” by police and most “white” people, and he probably (I don’t know but I suspect it’s likely) self-identified as black.

                  Just to make it clear – I don’t identify black people with gangsterism. I read somewhere Duggan was sent up to Manchester when a youngster to avoid trouble on his local patch. He was basically put among one of Manchester’s notorious white Irish gangs.

                  I always find it funny here how the racists here hate it if you point up the long record of white Irish gangsterism. 🙂

                  I oppose gangsterism and gun thuggery. I am afraid we have to be robust in how we deal with it.

                • VitaBrevis1

                  There is also a long record of Jewish gangsterism,

                  Few people mention it though. Hollywood films are about Italian Catholic Mafia, not the Jewish Murder Inc. and similar.

                  Funny, that.

                • Jules Curtis Akers

                  “Once Upon A Time In America”. Sergio Leon, Robert DeNiro.

                • Baron

                  The skin colour doesn’t slice it here, Ronnie, the guy may have been half white, but the culture he embraced was that which people associate with the criminal underbelly of the black community.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Agreed! This is not a skin colour or a racial issue. My initial post was in line with Diane Abbott’s twwet that questioned the decision of the Jury in terms of law. The racial issue arises here because posters and supporters of the Spectator’s blog, believe that it is a black issue. Crimminality is an individual responsibility and should not be hid behind the collective noun of race. For those that think the opposite, I choose to remind them that in this particular case, such responsibility if it exists belongs right down the middle of the black/white racial line.

                • VitaBrevis1

                  It is blindingly obvious to an unbiased observer that Diane Abbott thinks it is a racial issue.

                  The basic proposition a la OJ Simpson is as always that if you are black , you are innocent.

                  QED

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Certainly, your unbiased observations shine through. You asked her just so you can state the blindingly obvious? Yes very quod erat demonstrandum, or more liklely very double first in ‘convenience-history’ from University of breeze block!!

                • VitaBrevis1

                  MA from Heythrop, actually

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Euphemism there for some form of intelligence I guess!

                • Eddie

                  Funny really – if Dugan had been half-elephant he would at least have been able to join the circus and do something useful with his life, instead of being a vile and disgusting criminal scumbag whose death has no doubt cheered up many a hard-working honest Londoner.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Sure many will agree with some of your sentiments there. However, had he been half-elephant, he may not have been able to fit in the back of a taxi and so prevent me from having to respond to your twattery.

              • Daniel Maris

                Well the law says there was no unlawful killing, so why are you trying to second guess the jury who heard all the evidence? Police officers are also human beings. You can’t expect perfect judgements when they feel their lives are under threat. Are you claiming you could deliver a perfect judgement every time you engaged in apprehending a violent gun carrying criminal? Please…

                Regarding race, I have every sympathy with black kids feeling p’d off about being targetted for stop and search – the figures show they are no more likely to be carrying a weapon than a white kid (far fewer of whom are stopped). I do know that many Police officers are racist. That is, sadly, a fact as undercover filming has shown before now and my personal experience backs that up. Some of them are incredibly racist.

                For me that is an entirely separate issue – I would much prefer to see proper policing (foot and bike patrols) and far fewer stop and search events.

                Anyone stopped and searched is going to feel aggrieved if they have done nothing wrong – and I think it’s something like 90% have not done anything wrong.

                • Eddie

                  You have to be careful of stats.
                  Most people stopped and searched are in cities (not many muggers walking over the hills at Stonehenge these days). Our cities are very ethnic – London is 40%, I think. Some of the worst areas are 50% black. THAT is why the rate is so high. Because people get stopped and searched in cities and most blacks like in cities.
                  The funny thing is – if the police stop and search and thus address gun/knife crime and drug dealing, the local blacks complain and cry racism; if the police have a hands-off approach (which I have observed in Brixton where black kids can do things with impunity that would get them arrested in white areas) then, guess what? The black locals complain of racism yet again – because the police aren’t policing their areas as much as white areas!
                  The solution? I have no idea. Bombing certain areas of London perhaps? Starting again…

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Let’s be careful of stats, but let’s rely on yours! Are the 50% black areas, the areas where most of the racist bullying in London schools, is occasioned on whites? You illiterate twerp!

                • Eddie

                  Your English does not make sense. Are you Somali? Careful of all that bleach and weedkiller now…

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Well you are clinically thick, so I would expect you to have a problem with basic comprehension! As we say in the field that I work in, those who can’t……teach!!

                • Eddie

                  Do you grow dope in the field that you work in?

                  Here is an example of your strained incomprehensible English. I can see what you are trying to say, but would advise you to contact a private tutor for extra lessons so you can write basic English.

                  ‘Are the 50% black areas, the areas where most of the racist bullying in London schools, is occasioned on whites?’


                  EH? DOH!

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Surely your able to read your own post?? You tw@t!!

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  How good is the law if it cannot be questionned? I make no claim, just questionning the validity of an imminent threat as produced in defence of this ‘lawful’ killing.

              • Eddie

                As a black man, your grammar is atrocious – is it some kind of special black English they teach in schools these days?
                Let’s remember too that most racist bullying in London schools these days is against whites by blacks.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Most racist bullying in London schools is by blacks on whites, really? Pray do tell! Duggan was a black man, really? Guess his white Mother has had no impact on his racial background, a major miracle of sorts.

                • Eddie

                  Well, all black organisations call him black and claim him as black – as they do for Bob Marley, another half-n-halfie (though interestingly the racism Bob faced from blacks as a half-caste is why he felt the pain of racism so badly – he was never picked on by white racists).

                  So Barak Obama is white now then? Does he know?

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Oh Dear Oh Dear!! Nice try!! Perhaps you should play a few of his CD’s and actually listen to where the content of his lyracism is aimed! Suggest you start with ‘War’!

                • Eddie

                  But you seem to think Duggan, Bob Marley and Barak Obama are not black.
                  Yes, Marley aimed his lyrics at whites BUT it was BLACKS who caused him pain with their bullying of him because he was half-caste. FACTS, dear boy. FACTS.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Where are these bullying facts that you have, at the bottom of your next pint?

                • Eddie
                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Blacks bully Bob Marley because he was half-caste saystopconservativenews.com and dailymail.co.uk? Think I’ll give them a miss, but I am weeping, my sides are splitting!

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Blacks bully Bob Marley because he was half-caste says topconservativenews.com and dailymail.co.uk? Think I’ll give them a miss, but I am weeping, my sides are splitting!

          • Eddie

            You seem confused. Are you on drugs?

            • Ronnie Palmer

              You should have included the ‘innit’, in your pseudo grammatical analysis as well too!

              • Eddie

                You say ‘Subjectivity traditionally has no place in law’
                We are not talking about law but law enforcement – specifically dealing with violent gun-wielding gangstas by armed police. ALL police have to behave subjectively – assess each situation, arrest or not arrest; that can change over time, but the police do have the right and power to make subjective assessments.
                Judges too are free to use discretion – that is why we have one law against murder and not degrees of it as in the USA – the judge will assess it on a case by case basis and sentence accordingly. The judge – with massively more knowledge of law than you – directed the jury to return a verdict of lawful killing. Do you think the judge was wrong or racist?
                Always excuses with the ethno-obsessives innit?
                Who was to blame for Marc Duggan’s death? Answer: Mark Duggan. End of.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Judges are there to uphold the principal and rule of the law and not to produce absurd outcomes (Golden Rule). Marc Duggan is responsible for the effect his actions/lifestyle had in bringing him on a collision path with the Police. the Police are responsible for ending his life when they belived they wer imminent danger from the gloves that he had on his hand. None of the above has anything to do with black, white or the racist diatribe the majority of your posts are inflicted with. How fortunate it is for you, that the Spectator blog offers you a platform to vent your fatuous spleen with impunity and anonymity!

                • Eddie

                  Absurd outcomes? Well, I think you’ll find that anyone with a legal education – all lawyers and judges – will agree with the lawful killing verdict. Why? Because that is why the evidence supports. EVIDENCE. That is what the judge saw.

                  The police ended his life for a reason – and a good reason. He may have shot an innocent member of the public if not taken out. The police were 100% right in this case.

                  Racist haters like you wanted an unlawful killing verdict IRRESPECTIVE of the facts, because you wanted another martyr and to wallow in your victimhood making the usual excuses for black failure (racism, racism, racism blah blah blah). So predictable. Tell me – on what occasions would you NOT support a black man shot by police? What about a black man with a Kalashnikov who’d killed 5 children? Would the police be allowed to take him out – or would you decide in advance that that was a racist and unlawful killing?

                  Your veiled threat in your last sentence is typical of black people. Tell me, are you innately violent or did you learn that from your anti-social police-hating parents?

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Your sort of beyond stupid aren’t you? Lets talk about some of your white brothers, who between three of them managed to slaughter 50 men, women and children and seriously injure about 20 others. Some sort of white love affair, or just a dislike of going to work on Mondays? Do you have parents or did you result from anonymous sperm donation?

                • Eddie

                  Sorry, I have no brothers. You must be thinking of The Walker Brothers.
                  Your garbled posts suggest you’ve been gargling with eeejit ejaculate laced with thicko juice. It’s a vibrant and diverse alternative to tea, apparently, and very popular amongt ethno-clowns like you.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Sounds like drinking it is your favourite past time! Nothing like knowing is there?

                • Eddie

                  No you’re thinking of Muslim young men there, knocking back the pints as they groom white slaags.
                  If I were black, I’d be on drugs of course.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Nothing veiled about the last sentence at all. The Spectator should reveal who you are, rather than use your anonymity to expunge and proselytse its’ own view on race. Pity the blog admin is not as quick to censure the offensive views in your posts. Perhaps they do want to put some of this on their front page.

                • Eddie

                  You are the dumb racist, matey. Your attitude changes according to whether someone shot by police is white or black.

                  I have had experience teaching black teenagers. I know how violent and aggressive the culture can be. The black community should look at itself instead of blaming others for the bad behaviour of its young.

                  I know how veiled threats are made (usually threats that a student will report a teacher for racism unless the student gets higher marks. – 99% of teachers comply). You are just same old same old sonny. Now run along.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  If mass-ineducation is the norm for black teenage males, let’s say 0.5 of a single GCSE like you being a case in point, then such threats never worked too well with you did they, or are you part of the 99%ile?

