Riots

Originally Posted by Osem

Not for me! Perhaps those 'folks' for whom it wasn't 'obvious' ought to have reserved their actions and retribution until the facts were known. I dare say some of these people will, even now, insist this guy was set up, assassinated, the wholly innocent victim of a racist police state or whatever because that's a whole lot easier than looking at themselves and the way in which they choose to behave and live their lives.

Their actions were not to riot, these were a different group of people. The initial protest wasn't meant to spark a riot and was probably incorrectly spurred by this case which people tied into a greater issue of their distrust of the police.

Now we have the evidence people should know this guy does seem to have been a danger and the police do seem to have reacted as they should. However when you remember the John Charles de Menezes it's going to make people suspicious of the police version of events. Really everyone should reserve judgement until all the facts are known but when do we ever do that here?

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Derek

Shock! Horror!

The completely innocent and in no way criminally connected man executed in cold blood by the Police sparking off the riots may have actually been carrying a loaded gun.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19635639

This is blatant pro police propaganda!!!! Mark Duggan was innocent,the cops were just out for blood that day!!!!

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Will21st

This is blatant pro police propaganda!!!! Mark Duggan was innocent,the cops were just out for blood that day!!!!

What he says.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Gary L

What he says.

I was being sarcastic,Gary....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Their actions were not to riot, these were a different group of people. The initial protest wasn't meant to spark a riot and was probably incorrectly spurred by this case which people tied into a greater issue of their distrust of the police.

Now we have the evidence people should know this guy does seem to have been a danger and the police do seem to have reacted as they should. However when you remember the John Charles de Menezes it's going to make people suspicious of the police version of events. Really everyone should reserve judgement until all the facts are known but when do we ever do that here?

I wasn't referring to the rioters, the vast majority of whom seem to have been out stealing and smashing up the property of innocent people rather than getting a coherent point across to the police. I was referring to the people who only ever see what they want to see and when it suits their agenda or own prejudices. Those of the so called 'community spokespeople' who claim foul play everywhere on the part of the police before they know the facts and even when the facts are known and disprove their blinkered views.

As for what we do here. Well we discuss events in a forum and make judgements based on the details we have at the time. There's nothing wrong with that because, for the most part, we're willing to amend those judgements if events subsequently prove us wrong. Pity more people on the streets of places like Tottenham don't try it.

Originally Posted by Osem

I wasn't referring to the rioters, the vast majority of whom seem to have been out stealing and smashing up the property of innocent people rather than getting a coherent point across to the police.

I don't think these people had any intention of making any point. I think some of them saw a chance to exploit the situation of some rioting to loot and act violently. Some otherwise law-abiding people probably got swept up with the crowd and took leave of their senses as well.

I was referring to the people who only ever see what they want to see and when it suits their agenda or own prejudices. Those of the so called 'community spokespeople' who claim foul play everywhere on the part of the police before they know the facts and even when the facts are known and disprove their blinkered views.

Everyone does this to an extent. Just as people wrongly presumed the Police where in the wrong there were many who had no sympathy for John Charles de Menezes being killed. First he was a terrorist, then he ran away from the police and jumped a barrier and more and more dubious information that sought to place the blame on him. So we shouldn't be surprised when people take assurances from the police with a pinch of salt. The vindication of the police shouldn't be accompanied by sarcasm as if the initial doubt was unwarranted.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think these people had any intention of making any point. I think some of them saw a chance to exploit the situation of some rioting to loot and act violently. Some otherwise law-abiding people probably got swept up with the crowd and took leave of their senses as well.



Everyone does this to an extent. Just as people wrongly presumed the Police where in the wrong there were many who had no sympathy for John Charles de Menezes being killed. First he was a terrorist, then he ran away from the police and jumped a barrier and more and more dubious information that sought to place the blame on him. So we shouldn't be surprised when people take assurances from the police with a pinch of salt. The vindication of the police shouldn't be accompanied by sarcasm as if the initial doubt was unwarranted.

The uncertainty surrounding these events is inevitable and stems from totally unrealistic demands for instant and accurate information from the authorities by the media and sections of public alike. When this isn't forthcoming (and how can it be in such circumstances?) it's used as an excuse to justify all sorts of behaviour by some people who ought to know better and others who don't want to know better because bleating on about conspiracy after conspiracy and entirely innocent victims better suits their agenda.

[Derek]

Ooft! How do you like them apples!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-19886439

Two men have been jailed after police came under fire during riots in Birmingham in August 2011.

Twelve shots were fired at officers and a police helicopter after a petrol bomb attack on the Bartons Arms pub, Aston.

Beniha Laing, 29, was sentenced to 35 years and Wesley Gray, 27, was given 29 years in jail.

[Ramrod]

You don't get that much for killing someone!!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You don't get that much for killing someone!!

Shocking isn't it.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You don't get that much for killing someone!!

I'd appeal. my argument would be that the sentence is disproportianate to the crime.
a few more years was only added on because it embarrassed Dave. and Dave wants to deter anyone from embarrassing him in the future.

We'll wait and see what Dale Cregan gets. and then we can make the real comparison.

[Ramrod]

I'm all for locking these **** up but 30 years seems a bit much.....

[Osem]

Let's hope this sort of sentencing will endure and **** like this (and worse) get what they deserve.

I dare say this will be appealed, however, and that they'll actually serve a small fraction of the original sentence.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

I dare say this will be appealed, however, and that they'll actually serve a small fraction of the original sentence.

And so it should.
People have lost loved ones, and the people who took their lives got a whole lot less.

it's a bit like slapping Daves big slaphead and getting 5 years for it. but beating an old lady up you only get community service.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'd appeal. my argument would be that the sentence is disproportianate to the crime.
a few more years was only added on because it embarrassed Dave. and Dave wants to deter anyone from embarrassing him in the future.

We'll wait and see what Dale Cregan gets. and then we can make the real comparison.

Don't forget the sentencing wasn't just for firearms offenses ,they set fire to the pub with residents upstairs and shooting at a helicopter over a built up area ,how many would that have killed ?