• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mark Duggan

Richie said:
It bothers me on principle more than anything. I believe in the privacy and freedom of the individual.

I very much flip flop on the idea of 'youre ok if you've got nothing to hide' because everyone has plenty of things to hide that aren't illegal. That's the right of each of us as individuals, to keep whatever aspects of our life we choose to be private.

CCTV is public areas like high streets in towns I can deal with, but I think its a different issue in residentual areas.

Like I say, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue
Click to expand...

CCTV should be everywhere imo. A law abiding citizen shouldn't care that he's been recorded walking the streets of London if he has nothing to hide.
 
Kingdawson said:
CCTV should be everywhere imo. A law abiding citizen shouldn't care that he's been recorded walking the streets of London if he has nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

How about one pointing right in to your living room or bedroom?

This is going a bit off topic, but how about a similar (and very real) example of someone monitoring your internet traffic? If you've got nothing to hide should the authorities be able to record and store your email and browsing history freely, or should they have to justify such use before a judge in a courtroom?

This 'got nothing to hide' argument is a fallacy IMO, everyone has aspects of their life they wish to keep private.

Like I say high streets and and town centres I can deal with (but still don't strictly agree), other areas are somewhat less justifiable IMO.
 
Richie said:
How about one pointing right in to your living room or bedroom?

This is going a bit off topic, but how about a similar (and very real) example of someone monitoring your internet traffic? If you've got nothing to hide should the authorities be able to record and store your email and browsing history freely, or should they have to justify such use before a judge in a courtroom?

This 'got nothing to hide' argument is a fallacy IMO, everyone has aspects of their life they wish to keep private.

Like I say high streets and and town centres I can deal with (but still don't strictly agree), other areas are somewhat less justifiable IMO.
Click to expand...

Cameras all around London i'm fine with (including residentials). In fact if it isn't in residentials then it pretty much becomes pointless, being that a lot of these crimes happen in council estates etc etc. Monitoring internet traffic? i believe they do that already...camera pointing to living room? no being that your home should be the cut off point and completely private.

I'll get personal now, which tbh i wasn't going to do. In 2009 one of my best mates was murdered in New Cross. He was a law abiding citizen, went uni, but was murdered over a dispute over a female. Now the cameras in that particular area, that would have picked everything up, didn't work for one reason or another and the case remains unsolved...no actually on that particular street there wasn't even any cameras there (which is baffling as it's a notorious, crime riddled street).

I prefer all the murderers go to jail (or die..i don't care) and if that means cameras capture me walking around a few times, so be it.
 
I dont see how people are making an issue of this case. The man was a gangster involved in intemidating others and involved in drugs for his own finacial gain.

The police were following him knowing he was picking up a firearm. A firearm was found 6 meters from his dead body. If this man had gone and took the right path in life then he wouldnt be in this situation.

As for his family, uneducated about sums them up and that includes those who used his death as an excuse to loot and riot.
 
Kingdawson said:
I have no "authority issue" as you put it. I make judgement based on the evidence provided, and have come up with the conclusion that he's lying about seeing a gun. The entire Jury? who cares...didn't they also judge that Jean Charles de Menezes was also lawfully killed despite conclusive evidence that the police lied? I mean a policeman admitted to deleting footage which showed he wasn't running away...and they still ruled "open verdict" ffs.

As i said before, it is more then likely that Mark Duggan was scum, more then likely he's been involved in dodgy activity, but i don't believe that the marksmen saw a gun.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to see a gun. He only has to think he did. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only has to be convinced that the suspect is likely to use a gun for what he did to be OK.
 
Dorothy said:
You have accused him of making a 'potentially dangerous statement' yet you happily suggested that a police firearms team had (and I paraphrase) got fed up staking Duggan out so they just decided to kill him. Something which you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. The real danger is when people present fantasy in place of the facts or into an argument where there are 'holes' or 'discrepancies'. What if? Maybe? It is absolute conjecture and total hearsay. The only eye witness accounts we have so far have been shown to be at the best 'varied', with the main witness having changed his story for one reason or another. From the transcripts it is fairly apparent that the nobody was 100% certain of when Duggan discarded the weapon, how he discarded it (by this I mean the exact timing and specifics of him supposedly 'throwing' it away. What we are led to believe is that the police were only there on that day because they had intel that suggested Duggan has just collected a weapon and was on his way to use it. Knowing he had that weapon, the alleged intent and their belief that he had been involved with gun crime in the past ensured that there was a firearms presence and in broad daylight they attempted to apprehend Duggan. An officer or officers made an instant snap judgement to shoot at Duggan and nobody is privy to his actions, body language, what was said other than those directly involved. The firearms officers are involved thousands of times throughout the year but amazingly we see only isolated mistakes. A jury found Duggan's killing 'lawful' based on the facts they had, not the nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas. Do we trust the police 100%? In every organisation there are those who think they are above the law but the conspiracies are utterly baseless and as ever largely nonsensical. If someone within the police force had wanted to kill Mark Duggan they could have done it far more surreptitiously than by surrounding a vehicle in broad daylight across the road from a large apartment block and shooting him. Think about it properly. Words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic. He was shot in a police operation 'lawfully' and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had not needed to kill him considering the capital that has been made of it.
Click to expand...