        • Baron

          Eddie, you are doing a good job, Baron backs you fully.

          • Fergus Pickering

            And Pickering too.

        • Daniel Maris

          Edde is right. If he is doing anything other than “freezing” when told to, he has to accept the result. That’s the way it is when you carry a gun.

          • dodgy

            …If he is doing anything other than “freezing” when told to, he has to accept the result. That’s the way it is when you carry a gun…

            What should you do if you’re carrying a coffee-table leg and haven’t got the slightest idea why someone behind you is screaming ‘Armed Police!”?

            • Eddie

              Yeah, like, we all regularly walk down the street carrying a coffee table leg… Oh wait, I have to finish posting – I hear they have an offer on coffee table legs at Sainsbury’s. Must dash. Toodle pip.

              • dodgy

                Good luck. Just remember, if you buy anything long and thin, like French bread, or some tinfoil, or spaghetti, and you hear a shout from behind you, lie flat.

                You’ll probably be shot anyway, but if you lie flat with your face on the ground, there’s a chance that all the bullets will be in your back, and your body will look so much nicer in the funeral parlour…

                Oh, and don’t buy any batteries….

                • Eddie

                  Are you on drugs?
                  We don’t have funeral parlours in the UK. They do in the US where the cops are perfectly happy to shoot first and ask questions later.
                  The British police are SO hands-off by comparison (to US police, and European police too).

                • Dodgy Geezer

                  Are you on drugs?

                  Why, yes, if you’re offering. Mine’s a small sherry.

                  The British police are indeed ‘more hands-off’ (read lazier) than most other police forces. Which is good, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t alter the fact that they have been killing totally innocent people – even if they can’t be assed to do it very often…

                • Eddie

                  Yes, but not on this occasion, Marc Duggan was not innocent. Violent black criminals are not innocent. either – if they behaved themselves, they wouldn’t need to be restrained, would they?
                  I am no mega friend of the police – they are oafish, rude, inefficient, waste public money, are overpaid, lazy, fat and hopeless – try getting a plod when you need one! But say a racial word or post a rude word on Twitter or in an email/text and they send 3 vans to drag you and your laptop from your home! BUT on this occasion they were 100% right and Marc Duggan got justice.
                  By the way, I would never carry ‘French bread’. That is because I am not common and vulgar. I would only ever carry a ‘baguette’ (that’s French, y’know)..

    • Mike

      Race isn’t the issue here, its all to do with a police force that’s out of control and unaccountable. Duggan just happened to be black but before him we saw a Brazilian slaughtered by plod, a middle aged newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson dying as a result of police brutality and a whole range of similar actions where people died. It has f*** all to do with race

      • Ronnie Palmer

        The Police may have seen Duggan as a black man, but he is as much white as he is black.

        • Mike

          That quite possible but I don’t think his death was related to colour but more to do with the complete incompetence of the MET. The court case was I believe a farce given the contradictory evidence given by the police and the cherry picked directions of the Judge.

          The problem I have is most posts are trying to justify this f*** up on the basis he deserved to die anyway. Whilst not disputing he probably got what he deserved, there’s been too many other killings by the police with varying degrees of lame excuses why they committed manslaughter and not one charge being brought for manslaughter.

          Lets not beat about the bush, most people class manslaughter as causing the death of another through reckless endangerment which can include include car accidents, sub-standard building collapse, train crashes and would certainly include the death by plod we’ve seen over recent years. This is not just shooting cases but even includes their own boy racers mowing some pedestrian down whilst testing their new pen** extension.

          However, uniquely the police have their get out of jail card with the defense of lawful killing which others such as home owners protecting their property are usually denied. This is the real issue not colour, race but unequal treatment before the law. Most people here, refuse to engage in this discussion.

          police where justice has not been seen to be done when manslaughter occurred from the police.

          • Ronnie Palmer

            I am with you on the unequal treatment in an historical context and what appears here as a gross miscarriage of justice. But we also need to be honest and acknowledge that the transferred gun was not going to be used to light his BBQ and was more than likley intended to create more misery in the black community! The Police had a job to do and they needed to demonstrate that they did it well and within the law. This for me is the failing here.

            • Mike

              I totally agree.

              The police are in a unique position of power but they are also trained & equipped to carry out these dangerous tasks unlike a home owner. In this respect, I expect a professional approach to their actions and not what we saw here or at the Menezes slaughter.

              • Eddie

                The Menezes case was an understandable and tragic mistake – and you DO have to grow up and understand that sometimes errors happen.

                Anyone who understands what ‘ a professional approach’ means would understand that. These marksmen have to make decisions in seconds; if they failed to take out a suicide bomber because of dilly-dallying (what you seem to think constitutes professionalism) then very many could die.

                He had wires coming out of his pocket, the fool, in the weeks after a suicide bomber attack. And of course he shouldn’t have been in London in the first place, like most immigrants.

                • Mike

                  Go to the top of the class ! I was waiting for some sick b****** like you to justify his slaughter just because he had overstayed his visa.

                  As for dilly-dallying when identifying a possible threat, if the security services had acted on information that had received about certain mosques training wannabee jihadists they might have prevented 7-7. Likewise, with the second attempt we were saved by the incompetence of the suicide bomber (NOT the security boys) and the Edinburgh airport fire bomb attempt was prevented by a combination of bomber incompetence and the general public.

                  Do you get the picture, plod and the security boys are as much part of the problem as they might be a solution.

                  When it comes to terrorism, they have been lamentable in taking down clear and present dangers as was plod with the Lee Rigby killers !

                • Eddie

                  Well, I state an opinion and you fling abuse. Are you a Labour party member perchance?
                  I am explaining to you (a rather dim bigoted fantasist who does not understand at all how counter-terrorism works) that his shooting was understandable yet regrettable. I certainly do not blame the police for that.
                  And the fact remains: immigrants like him and Damilola Taylor and others should NOT have been in the UK in the first place – they are here because idiots like you and our incompetent governments are too lax to do their job and send em back!
                  Finally, it is lefties like you who support misplaced multiculturalism who have blood on their hands for supporting divisive and segregationist multiculturalism and the tolerance of Islamic extremism. I know the university Lee Rigby’s killers went to; I know how the leftie academics there tolerate Islamic extremism and preaching – all in the name of diversity. I have seen plodding dimbos like you justifying Islamic murders before even as you diss the police for arresting terrorists. You are nothing new or specil – just a boring old git with infantile uneducated opinions.

                • Mike

                  Implying its OK for getting killed just because you over stayed your visa would be a sick comment to make by normal person but judging by your successive posts, you’ve definitely got some mental issues.

                  However, as you’re so opinionated in how counter terrorism works, perhaps you can explain the f*** ups our security services have made despite having plenty of forewarning. I call it as I see it and the latest escapade by the spooks who let loose one or more nutters they groomed who then went off to murder Lee Rigby is beyond the pale. Come on now, lets have some honesty and spell out just how many terrorists acts they have stopped compared to those they didn’t ! Ooops, I forgot, we’ll never know that as its secret and we aren’t allowed to know. What a load of convenient bull s*** !

                  As for my being a leftie, you obviously haven’t read my posts on immigration here and in other papers as bleeding heart liberal I’m not. Your vacuous rants accusing me of all people of justifying Islamic terrorism are laughable and just demonstrate that you’ve lost the plot over debating accountability in regards to manslaughter.

                  If I had my way I’d kick out everyone who preached hate crimes and for those we can’t, I’d incarcerate them all starting with Anjem Chowdary. You picked the wrong person in me to accuse of being some wet liberal supporting extremist Islam as I’m completely the opposite.

                  The more I read your rants the more I think you might be on some of Duggans drugs as you’re not making any sense. I’m not dissing the police or anyone for arresting terrorists and all I’m saying is that they should be accountable for manslaughter the same as the rest of us. If your pea brain can’t grasp that simple concept, I suggest you get counseling to get your head straightened out !

                • Eddie

                  Listen, Mike the thicko.
                  I make a valid point. These people would not have been killed if they had not been allowed into the UK – so if we had a strict immigration policy, we would have saved their lives, innit?
                  Your tacit support for criminal scumbag gangstas and Islamofacists is clear. Your are the enemy within – or would be if you were in the least bit competent.
                  If you had half a brain you would be dangerous.
                  Nothing to worry about there then.

                • Mike

                  A valid point, really ? So we’re to blame Menezes because he was slaughtered by plod and because we didn’t kick him out when he was supposed to have left the country. You really have a strange convoluted thought process. That’s a bit like blaming the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed at Hiroshima & Nagasaki for living there when the USA dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on them.

                  I totally agree that we should have a much stricter immigration policy and I’d add slash benefits for those scroungers who can’t be bothered to work (are you one of them) but to extrapolate that blame lies on Menezes for getting plod to kill him is ridiculous.

                  However, you really are deluded in believing I support criminal scumbag gangstas and Islamofacists as nothing could be further from the truth.

                  If you could be bothered to read my posts elsewhere on the subject of terrorism & crime in the Indy where I’m up against the very people you claim me to be or the Guardian where I’ve been banned, you might want to retract your false allegation. I don’t expect you will be bothered as you lack the nous to connect with what I’m trying to put across, namely equal accountability and nothing more.

                • FrenchNewsonlin

                  J-C Menezes was followed by police from his home onto a bus and some distance across London before they shot him on the tube! Plenty of time to stop and search. So not quite the way you describe it Eddie.

                • Eddie

                  You don’t stop and search someone who might have a suicide vest on, dumbo. You take them out before they press the button. This shooting was immediately after the bombing of London by homegrown Muslim suicide bombers and it is THEY (and those misguided pc plonkers who have appeased, tolerate and encouraged them) who are to blame for Menezes’ death.

                • FrenchNewsonlin

                  … and of course electrician JCM was the spitting image of a homegrown Muslim suicide bomber wasn’t he. The police under Labour commissioner Blair got it very wrong and there is no defence, however hard you try ‘Dumbo’ (to return your own term of endearment).

                • Eddie

                  As I stated, they made a mistake – as will happen in such highly-stressed situations. No-one is denying that, dumbo.
                  Actually, many Muslims are rather pale skinned, so this Brazilian guy and some Hispanics can resemble them.
                  He COULD have been a suicide bomber. Would you prefer the police to do nothing if they suspect someone?

                  Moral of the story: don’t walk around London with wires coming out of your pockets or rucksack! He has to share the blame really – but like so many immigrants in London, he probab ly watched satellite TV and didn’t speak English so was totally unaware he was living in a city that was essentially a warzone.

                  His fault for living under a tub. When in Rome…

                  And anyway, his family got a big house out of it, which is more than they would have got if he’d been shot in Brazil by drug dealers.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Police also described Mr Menezes attire that day to include a heavy overcoat perfectly unsuitable for the very warm summer ambient at that time. This turned out to be totally false, so chances of him having ‘wires coming out of his pocket’, should be viewed with similar contempt.

              • Colonel Mustard

                No-one can be ‘trained’ to face the trauma of a close range gun battle, only the techniques to be employed in one. And even then the unexpected can be – er – unexpected. Armed police officers are usually not seasoned gun battle veterans precisely because these events are still, thank goodness, relatively rare. The only judgement one can level at them is whether when faced with the split second decisions necessary they acted in good faith, error or no error.

                • Mike

                  Surely you’d have to agree that plod tooled up like ‘robocop’, in three separate cars, with firearms training are far better equipped to handle the situation they were in when compared with a vulnerable untrained home owner woken up from their sleep and without any immediate means of protection.

                  Not only that, wasn’t this an inquest hearing albeit a long one as opposed to a real trial that Tony Martin and other home owners were subjected to !

        • Fergus Pickering

          Touch of the tarbrush, what!

      • Colonel Mustard

        All three cases quite different. You are conflating the behaviour of individual officers in different circumstances with the police as a governable entity. You would need to do a lot more work researching all the many incidents where police prevent serious crime with no deaths or brutality occurring to correlate any conclusion of the police being “out of control”. You haven’t so don’t.

    • Jethro

      Spot on sir.

      • Eddie

        Ta very much!
        There are some successful, educated black people who despise the race relations industry and its ‘political correctness’ and victimhood-craving pity party – but their voice is not heard, and they get racially abused as ‘coconuts’ (UK) or Uncle Tomes (in the USA) if they speak up against the loud, bullying race industry.
        Self-sufficiency, hard work, a belief in education – this is what black people in the UK need. In fact, we all need it. We have free will, We have choices.

        • Jethro

          I’m only 19 but realised this a long time ago, people should face facts instead of blaming everyone else for their wrongdoings. I like how you call it a ‘pity party’, reminds me of this quote by Booker T Washington on black victimhood:
          “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
          I wish there were some black spokespeople like him around today instead of the likes of Diane Abbott.

    • VitaBrevis1

      It’s pure cultural Marxism.

  • Eddie

    Abbott and others are just plain thick.
    If a suspect is believed to be a threat – i.e. to be carrying a gun, even if they are not – then it is a lawful killing to shoot them TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. In the US and most countries there would not even be a debate – you hold up a mobile phone in the manner of a gun and you get shot. Your fault, esp if you are a known gun-wielding gangsta.

    Loons like Abbott have NO sympathy for the general public who have to suffer scum like Duggan day in day out, mugging, stabbing, shooting and making what used to be respectable working class areas of London look like the worst slums of Kingston or Lagos.

    Did This twerp ever express sympathy for those killed in the riots – which all started because of a protest by blacks against the lawful killing of the scumbag Duggan?
    What Abbott and the other victimhood-craving race-obsessed ethno-clowns should be through their thick swarthy heads is that a huge number of black people are criminals – in fact a disproportionate number – and that is the reason so many are arrested, not WAY-CISM.
    The black ‘community’ should look within – that is where the problem lies – and stop making excuses and blaming white people in what is a disgustingly racist manner. Fortunately some black people have the intelligence and guts to admit this now – but Abbott and her ilk will always blame whites for any bad thing that happens to black people even if they caused it themselves – like Duggan.

    • Ronnie Palmer

      Your first sentence is incorrect. May help you if you read the evidence from the inquest which is on line. Not sure how you really calculated your statistical analysis, but I’m sure the ‘huge amount of black people are criminals’, the ‘disproportionate number’, is any different to the race you serve.

      • Eddie

        My first sentence is my opinion: that Abbott and all others who are prepared to leap to the defence of a known violent criminal and portray him as some angelic ‘victim’ are as thick as thick can be.
        I believe half of all muggers are black. Apparently, 4% of the population is black. Most gun crime is gang-related and blacks are responsible.
        Ethnic minorities are 16% of the UK population; blacks are a quarter of that number. The Indian and Chinese minorities don’t seem to react to any racism they experience by becoming muggers and gang members – hence the fact their numbers in prison are small. Young black men however are a real problem and the percentage of those committing crime in our society is way greater than the 4% blacks in our population.
        Are you thick or can you grasp the basic premise here? Just compare the percentage of blacks in the general population with the percentage of blacks in prison, and you’ll find that a lot of brothers is being very naughty criminal scum, innit?

        • Mike

          You have it so wrong. We are not leaping to the defence of someone like Duggan, we are questioning police actions that have resulted in the deaths of a variety of people over the past decade.

          Quite obviously you are unable to understand that simple distinction and would rather play internet vigilante !

          • Daniel Maris

            So you heard more evidence than the jury? When was that?

            • Mike

              There’s little need to hear any evidence when the procedures in place for death by plod are totally different from death by home owner protecting his family.

              That said, from whats been reported, plod couldn’t state one way or another whether Duggan had a gun in his hand, a sock or even Monty Pythons ‘banana’ given the disjointed evidence we’ve heard from them. The MET’s finest seemed to have developed amnesia over what really happened despite their collusion in writing up their reports. Only an imbecile could make sense from their statements and it took a judge to ‘direct’ the jury to the required conclusion.

              • Michele Keighley

                “There’s little need to hear any evidence” – you fell flat on your face right there.

                • Mike

                  Quite the contrary as when procedures are flawed then the evidence is irrelevant and dismissed out of court. You seem oblivious to the denial of evidence in a court when its not pertinent or obtained through torture.

                  In a courtroom, you can’t bring up previous offenses or character for example but the vigilantes here have done exactly that over Duggan and a few years ago, some even tried to smear Menezes when he was slaughtered by plod .

                • Eddie

                  Indeed. Mikey has reached his conclusion – ‘the police are racist and the killing of Duggan was unlawful’ – and is desperately clawing around trying to find evidence to back his bias.
                  People like that remind me of Muslims or Creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old and then desperately concoct ‘evidence’ to prove that fantasy – instead of looking at the vast fossil record and evidence that shows their beliefs to be utter piffle.
                  I think it a shame that many lefties and race relations profiteers are spending so much effort and time worrying about a scumbag like Duggan instead or ordinary decent folk who are the ones who suffer because of criminals, gangstas, and street crime. The reason for their obsession? Vanity.

                • John Border

                  You’re so right. Vanity is a crime so lets gun them down. How dare they be vain! Twot.

                • Eddie

                  You are clearly remedial in your reading. I accuses those twots like you who constantly defend scum like Duggan because he was black of vanity, not the gangstas themselves – tho they are thick poseurs trying to live out a rap record (like I pretended to be a spy aged 10 and played cowboys and Indians aged 7 – but then, what is the mental age of the average gangsta?)

                • John Border

                  This post is even worse – or as you would say, worser.

                  I accuses you of illiterocy,illatirocity, illteracy, tho you carnt ‘elp it.. Wot is yore mentil age?

                • Mike

                  Unlike you where every post had a racist innuendo against blacks, neither I nor Abbot have ever said the police were racist (read my posts if your literate). I know it gets under your skin and you’re trying to make out we both have a anti racist agenda against the police but if you’re too ignorant to understand what I’ve posted or what she tweeted, that’s your problem not mine.

                  Even your creationist rant shows your ignorance as historians base the world on various factors and if like myself who am an atheist, I only view the religious works like the Bible as an inaccurate history journal to be used with other documentation. Quite how they let you instruct people at college defies understanding with your attitudes and the students suffer as a result.

                  You really do need help as so far you’ve accused me of being a bigot, a religious nutter and a wet liberal when the complete opposite is true. Just because I find the result of this inquest questionable and discriminatory compared to home owners who protect themselves, you’ve labelled me with all sorts of strange labels.

                  Obsession and vanity, I think you’ve demonstrated enough obsession in your anti-black racist views that is only surpassed by your own vanity !

                  Give Broadmoor a call, I’m sure they’ll find a quiet cell for you to recuperate !

                • john king

                  “(read my posts if your literate)”.
                  shot yourself in the foot there mate.

          • Eddie

            You are trying to extrapolate and to create some sort of hysterical campaign.
            An intelligent observer who realises the importance of legal principles does not try to conflate utterly different cases.
            Look at this case and this case only.
            Other cases are nothing to do with this one. But really, if – as we are told – most gun crime is done by blacks, it is really not surprising or unfair that most gangstas who are shot and killed are black. Ever studied probability?

            • Mike

              Its those important legal principles that I believe should be used for all cases and not cherry picked according to who committed the killing. That is not conflation !

        • Ronnie Palmer

          Believe and apparently are factual are they? The clinically thick tw@t is the ex school teacher who has a poor statistical grasp! Hope you didn’t teach statistics! Perhaps you could elucidate further, what is the total number of mugging, shooting, and drug dealing offences that have been recorded across the UK last year? And if you have the ability to grasp that basic premise, then please present these results by thier racial occurrence!

          • Eddie

            Listen, dumbo – I was never a school teacher. I taught in colleges and so saw at first hand the real problems this country is facing from its black and Asian ‘communities’. Anyone who has lived in London knows what a problem young blacks are.

            I think you need to work hard to pass your GCSE in maths sonny – ask a grown-up maybe? Or your probation officer…

            Most muggers are black; and blacks are responsible for most knife and gun crime. Not Jews, Indians or Chinese – they seem to cope wonderfully in our terrible awful racist society. It’s always the blacks who turn to crime, Why? Well, has anyone seen the average black mother? Has anyone seen the average black father? Well, neither have most black kids of course… LMAO.

            • Ronnie Palmer

              Never passed a single GCSE I’m afraid, way before my time! I guess your subjective distribution curve is notable for omissions of Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria, where white men perfected the art of communal slaughter. About 50 dead and 20 injured?? Hmmm, just small and insignificant outliers!