Great post =D>
 
Kingdawson said:
I feel you're trying to corner me, knowing full well what my response will be, which in turn will result in certain posters claiming i'm bringing up the 'race card' etc.
Click to expand...

I don't care what other posters do or will think, but you're right - I'm pretty sure I've heard your opinion on "stop & search" before.

From what I remember, it's somewhat incompatible with the whole "innocent citizens have nothing to hide" opinion.
 
spursman17 said:
I dont see how people are making an issue of this case. The man was a gangster involved in intemidating others and involved in drugs for his own finacial gain.

The police were following him knowing he was picking up a firearm. A firearm was found 6 meters from his dead body. If this man had gone and took the right path in life then he wouldnt be in this situation.

As for his family, uneducated about sums them up and that includes those who used his death as an excuse to loot and riot.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well, he was a gangster and had a illegal gun which he threw away.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't care what other posters do or will think, but you're right - I'm pretty sure I've heard your opinion on "stop & search" before.

From what I remember, it's somewhat incompatible with the whole "innocent citizens have nothing to hide" opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not.

One is fair and equal procedure and the other is completely biased. One targets everyone from every background, sex, religion etc etc and the other doesn't. One is controlled by some random CCTV operator and the other is controlled by the agenda driven police force.
 
Kingdawson said:
It's not.

One is fair and equal procedure and the other is completely biased. One targets everyone from every background, sex, religion etc etc and the other doesn't. One is controlled by some random CCTV operator and the other is controlled by the agenda driven police force.
Click to expand...

What if the CCTV operator has some made up agenda?
 
scaramanga said:
What if the CCTV operator has some made up agenda?
Click to expand...

He might do but you wouldn't really be able to tamper with the footage. The footage doesn't lie, so he can have his own personal agenda as much as he likes...it doesn't change what is being recorded.
 
Richie said:
How about one pointing right in to your living room or bedroom?

This is going a bit off topic, but how about a similar (and very real) example of someone monitoring your internet traffic? If you've got nothing to hide should the authorities be able to record and store your email and browsing history freely, or should they have to justify such use before a judge in a courtroom?

This 'got nothing to hide' argument is a fallacy IMO, everyone has aspects of their life they wish to keep private.

Like I say high streets and and town centres I can deal with (but still don't strictly agree), other areas are somewhat less justifiable IMO.
Click to expand...


There's never going to be a camera point right in your bedroom though is there and if there was you just have to close the curtains, put some privacy film on the window or move.

Also, storing my emails and browsing doesn't really bother me, it's not like there's someone looking at what I'm doing on the screen going, look the dirty buggers on ****hub again. As with my opinion on CCTV it should be stored by an independent body and the police have to show good reason for wanting a copy to stop them abusing it but just storing it and looking at it when a crime is committed in the area, absolutely no issue with that.
 
Kingdawson said:
He might do but you wouldn't really be able to tamper with the footage. The footage doesn't lie, so he can have his own personal agenda as much as he likes...it doesn't change what is being recorded.
Click to expand...

But just like stop and search, he could (if he had some kind of made up prejudice) disproportionately focus the cameras on racial minorities, or gingers, or those wearing bow ties until he found someone doing something wrong, right?

So anyone innocent being stopped and searched should have no complaint as they have nothing to hide, right?
 
http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crime-court/mark_duggan_inquest_police_efforts_to_crush_the_tottenham_man_dem_tmd_gang_1_3187839?action=login


This reporter appears to somewhat agree with my opinion that someone, somewhere, got tired of treading 'the legal path' to shutting these guys down, and decided to accelerate the process.

Again, I don't think anyone is in doubt as to the 'moral fibre' of the bloke, but once we start smokescreening in order to create results that law enforcement agencies wish to see, then we are on a steep, slippery and dangerous slope. It ups the ante in the underworld, fosters deeper mistrust within communities and give those in charge legal precedent to engage in the same scenario again.

Let's be honest, why were these 'rules' not applied in Northumbria to Moat? He had harmed people/blinded a police officer, yet they cornered him and engaged in a 'stand-off' when I'd imagine a sniper could've been brought in.

I think there's much more to this case than a simple 'sorry guv we fought 'e 'ad a gun'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back