              • Eddie

                A desperate analogy – 3 lone gunmen is NOT in any way comparable with the constant mass criminality of black men.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Not something their families would agree with no doubt. Perfecting the art of slaughter is a long established part of your history and generally has involved substantially much more than the 50 here.

                • Eddie

                  Oh I think Africans are pretty good at killing. The Afro-American hero, Zulu king Shaka, killed 1.5 million in his lifetime. Of course, Europe developed and white men at least attempted to civilise lands of savagery – but a quick glimpse at Africa will show that we failed. But you can’t say we didn’t try. Now, careful with that machete now, buona.

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  You think or you know? Not a match for the 20 million that your kinfolk managed to deposit at the bottom of the Atlantic! Euro-man has taken his musket of civilisation to anywhere he ineptly managed to land. The Incas, Arowaks and Aborigines all know this to their destruction.

                • VitaBrevis1

                  I think you’ll find that the Arabs finished off many more millions more than that. They were slaving in Africa long before Europeans arrived, They castrated their male slaves, a procedure from which 80% died.

                  They obtained their slaves from – guess who? Yes, black Africans, as did European slavers.

                  Africans had been enslaving their own kind probably for millennia, and what’s more, are still doing it.

                  Of course, they quite often ate them. ( Yes really) , Livingstone reported seeing a line of men carrying prisoners trussed up like chickens for the slaughter.

                  He himself was offered one. When he arrived at a village, the chief offered him a young man saying, ‘He is young and tender, and you must be hungry.’

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Think? Probably? Thanks for the wonderful insight, i feel much the wiser!

                • Mike

                  What on earth is up with you with your rants against blacks. You sound even worse than Anjem Chowdary and his rants against non Muslims !

            • Mike

              GCSE’s, that explains a lot as they dumbed down proper qualifications to stop hurting the feelings of little darlings like you !

        • sarahsmith232

          Check this little gem from ’95 –
          http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-08/news/mn-21717_1_young-black-men
          Jack Straw, yet again. The head of London’s police sent letters to black community leaders asking them for a private meeting to discuss the fact that 80%, let me just repeat that, 80%!!!! of all muggings were being committed by young black males but at the time London’s population was only 7% black.
          I’m sure I wouldn’t need to explain to anyone what kind of response this produced from all of the usual suspects in Labour.
          So they knew what an indiscriminate African open-door would result in. This, in ’95, was not in doubt. Yet they ‘sent out search parties’ in an attempt to blitz London’s white working-class communities with this ‘enriching vibrancy’, to the point of extinction.
          They disgust me.

          • Eddie

            Yep, they don’t like the facts when they don’t tally with their prejudices.
            Only an opinion can be racist, not a fact. Basic difference – GCSE English level (though most black men fail that, so maybe that’s the problem).
            Most muggers are black; a huge number of those in prison are black (not because of racism but because they have committed crimes); most of those expelled from schools are black boys (again, because of their behaviour, not because of thei skin colour).
            What annoys so many people is that there seems to be NO effort amongst the members of the socalled black community to address these issues – far easier to blame racism, white people, the government, the ‘other’. It won’t wash, I’m afraid, and many people are sick and tired of the usual bleating from blacks (including professional black people).

            • Mike

              And your point is in relation to this inquest ?

            • VitaBrevis1

              They blame white people because ridiculous white lefties encourage them to see themselves as victims of white society,

          • Ronnie Palmer

            post hoc ergo propter hoc

          • John Border

            You dont whine about Britain occupying Africa. Or India etc. So stop bleating.

            R
            a
            c
            i
            s
            t

        • Mike

          Can you read Abbots mind as well as plods or are you extrapolating a single tweet that says only that the findings were baffling whilst you drag our all sorts of racial, ethnic and other irrelevancies that Abbot never even spoke of.

    • Pip

      Abbot is not thick she is just another self serving disingenuous hyprocrite who is unfit to be an MP and always was.

    • Mike

      Tony Martins intruders ‘were believed to be a threat’ (as you put it) but that didn’t stop him serving time for killing some low life scumbag !

      • Fergus Pickering

        I think here is a difference to be made between low life scumbags. Duggan was a gangster. The boy Martin shot was a thief.

        • Mike

          The phrase used for protecting oneself is “perceived threat”. For a tooled up robocop, it has to be an armed fit man, for a 90 year old OAP, it’s any intruder including young kids in their house. Plus, there’s a raft of other levels between them.

          That’s the problem with perceived threat as its only in the mind of the individual and not a bunch of lawyers at the CPS drinking tea and eating biscuits whilst reviewing statements with a view to a charge. In all honesty, neither the CPS nor the police can measure this perceived threat and thats why the undue use of force against home intruders is so f***** up and discriminatory.

        • John Border

          low life scumbags. ” Your hobby, yes?

      • Eddie

        False argument and silly analogy.
        Tony Martin set up a shotgun in his hall to shoot anyone who entered – he planned to murder the gypsy scum who had already robbed his property once.
        I doubt very much you would be defending Duggan is he had been a neo-Nazi with a gun.
        Your knee-jerk defence of anyone with a dark skin and a religion is typical of the left – a left which has lost its principles utterly and is betraying the decent working class people who once comprised and supported it. Misplaced multiculturalism, Mike – that is your opinion crystallised into a soundbite.

        • Mike

          Thats a first, I’ve been called a right wing bigot before but never a leftie and as for multiculturalism, I despise it.

          My argument is all about due process and the discriminatory approach the law takes based on who killed someone. It has nothing to do with colour, race or creed and everything to do with having a level playing field.

          Quite obviously, this was lost on you.

          • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

            Whether householder or policeman : get it right you get a medal, get it wrong go to prison.
            Duggans shooting might be lawful but it was still a ‘bad shoot’ and the officer should be turned into a traffic warden.

            • Mike

              Not so, many householders got it right by their peers in protecting their homes but it still didn’t stop them getting arrested, charged and serving time.

              • John Border

                Quite right too.

            • John Border

              Well said

      • Ricky Strong

        He shot them in the back, he could not argue that he reasonably apprehended immediate violence as I’m sure the office who shot Duggan did.

        • Mike

          The argument of perceived risk that plod used can still be argued for Tony martin and lets remember that its since that case that plod has been rather prone to killing people on the streets of London.

          Being nearly 70 and if I was put in the same situation as Tony martin, I could be very afraid of two much younger known villains breaking into my property. Even if they turned their backs on me whilst still in my home, whats to say they could equally turn back and attack me. Thats where the US system seems a lot more realistic in viewing an intruder as a threat what ever his stance or position. Only outside the home does the US system tend to view them as a non threat.

          The argument of perceiving a threat to your life is just as true for Martin when confronted with 2 intruders as it was for plod when confronting an unarmed Duggan. They (plod & Martin) both perceived a direct threat and the extraneous circumstances at the time were viewed as irrelevant according to the judges direction.

          His words were “Did they perceive a threat” and if they did, it was a lawful shooting. The problem with most posters here is they claim to be able to read the minds of plod or Martin at the actual time of the shooting when that is impossible. Perhaps you claim that also !

        • VitaBrevis1

          As I recall, it was pitch black at the time.

    • Mike

      I perceive you to be a threat to me, perhaps that could be my defense if I took you down !

  • James Allen

    Refreshing to hear Nick Clegg weighing in on the side of the police… oh no, wait a minute…

  • tribalterror

    If she carries on like this she will end up with her own show on the BBC

    • Eddie

      Oh no – she’ll be a diversity dog on the BBC Trust one day, mark my words – with Floella Benjamin from Playschool, that spinning wheelchair black bloke from the BBC idents, little ted, big ted, Jemima and more.

  • Peter Stroud

    Well said Rod. It was obvious to all with a grain of common sense, that the jury, after hearing all the evidence, were content that the marksman who shot the gangster honestly thought he did have a gun, in a life threatening position. Therefore acted legally. Abbott is playing the race card: as usual.

    • Mike

      The Jury were directed by the judge and hadn’t the strength of character to ignore his interpretation of what he believed happened and decide on the facts & non-facts as presented in court.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Ah, would they had been of strong character like Duggan’s family and you, sir!

        • Mike

          Idiot, whats your point

          • Fergus Pickering

            An obvous one, xsurely?

  • sarahsmith232

    Their ‘it’s all the fault of the white racists’ lines don’t wash anymore so they’ve preferring to go with another new favourite ‘it’s all the fault of inequality . . . . which is also because of white racism’.
    No matter the level of idiocy required, her lot will find a way to blame everything on white racists.

    • Ronnie Palmer

      The deceased’s Mother is white! Does this make his whole of life-time actions, a 50%ile white crime commission?

      • sarahsmith232

        Not sure exactly what point it is you’re trying to make there dear, but I’m responding to this by Liddle – ‘Why does she not devote herself to tackling gun crime within the young black male community – or does she think that it is not a problem, a disproportionate problem, and that the reason we hear about it so often is because we’re all racists?’
        The last line is accurate, this person will absolutely have convinced herself that the idea that London’s black communities are in any way, shape or form more violent than any other is rubbish. The only people who believe it are racists. This will all work very logically for her.
        I’ve posted a link to an article from ’95 in a below comment. In ’95 London was 7% black but 80% of muggings were committed by young black males. I don’t doubt she’ll go with the – reason why racists believe black communities are more violent is ’cause they’re not comparing black low income communities with other like for like, white low-income communities, if the racists did so they’d discover that the levels of crime for each community are comparable’.
        Well, in ’95 there was still such a thing as a white working-class in London, quite a lot of it actually. But there was no comparable level of violent crime. The next leap of idiocy would be jump for the – inequality though, back then the whites were far more equal members of a fantastically racist society, the blacks were blocked by racism, so suffered discrimination which led to their marked inequality, so that’s why. It’s still all down to the whites, we’re are in no way responsible’.
        This person is an idiot, she’s great entertainment value because of her idiocy but that’s all she should be, just a member of the entertainment industry not an MP.

        • Ronnie Palmer

          The point I’m making Dear, is that Duggan’s ills were neither white or black, they were purely Duggan. As for your ’95 article about the ‘7% black but 80% Muggings’, how many of these were commited by black males on the wider black population? I think you’ll find that the disproportionate effect of this level of crimminality, is served on the black community itself. Such as revealed by the CO19 risk analysis that gave the green light to the use of armed response officers.

          • sarahsmith232

            Set foot in London anytime during this century? I think you’ll find they’ll go for whatever and whoever is unfortunate enough to cross their path. Their communities are violent, that’s it.

            • Ronnie Palmer

              Whatever and whoever, agreed! It is not a black on white thing as some would have it on here.

              • Simon M

                it doesn’t matter, it’s a waste of police time and resources and a drain on society

          • Rocksy

            So are you saying we can tolerate violence if they only do it to one another?

            • Ronnie Palmer

              I have actually said precisely the opposite, which you will see if you choose to read my earlier posts.

          • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

            Having read of and actually seen some of CO19s cock-ups I still worry about policing.
            After the Wormwood Scrubs shooting the wrong lessons were learned, we didn’t need a small force specially equipped police, we should have hanged Harry Roberts and left all police to patrol on foot with the protection the noose provided.

          • VitaBrevis1

            Where is it suggested that black criminality is directed against whites?

            I think your attempt to separate Duggan from his blackness is misplaced. His criminality was a feature of his milieu, which was black.

            Mixed race individuals such as he was consider themselves black.

            • Ronnie Palmer

              If you had actually bothered to read comments from Eddie on here, you would have answered your own question!

        • John Border

          Can you write in good English please? You sound like you had problems in learning.

        • Mike

          Perhaps you have a much greater insight than the rest of us but just where did Abbot mention race, colour or religion in her tweet “If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled”

          You’ve managed to write 312 words ranting on about colour and low income groups, but I fail to see any comment about that from Abbot !

          I guess you’re part of the problem that faces inner cities today rather than a solution !

          • VitaBrevis1

            Abbott doesn’t have to mention race. It’s implicit in her very being.

            • Mike

              More like its implicit in your racism & bigotry just because she’s black. Some of us look at people from inside and not their skin colour as you obviously do ! I may disagree with her left wing political views based on honest debate but her tweet is a valid comment on the juries verdict.

              • VitaBrevis1

                That’s a little harsh, Mike. Abbott’s always on about race, and pointing this out is surely only a crime for self righteous anti racist bigots.

                ‘Course, as she’s black, talking about race and being the perpetual victim because of race is not racism in her case.

                Convenient, innit?

        • VitaBrevis1

          As a matter of interest , a New York cab driver is 59 times more likely to be murdered or seriously assaulted by a black passenger than by someone of a different race even if he, the cab driver, is himself black.

      • Rocksy

        Is his father in the picture?

        • Ronnie Palmer

          I would guess he is the result of a number of factors, Mother, Father, family upbringing and environment. But chiefly of all his choices.

          • Rocksy

            I agree completely that free will is always present. I was referring to the fact that black men make notoriously bad fathers. Even for presidents of powerful countries. Just curious.

            • Ronnie Palmer

              I am not in favour of using the collective noun to shroud individual responsibility, for absent fathers or otherwise. Correlation does not imply causation. As for the political arena that you advise, the global insecurity that we face has been caused by many a president/prime minister with ill-fitting tailored suits. Continue to be curious!

              • Rocksy

                Are you in favour of exposing the weakness of your theories in language?

                • Ronnie Palmer

                  Do you mean anymore than you are prepared to, or have I missed the weak theories that you have posted?

    • VitaBrevis1

      Instead of their genes

  • sir_graphus

    It’s either very disingenuous or demonstrates a phenomenal stupidity. None of us spent the same 3 months as the jury did, but we all spent 5 mins with the headlines and understood the case better than Ms Abbott.
    It is accepted by everyone that Duggan had no gun. The question was whether the police could be expected to know that he’d ditched the gun and had no other weapon. Duh!

    • Mike

      As you have stated “It is accepted by everyone that Duggan had no gun”.

      The question that the police failed to answer in any satisfactory manner was why they believed him to be a clear and present danger BUT could not explain how they neither saw a gun nor saw it being thrown away despite following the man. From the reported facts coming from the case, the police case has more holes in it than swiss cheese and they have not demonstrated he was an immediate threat without a gun.

      • James Allen

        Maybe they prefer to take no chances? Like to see you serve on the Force for a while, chasing after nasty people like Duggan who deal drugs and carry guns, and then see whether you still blame the police for their actions.

        • Mike

          Funny how Joe public gets banged up when they take no chances against low life intruders. As I keep repeating, one rule for us and one for plod !

          • Baron

            Well, perhaps the police wouldn’t be as trigger happy as they are if the likes of Duggans didn’t do crime, shoot each other, deal in drugs, but joined the law abiding crowd, got a job, looked after their offspring.

            • Mike

              Our plod hardly need excuses for a gun fight at the OK Corral as evidenced by the slaughter of Charles Menezes !

              • starfish

                “slaughter of Charles Menezes and many other innocents” Mindless hyperbole

                Maybe you should study the criminal and common law on murder

                Or you can indulge in police bashing

                • Mike

                  I said slaughter NOT murder, perhaps you should study a dictionary to understand that distinction !

                • roger

                  Slaughter, the first two bullets killing, the next five just ‘what’? then.

              • gunnerbear

                Have you got a link for ‘many’ – I’d just be interested to know.

          • James Allen

            You’re conflating two separate issues. If you want a discussion about violence against intruders, go and find a different thread.

            • Mike

              BS – I’m comparing the legal process’s that occur when a person dies as a result of manslaughter whoever caused it.

              Menezes & Duggan weren’t murdered in any sense of the word so it had to be manslaughter. Homeowners who kill an intruder also commit manslaughter rather than murder. Do you get it, they’re both manslaughter !

              As its MANSLAUGHTER in both cases why is the legal process and consequences so different. Its not conflation but a perfectly reasonable discussion point to look at MANSLAUGHTER and what it means in practice.

              Quite obviously you refuse to discuss the police committing manslaughter in a general context otherwise you wouldn’t be trying to stop the discussion.

              • James Allen

                I have no interest in discussing an unrelated case. Thank you.

                • Mike

                  But its still manslaughter which is the issue with Duggan !

              • John Border

                Man’s laughter? A daft term. In Scotland it is, more sensibly, culpable homicide.

                • Mike

                  Couldn’t agree more as manslaughter doesn’t imply any any culpability at all.

                  I think that death my misadventure would carry no culpability if that were the case, accidental death also provided it was caused by a totally unforeseen event but culpable homicide certainly implies some responsibility for the person causing the death.

                  Any death at the hands of the police should be called culpable homicide and it should be up to a jury to decide if punishment is required after hearing the evidence.

                • John Border

                  This is why England needs to get into the 20th century. It is way behind modern European nations.

                • VitaBrevis1

                  Behind in what respect?

                • John Border

                  Incidentally – nice post. Far better than the usual extremist
                  rants on here.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “Any death at the hands of the police should be called culpable homicide and it should be up to a jury to decide if punishment is required after hearing the evidence.”

                  Which is more or less what happened at the inquest. The jury decided that the killing (homicide) was lawful and that the police officer(s) responsible were not culpable.

      • Tom M

        Quite so Mike. There was, apparently, only circumstantial evidence to say the man had a gun. Not the other way round. Although I agree with the comments that say “I wasn’t a member of the jury etc etc” at the end of the day the police shot dead someone who didn’t have a gun. Whilst that could well happen at any time in circumstances like that this episode doesn’t stand on it’s own here.

        The police have form and the black community know it. Shooting the wrong people is too common. Jean Charles de Menezes springs to mind. Harry Stanley shot dead when his wrapped up chair leg was mistaken for a gun. James Ashley in bed, naked, in his flat confronted intruders one night. It turned out they were police and in the wrong flat but they shot him anyway.
        It just won’t wash that after an event like this there is a geat wailing and gnashing of teeth by the police about how we must do better.
        They can shoot all of the armed perpetrators for me (as they did at Woolich). But I just want them to get it right. That is what they are paid to do. The next time they get it wrong it might be me.

        • Mike

          Thanks for seeing this in its true perspective rather than the vigilante trolls we’ve seen here claiming the police are white as the driven snow and can’t do anything wrong.

          Plod has serious form when it comes to shooting the wrong person and a litany of corrupt cover ups like Hillsborough but the mentally challenged posters here have tunnel vision and refuse to look at the bigger picture.

          I have little sympathy for Duggan BUT that’s not the underlying issue of our incompetent gun happy police shooting anyone they think is a terrorist, drug dealer or a ‘perceived’ threat and then finding out they f***** up big time. They need to be brought to account in the same manner as ordinary people are.

          • Ronnie Palmer

            The ‘elephant’ in the Spectator room is that the deceased is half-white! So comments about “gun crime is gang-related and blacks are responsible”, or “Young black men however are a real problem”, are a little out of context in regards to this issue.

            • Mike

              Yep, they and many other posters have missed or refuse to engage with the real issues raised here.

            • Daniel Maris

              I think if you are going to talk about Police discrimination in relation to stop and search that is one thing. But here we are talking about a known violent gangster carrying a gun. What were they supposed to do? Open the door and say “Excuse me sir, would you mind accompanying me to the station?”

              • Ronnie Palmer

                I am not talking about Police discrimination, I was quoting verbatim the responses from a previous poster (Eddie?). I cannot advise what the Police should have done, but their briefing was to engage after the transfer of the weapon and use lethal force as a last resort. The outcome would suggest that the senior officer’s briefing to CO19 was unnecessary.

              • roger

                Yes , and see how he reacts. Gangbangers are known to have crap guns, poor quality ammo and never get any range work.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Laughable.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Half white is black. Obama is half white. But he is black. He says so himself.

              • Ronnie Palmer

                That’s right. No burden of responsibility on white people for their offspring!

            • roger

              Some people think you can pour as much milk onto coffee and it’s still a black coffee, the colour isn’t relevant .
              One of the gangbangers sentenced to 32 years for murder in 2012 , who i knew as nasty schoolkids a decade ago, was not strictly ‘black’, gangs are not a racist as some other groups.

              • Ronnie Palmer

                +1! The initial tweet by Dianne Abbott questioned process, which has been used by Rod Liddle and the Spectator, to provide a platform for extremely vulgar and offensive racial language, How can it possibly be correct to place the black nation on trial through this blog, for the individual acts of what was said to be a known criminal and his ‘lawful’ shooting?

          • Daniel Maris

            No one is saying the Police can do no wrong. I believe they are corrupt and have been protecting gangs from justice. That’s irrelevant.

          • ButcombeMan

            “the vigilante trolls we’ve seen here claiming the police are white as the driven snow and can’t do anything wrong”

            Well overstated and do not include me in that, check back and see what I had to say about Plebgate many months ago..

            You have an unfortunate habit of imagining what other commentators have said and even what they think. To call anyone who disagrees with you a “vigilante troll”, is mindless.

            The trolling might well be yours, so abjectly irrational are your remarks.

            • roger

              Read the inquest transcript about Trident.

        • Daniel Maris

          Irrelevant, the police had only to have a well founded belief that he had a gun – and presumably there was plenty of evidence to that effect.

          • roger

            Yes, the law is currently wrong.

        • sarah_13

          Menezes wasn’t black. This is not a race issue, its a life issue. Life is difficult. The police do a difficult job, they may or may not get it wrong occasionally but to smash up a court every time you don’t like the verdict, a jury trial, is no way to behave. Its irrational and contributes to more instability and violence. If the family of Duggan actually thought rationally they would realise this. Other people have had terrible losses but they are not threatening to riot or hold a “vigil” outside a police station, something that generally is held at a church or somewhere more appropriate. One can forgive the direct family for being devastated but not all those who are cynically stoking up violence. We see many people who have suffered terrible losses but they don’t try to undermine civil society.

          They don’t like authority, well thats too bad. They are petty criminals and gangsters. The police do a difficult job and if we continue to accuse vilify them decent people will not join up and the likes of Duggan who terrorised his community will get what they want which is chaos and mayhem so they can fell justified in continuing there chaotic and criminal lives.

          Forgive someone directly affected as wrong and irrational as they are but why is it for Diane Abbot to cynically stoke the flames of discontent with absolutely no reason. Very dangerous.

          • Tom M

            “….they may or may not get it wrong occasionally….”!!!
            We are talking here about taking someone’s life are we not? I think that if the law intends to allow the law enforcement officers to do this then at least it should get it right. The “difficult job” just doesn’t wash. That’s what they chose to do and get paid for and, as we are continually reminded, superbly trained for.
            Either the law exists and is made to work or it isn’t. There are rules for them too. Apparently if the officer in charge of an operation considers someone to be dangerous then that has effectively given the officer with the rifle the legal right to shoot that suspect on his own assumption that he himself was in danger. This apparently cannot ever be disputed because of “split second” decisions etc. So he hasn’t done anything wrong and his boss just made a mistake. Very neat.
            My point remains they do it too often and get away with it too easily.

      • Airey Belvoir

        Not mentioned by anyone is the serious danger that the hapless taxi driver was placed in, with the ‘highly trained police marksmen’ blazing away to such effect that one of them mangaed to hit another. I shed no tears for Duggan, but the ‘hard stop’ seems to have been an almighty clusterfuck.

        • Mike

          Exactly, and extremely well put but few here have grasped the essence of the real issues being raised here.

          They’re so biased against Abbot for political reasons that they can’t make a objective observation over this shooting. BTW – Normally I can’t stand the woman either BUT I can be objective over what she really said unlike the vigilante trolls here !

          • Daniel Maris

            Yepm ,you and Airey know more about this case than the jury…well done. How did you achieve that? Via telepathy or ESP or religious inspiration?

            • Mike

              Wake up and smell the coffee for goodness sakes. My posts have been all about the disparity over legal proceedings after a death than the actual court case. I suggest you read some of them and comment on the real issues.

              I don’t really need to add my concerns over the conflicting police statements when the press in most papers has already highlighted the apparent amnesia that struck this hit squad.

            • rob232

              Juries make mistakes and are easily manipulated. Both the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 ( among other cases) were found guilty by juries.

      • Michele Keighley

        “It is accepted by everyone that Duggan had no gun” – when did that fact become obvious to everyone? After the act or during the confrontation?

        I bet you’ve never been in situation where the opponent is possibly armed and known to be dangerous. Bet you’d trot over and ask him politely if he has a gun? Especially if you know that it is more than likely this man has killed before. Of course you would, wouldn’t you?

        Personal and public safety would be a secondary issue to you, it’s far more important to ascertain that he is not carrying a gun or has one in the car – oh, and don’t forget to record everything that happens very, very carefully – but you would never let the pressure of the situation dictate your memory now would you, you would be word perfect on the the debrief and so accurate!

        I’m sorry that I had to descend into sarcasm but do you know how sanctimonious you sound?

        • Mike

          The police statements said he didn’t have a gun and considering he was boxed in by three cars and surrounded by body protected armed police, someone had a very jittery trigger finger. Not only that, they nearly killed the innocent taxi driver in the process, so much for personal safety or the publics safety.

          It was reckless endangerment, pure and simple and not the first time either. Plod have shot and killed innocent bystanders before and even their own. Whilst we might expect novice police in America to make mistakes with a gun I find it incredible that for the small percentage of highly trained police marksman there are in the UK, their percentage of clusterf***** is staggering !

          • Joshaw

            Coming from the other side of the pond, and skimming through this, I had to stop at this point. You clearly have no understanding of the issues whatsoever. I do, Dad was a cop for 35 years.

            You seem to be in favor of the rights of homeowners to defend themselves being more in line with the police. Do you have any idea what this means? Yes, it deters burglary and home invasion in some instances but unfortunately, guns don’t always stay in the home where they’re supposed to be. You must have some awareness of the number of gun deaths in the US?

            People whose biggest risk is tripping over the carpet on the way to the coffee machine should pipe down – you don’t know what it’s like at the sharp end.

            This incident wouldn’t get 2 inches of news coverage in the US, but British gullibility might.

            Lastly, is clusterf***** a British legal term now?

            • Mike

              “guns don’t always stay in the home where they’re supposed to be” – Spot on and the evidence to back your comment is plain to see as well as be statistically proven.

              The only people that have guns in the UK are predominantly criminals and drug dealers as was seen with Duggan and the authorities. Since gun ownership was banned by Blair, gun crime has escalated with drive by shootings in places like Nottingham when they had never happened before. Now law abiding citizens have even less means to protect themselves let alone risking arrest by the police whilst most criminal elements are running amok.

              I suggest you look at some stats in the US to get a clearer picture of the gun deterrent. In wet liberal states like Illinois where guns ownership is severely curtailed, there are 20 times as many deaths from gun crime than say Texas where legal ownership is much easier.

              Perhaps its has something to do with the fact that in Texas, low life scumbags know they’ll get their ass’s shot off if they try and break in to a persons home whilst in Illinois the home owner is very unlikely to own a gun.

              Yes, I know very well what defending your home should mean if the same rules were applied for perceived threat as applies for the police. Bring it on I say and burglary would plummet as a result even without guns.

              The funny thing here is one poster here accused me of being a left wing apologists for Duggan when nothing could be further from the truth. If someone like him was thinking about breaking into a house but knew the occupants had full legal rights to use extreme prejudice to waste the SOB, Duggan would surely think twice or get killed and then save the police the bother.

              Problem is, today we have the worst of all evils, the home owner is under constant threat of being charged for protecting themselves as the law is unclear but the police have a get out of jail card which in their case always uses ‘lawful killing’ even for reckless endangerment like Menezes and Duggan. In Duggans case, the taxi driver almost got shot and the police shooter shot another cop.

      • ButcombeMan

        If you are going to comment, do your homework.

        Kevin Hutchinson-Foster has been convicted of supplying the gun to Duggan, a public & well known fact of which the jury was certainly aware:

        http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/31/man-convicted-gun-mark-duggan

        Further the evidence was that the Police saw the shoe box, assumed to contain the gun, handed over to Duggan. The box was later found with Duggan’s and Hutchinson Fosters prints.

        A gun was found in the vicinity, presumed thrown away.

        So the Police intelligence WAS correct and has been proven reliable, Duggan WAS a danger. There was a gun.

        The Police do NOT have to “explain satisfactorily” why they did not see the gun being thrown away, in the fast moving situation of the stop. That is a counsel of perfection and totally unrealistic,

        Quite obviously, whoever threw the gun away did not, indeed would not, have done it in a way to attract the attention of an Officer.

        The Officer who shot Duggan had good reason (because of the shoe box hand over and the ultra reliable intelligence) to believe Duggan was armed and dangerous to the Officer or anyone else in the vicinity.

        All the jury had to decide was, did the Officer really believe he was under threat. They found that he did. Hence the finding.

        Now such a finding was not certain.

        If it had been shown that the Officer SAW the gun thrown away, and/or KNEW Duggan was not armed, by say, Duggan raising his empty hands above his head before he was shot, the finding would no doubt have been different .

        For Abbott to pretend not to understand this, via her provocative tweet, is a disgrace, she should be ashamed of herself.

        • Mike

          Predictably you’ve misconstrued the picture you’re trying to paint based purely on an agreed stance that Duggan was a danger to the public in general but not necessarily at a specific time or place.

          No one including myself is disagreeing that he was a low life scum bag dealing drugs, had access to a gun and probably deserved to die. You and everyone else supporting the police position have bleated on and on about this ad nausea when neither Abbot nor I and others are disputing this. Repeating this diatribe over and over doesn’t make me agree with these facts anymore than I already have done but as with others, you’ve missed the real point entirely.

          The main issue is how do you quantify a perceived threat that justifies manslaughter and are different legal rules applied to those who take action against a perceived threat.

          For civilians who commit manslaughter, they are automatically arrested, held in isolation, questioned for an indeterminate period and the findings passed to the CPS to determine whether a charge should be brought or not. The primary purpose of this arrest is to determine what the level of perceived threat was especially if it involved someone tackling an intruder.

          For police who commit manslaughter during their operations, no such scrutiny is applied and it remains in the hands of the Police Complaints Commission. No equivalent measure of determining perceived threat is carried out as in the manner of the CPS and rather than holding the police officer responsible for manslaughter in isolation, he is allowed to confer with his colleagues to make notes that back each other up.

          Why is there a different set of rules for each group, that is the real issue and the real problem !

          • ButcombeMan

            Did you actually read what I said? Or did you just have a mindless rant along the lines of Abbott?

            I told you what the jury had to decide. It was about the Officer’s perception of danger to him just before he fired.

            “did the Officer really believe he was under threat”.

            I said nothing at all about Duggan being a low life or anything else. I did not say anything about him deserving to die. I do not think that, so how you could deduce that is beyond me.

            I explained why in other circumstances the jury might have found differently.

            As to missing the point. I explained the jury issue in very simple terms. The missed point is yours.

            It is deeply unfortunate that Duggan died, but the circumstances, the build up and what he did, made it well nigh inevitable he might get shot.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Quite right but ‘Mike’ has missed the point now over several posts and even suggested that what happened (a jury to decide whether the officer(s) was/were culpable) should have happened! All part of the modern trend to demand the desired result I guess e.g. I don’t like the result therefore it must be wrong.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        I’m with mike on this one but since I’m so anti mass immigration I’m saying nowt
        hehehehe

        i am being serious in my whimsical way

      • Andy

        Duggan did have a Gun when he was in the Taxi – we know this because the man who sold it to him is now in Prison. Stepping out of the taxi to getting shot by the Police he somehow disposed of it, presumably by throwing it over some railings. In the heat of the moment the Police could not possibly know this, nor that he did not have another Gun. In Law the verdict of the Jury was thus perfectly reasonable and correct.

        • Mike

          1/ The police claimed he had a gun in the taxi and although possible, it was never verified or proved.

          2/ Stepping out of the taxi with three police cars surrounding it, not one of the police officers gave evidence to state that Duggan had a gun in his hand. There’s been a lot of supposition and claims that maybe he had a phone that somehow was pointed at the police and looked like a gun plus some crazed idea that a gun was in a sock despite forensics disproving that theory.

          All in all, the police with their own testimony did not know if he was armed or not and their lame defence was they perceived a threat without really demonstrating it.

          All I can say is the next time some home owner kills some intruder, they try and use this ‘police defence gambit’ on the basis that if a highly trained officer with protective gear feels threatened by someone they might perceive has a gun, the home owner points out that he was even more scared as he’s untrained, had no protective gear and thought the intruder was armed with a Monty Python banana.

          Knowing British injustice in the courts, I doubt it will wash with the biased legal system !

          • Andy

            So you are saying he did not have a Gun while in the taxi ?

            Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, now in Prison, sold Duggan the gun which he collected in Leyton 12-15 minutes before the shooting. So he didn’t do this then ?

            The Jury believed he did have a gun based on the evidence presented, and Foster’s DNA was on the gun found, so how do you explain that ?

            So what evidence do you have to question what the Jury found, who sat in court for 3 months which you did not ?

            • Mike

              I’m basing my comments and posts on statements made by the police that were presented in court at the inquest. If there’s anything incorrect in my observations, feel free to correct me.

              1/ There is a good likelihood that Duggan had a gun in the car BUT no evidence was presented that proved that was the case. Is it a fact that a gun was in the car ? No, its supposition as none was found !

              2/ Did Duggan have a gun in his hand when three police cars stopped the taxi and surrounded him ? No, the police statements all stated that they could not see any gun. That is a fact and anything else is speculation !

              3/ Immediately after killing him, it was seen that he did not have a gun in his hand. That was a fact, not assumption or speculation.

              4/ The police officer who shot him claimed he perceived a threat from Duggan. Could he define the real nature of that threat ? No, he could not as the police statements had already stated that no police officer saw a gun. That is fact and a perceived threat is just that, not a fact.

              It used to be the case that juries were presented with pure facts and not speculation or perceptions to help in their deliberations but apparently not in this case.

              The Jury (directed by the Judge) were told to assess the case based on assumptions and speculations rather than hard facts alone. That is why I question their finding although I don’t hold them responsible for the result.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Clearly you have never been in the situation faced by those police officers. If the premise of your post were to be followed most officers would hesitate to fire and there would be a lot of dead police officers.

                You are being ridiculous.

    • artemis in france

      But Duggan was such a nice boy, don’t you get it?

    • Ricky Strong

      The policeman may have even feared immediate violence given that Duggan was carrying a handkerchief, sorry, gun.

      • Mike

        Maybe plod mistook it for Monty Pythons ‘man armed with a banana’ !

  • Mike

    Throw aside the emotional baggage here and just concentrate on the
    blatant disparity between how a member of the public is dealt with over a
    death and how the police are dealt with over a killing as this is
    everything rather than saying Duggan deserved to die, even if true.

    A couple who protect their home from 4 armed intruders are arrested and
    stay 3 nights in custody separated from each other so they can’t confer
    whilst the police along with the CPS pontificate over whether they
    should be charged with an offence.

    The Brazilian Menezes was killed by the Met and just as in this case,
    no police officer is arrested whilst investigations are on going but
    even worse, they are allowed to converse and ‘manufacture’ their story so
    they all sing from the same song sheet.

    For home owners arrested over a death, the CPS decides if an arrest is warranted.

    For the police, the IPCC decides whether any further action should be taken, NOT the CPS.

    Is it any wonder that the reaction from Duggans family and Ms Abbott has been so
    reactionary when there’s not a level playing field with due process of
    law.

    Whatever the character of those killed, both the Police and the
    Public should be subject to the SAME level of scrutiny rather than a
    skewed system that opens itself up for police corruption.

    • artemis in france

      ti’s ridiculous to compare the two cases. Menezes was a completely innocent man, a victim of mistaken identity through the sheer incompétence of those in charge at the time at the Met. Duggan was a known criminal and was actually carrying a gun just before hé was shot.

      • James Allen

        Precisely. Typical diversionary tactic, arguing the case on the basis of unrelated events….

        • Mike

          The real diversionary tactic was the convenient refusal to comment on the different legal process’s that the public have to go through compared to the police when some one is killed or injured.

          You can post that Duggan deserved to lie and I’d probably agree with you BUT plod should still be under the same scrutiny and legal juristrictions as the public when a death occurs. That is simply not the case here, nor was it with Menezes or many other deaths involving the police.

          • Mike

            Whats up guys, no comment to refute my post above !

            • Baron

              Mike, give up on pushing this point. It isn’t the police always wins, it’s that when they do some, and you seem to be a member of that phylum, begin shouting, waving arms around, saying it’s one law for them…..

              • Daniel Maris

                Yep .I read his stuff. It’s just special pleading – i.e. we shouldn’t recognise the extraordinary circumstances of such a “hard” stop.

                It is really more equivalent to going into battle. Everyone is hyped up, because they know one false move and they could get a bullet in the head, leaving their children fatherless and their beloved partners without a spouse or partner. Perhaps Mike thinks these things are of no consequence. I suspect the jury thought they were very relevant.

                It’s not surprising that people will occasionally die unnecessarily. But unnecessarily has never been and is not now “unlawful”. Unlawful would be if say Duggan said “I surrender, take the gun” while holding his hands up well away from the gun, and then the police shot him. Everything else is going to be a blur of recollection.

                I think putting the cameras on officers’ chests is a good idea. It will give them protection as much as it makes them vulnerable to prosecution.

                • Baron

                  Good points, Daniel.

              • Mike

                I accept it isn’t the police that always win but its a fact that the legal wheels turn in their favour as I’ve tried to demonstrate.

                When capital punishment was still around, it was pretty much mandatory that killing a copper brought the death penalty but not so a member of the public being murdered. Even in Australia 3 years ago they were trying to bring back the death penalty purely for murdering a copper.

                It is this sort of discriminatory attitude I’m against and nothing more.

          • ArchiePonsonby

            It’s true that the police have forfeited a huge amount of trust and deservedly so, if only for their preposterous treatment of citizens defending their property and their running from Arab demonstrators! As for l’affaire Duggan, I’d call a three-month trial scrutiny enough, even if the verdict doesn’t satisfy the enrichers!

      • Mike

        A convenient ignorance of my post !

        I’m not making any excuses for Duggans history compared to Menezes ‘innocence’ although at the time, some (not I) did argue that he’s over stayed his visa to stay in the UK and wouldn’t be dead if he had left when he should have. That sort of comment came from the “police can’t do any wrong lobby” despite the sort of shenanigans we saw over Hillsborough and other cover ups.

        My point which you totally ignored is the disparity towards accountability when a death or injury occurs between the public and the police. Your post implies a known criminal can be gunned down without any legal recourse or scrutiny even if he was unarmed at the time as was Duggan.

        • Mike

          And a deathly silence continued from those unable to put together a sensible response !

      • ArchiePonsonby

        Not COMPLETELY innocent, he was here illegally after all.

    • IainRMuir

      “all I have to say is “Hillsborough” !”

      To which I would reply “Heysel” !

      • Mike

        Whats your point !

        For decades the UK police covered up their part in the f*** up of policing that was Hillsborough however I don’t recall any police cover up at Heysel. That was my point, the UK plod is institutionally corrupt at many levels and cannot be trusted !

        • IainRMuir

          And certain football fans are institutionally incapable of behaving in a civilised way. That’s why they had to be caged in in the first place.

          • Mike

            You appear to back policing c*** ups that cause the deaths of innocent parties just because a few in a football crowd are animals. A pretty sick comment for most when you’re trying to justify one wrong justifying another !

            • IainRMuir

              You brought Hillsborough into this, not me. The report said that the fans were not responsible. I’m no more obliged to accept that than you are obliged to accept the verdict on Duggan.

              People died at Hillsborough because, as at Heysel, more than a “few” fans are incapable of behaving in a civilised manner. Whilst I don’t condone cover ups, the fans have form and policing them must be a thankless task. That’s why cages are necessary.

              I see you’ve totally ignored my comparison with Twickenham. No police induced deaths there – why is that?

              • Mike

                Did I say that football fans were little angels ? No I didn’t.

                As for other sporting events where trouble is not generally a problem, that’s irrelevant in the context of a gross policing failure followed by a cover up at Hillsborough.

                Did I claim that fans were not responsible for triggering the breakdown of law and order at Hillsborough or Heysel ? No I didn’t.

                What I did claim was that at Hillsborough the UK police covered up their crowd control failures unlike the police at Heysel.

                The independent inquiry into Hillsborough was chaired by James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool and in an honest sense, can be viewed as independent as they get for inquiries of this sort. The IPCC monitoring the police has internal vested interests and even the judge in the court case with his ‘directions’ had a vested interest.

                I think most of us would more likely trust the Bishop of Liverpool to hold a unbiased inquiry into the truth compared to the IPCC looking after their own or a court case where police officers couldn’t even answer simple questions as to whether Duggan was holding a gun at the time he was shot.

                Obviously you fail to understand the natural outrage from this court case where fiction was turned into facts under direction of a judge who contrived to make perceived likelihood into reality by his directions.

                • IainRMuir

                  “As for other sporting events like Twickenham or Wimbledon where trouble is not generally a problem, that’s irrelevant”

                  No it isn’t. Obviously those who died should not be confused with those responsible. However, the situation put the police in a position where they couldn’t win. The fans were entirely blameless in the eyes of many (much less so outside Liverpool) and the “independent” enquiry should have been structured differently, as many said at the time.

                  Your comment about the “simple questions” is naive. Questions about precise details following volatile and potentially life threatening situations are rarely “simple”. You watch too much TV. Decisions had to be made in the heat of the moment and the jury which, unlike you, had full access to the evidence and time to consider it, reached its verdict on those decisions.

                  I don’t know what you do, probably something at a desk, and I doubt if you ever have to confront any of these situations. As I said – insufferably self righteous.

                • Mike

                  The inquiry found that the police control centre failed in monitoring the crowd levels and didn’t direct, open gates or generally manage a large crowd in a manner expected of them. They (the Police) then covered it up for decades after they made junior ranks changes their statements over what they saw.

                  Hardly the stuff of honesty and transparency and as I said, this damns those in charge at Hillsborough irrespective of any anecdote about well behaved fans at Twickenham.

                  From your comment, you appear to condone that decisions made on the spur of the moment should be covered up if found to be wrong. I don’t suppose it even occurs to you that wrong decisions will be repeated if lessons aren’t learned because a cover up happened.

                  Quite obviously in your eyes, the police can do no wrong and even when caught out like Hillsborough, you’re in denial over their mistakes and lies. I don’t know whose worse, those who lied over Hillsborough or those like you who support them. At least they have the real trauma of Hillsborough to mitigate their attitude, whats your excuse ?

              • Baron

                A superbly well articulated argument, IainRMuir, and right, too.

                • arnoldo87

                  He is wrong actually Baron.

                  Cages were never necessary at any football ground. When the front fence was erected at the Leppings Lane end, no one in authority noticed that they had created a dangerous cage behind the goals. The fences running at right angles to the pitch should have been removed at the same time to allow the crowd to expand laterally across the whole end.

                  IanRMuir is correct in saying that general fan behaviour was the reason WHY front fences were erected around the country, but the Liverpool fans were not behaving in an uncivilised manner on that day.

                  Mike’s point about the falsification of records by the police is very serious and the Duggan case gives another example of that sort of corruption. This is a cancer that must be removed to restore failing public confidence in the constabulary.

                • Baron

                  arnoldo87, cages aside, his key point is valid.

                  Have you ever been in a crowd exited by an event? It behaves bizarrely, and it doesn’t take much for that behaviour to morph into danger, often mortal as people fall down, others trample over them. It’s not unlike traffic jams on motorways when there’s no accident, one single car in the fast late slows down appreciably, the ripple effect multiplies the low speed backwards, a mile long queue forms in no time at all, extends long distances. It’s not unheard of for one or more cars in the pile up to have an accident.

                  Also, what was it the police falsified? The gun was found some short distance from the stopped car, wasn’t it?

                • arnoldo87

                  Baron – this from the Telegraph:-

                  “But there is a third, possibly even more significant reason why this case matters. And that’s because it has again raised doubts about the reliability and integrity of the police service. The IPCC was told that Duggan had fired at police. He hadn’t. One officer claimed that Duggan had been pointing a gun at him when the fatal shot had been fired. Independent expert witness testimony indicated he couldn’t have been. Two officers claimed Duggan was holding a gun when he emerged from the cab. But the gun was found lying in a park, and no one could plausibly explain how it got from Duggan to there in the instant he was shot”

          • ArchiePonsonby

            Or The Oval!

        • Baron

          Mike, the UK plod recruits from amongst us. We get what we breed. You should avoid generalising, however, there are rotten apples in other agencies of the State, the vast majority of the boys and girls on the beat are fine. The problem exists up in the hierarchy.

          Baron happens to be an immigrant from the 60s last century, still speaks with an accent, often interferes when he sees someone misbehaving (putting filthy shoes on train seats, littering and stuff like that). On a number of occasions, the police got involved, the barbarian from the East never felt he was treated differently because of his background, accent.

          Full marks for the plod, he says.

      • Mike

        Hillsborough was a corrupt cover up, Heysel was not ! You decide which was the more corrupt police force !

    • Baron

      Mike, the way to correct this anomaly is surely to allow the couple to do what the police do. The reason home burglaries in, say, New Hampshire in the Republic are almost non-existent is because the home owner could shoot the burglars. If he gets it wrong, he gets punished, but such cases are also more than rare because nobody does burglary, it ain’t a career enhancing job in that state. In Britain it seems to pay off, a couple of years ago, almost 750,000 houses got burgled.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14151775

      • Mike

        I couldn’t agree more that to bring in laws that give home owners similar rights that most if not all Americans enjoy would fix this disparity.

        Unfortunately, the UK establishment and especially the police are firmly against giving individuals the right to use any force inside your home to protect your family, yourself or your property.

        Currently plod has the rights to forcibly enter a home and in one case actually shot and killed an innocent because they got the wrong address. Of course plod doesn’t want us to have the right to protect ourselves as they might get hurt in the process.

        • Baron

          Mike, one of Baron’s postings to you got censored, it said: the police are human, they do mistakes as we all do in other walks of life. Regretfully, their mistake may result in a loss of life because they deal with people who may, and often do, kill.

          Baron reckons the police appear nasty to many is because they know who the thugs are, they catch them often only to see them either not charged, or charged but getting away with a slap on the wrist, or imprisoned for ‘life’ with laughable tariffs attached, a tariff that restores them to crime in no time.

          We’re asking them to risk their limb or life under the umbrella of a criminal justice system that’s vacuous of real punishment, a punishment that would inflict enough pain on the miscreant not to do crime again. If you were in their shoes you may fel the same, frustrated, kicked from both side of the argument, impotent to do what you feel is expected of you.

          Baron has first hand knowledge of the policeman on the beat from five countries, the British are by far the best, no argument here.

          • Mike

            The best by what standard ?

            • Baron

              Any that matter – calm, polite, civil, even handed. And with a sense of humor. In what country would a policeman on the street asked “have you already shot someone today’ reply with a smile ‘no, but if you aren’t careful, you may be the first one’, or a similar answer.

              (Baron no longer asks this question as often as he did, his age prevents it, and he talks about the men and women patrolling the street, not those in the higher up positions, or the CID officers.

          • Mike

            My issue isn’t about genuine mistakes that are made providing we have an even playing field. There was a driver who fell asleep and crashed onto a railway line causing a train crash. That was a genuine accident but it didn’t save him from spending time inside for manslaughter. Assuming this shooting was also an ‘accident’ as well, why not the same outcome. Are the police exempt from accountability ?

            • http://ajbrenchley.com/namaskar Swanky

              I don’t know the details of the case, but perhaps the bloke responsible should not have been put away. If he had ‘courted’ sleepiness and should by a reasonable standard have known it, that’s one thing. If however it really was an event beyond his control, it can’t have been manslaughter or even recklessness causing death. Either scenario — complete innocence or culpable irresponsibility — is possible. If it’s the latter, there should not be punishment.

  • Jez

    Listen Rod.

    You lot made your bed. Now lie in it.

    If Karma really exists- say in 10 to 24 months, political landslides will be occurring all across Europe that will brush aside the rotten scrap..

    • RobertC

      Or Labour could loose every seat except for the seat for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

      That would be a laugh!

  • John Lea

    Come on, Rod, you know the score: Abbott knows her audience and is playing to them shamelessly. She knows fine well that to take a brave stance and speak out about the disproportionate levels of gun crime amongst young black men in that area – along the lines you have outlined – would lose her her comfy seat in Hackney. This is the woman who removed her own son from the local comp and enrolled him in an expensive private school, so he wouldn’t have to mingle with the likes of Duggan or get drawn into that world. She’s a hypocrite. She knows it, we know it, it’s all a game.

    • Pip

      Yet the BBC still believe she is fit to be a co presenter on a weekly Current Affairs Programme!!!

      • Fergus Pickering

        Well of course it does!

        • dalai guevara

          Has it occured to that the sofa is exclusively reserved for political has beens?

          • arnoldo87

            I would happily leave the country in the hands of the two former sofa residents – Portillo and Johnson. Both experienced politicians who talk common sense.

            • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

              We were governed from the sofa (No.10) too long already.

          • John Border

            You are never off the sofa then!

          • Lancastrian_Oik

            Can someone mention that to that gob-on-a-stick Owen Jones?

      • ArchiePonsonby

        Why the surprise?

      • Ed_Burroughs

        She is there to be the butt of Andrew Neil’s jokes; and to his credit he obviously cant stand the woman either.

      • I AM POP SLAG.

        her andrew neil and fuckingg portillo….a trio of fucking trite psychopaths…diane abbott speaks to everyone like shes cleverer than them, ive never heard such a perma-patronising snobbish tone…shes truly a fucking awful woman, populist a panderer,, a soft tongued patronising snake.

    • Cornelius Bonkers

      I’ll second that. And she-s not the only one as far as I know – see the case of the great man of the people and Labour/Unite MP for Dagenham John Cruddas…

    • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

      He never went to the local comp ,where my son and grandson went, because the catchment area had shrunk so much Abbott was outside (though Balls and Morris are inside), she thought the next school was not good enough to even visit once in the years i worked there. She is a one note flute and not worthy of election.
      In Alf Dubs time as MP they used to say Labour could put up a donkey and it would get elected, then in 1983 they did and she was.

    • Junis

      Abbott spoke the truth about Google and when she did most ‘white’ Britons attacked her. That is until she was proven correct when the revelations about Google’s tax avoidance came to surface.

Close