Would you like to expain the difference between amateur and other type of rioters?

Have some gone to Uni to learn how to riot properly, was it amateur rioters that were committing arson and potential murder ?

That would be you - as you reply to this will, I predict, perfectly illustrate.


Responses to your drivel don't have to be boring. I can entertain, as well as demolishing you ever decreasing circular non-points. If you don’t like it, then try sensible posts.


You see, it’s just this goldfish-like retention of your own rambling that makes you seem stupid. Your words were:

So, you report that the police “said… they didn’t think they could use lethal force”.

So, you SPECIFICALLY suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force. And now you have been caught out.


Having already demolished the wider point, I don’t need to do the same to this more restricted “individual police officer” point. However, I’d be interested to know what the difference in this individual’s case actually is, between “being unaware he could use lethal force” (which you say you haven’t suggested) and “didn’t know he could use lethal force”, which were, er, again YOUR words. Oops.



I consider the view that holding the police “responsible” for the riots, and/or claiming that the riots were a “consequence” of that incident, is arrant nonsense. I would bet a lot of money that 99% of the rioters couldn’t even tell you the deceased’s name, and that incident will have played not the slightest part whatsoever in the riots in other cities.

Obviously the initial spark of rioting in Tottenham followed the shooting, but even there I have seen no suggestion that anyone rioted [ibecause of that incident[/i or as some sort of protest at the death of that individual. Of course, there is a massive anti-police feeling in much of UK subculture, and I equally have no doubt that the opportunity to use this as an excuse to have a crack at the police was a major factor.

Do you understand the distinction? Anti-police rioting, of people claiming to be oppressed by the police, as opposed to people who had no issues with the police, but suddenly decided to go on the rampage just because this individual was shot?

The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed:


Do you know how many said the shooting of that individual caused them to riot?
Try “none”.

Wow talk about splitting hairs.

But for the shooting the riots would not have happened? Do you agree.

If they were riots in the traditional sense you'd have a point, these were just petty criminals doing a bit of robbing, using the "rioting" as an excuse.

There was no particular target, no urge to confront police, in fact they actively avoided confrontation.

So these were ' retail rioters ' then? , well maybe these amateur retail rioters would have had second thoughts if they thought theyd get a baton round in the nuts for their trouble rather than just having the bobbies watching them commit crimes, destroy livelyhoods , burn peoples homes and potentially burn people to death ?

If that is what you want to call them, fine.



Or maybe putting people on the ground would (and did) do the job without resorting to shooting people.

Isn't there numerous videos on youtube of the rioters charing the police and the police having to back off.

Maybe a rubber bullet to the forehead might be a more forceful reminder to behave and provide a cheaper solution than having to employ ever increasing number of policemen on the streets to deal with this kind of filth?

Especially in the current economic climate.

No.

How do you work that out?

How do I work out if I agree with a proposition? It's not hard. I consider it, and the answer is sort of just there.

Try it: do you like spinach?

In Tottehnam, a protest march after the shooting turned violent.

Therefore but for the shooting their would have been no protest march and no violence.

Rubbish. There was a protest of about 100-200 people who marched on the police station. These were not violent rioters but peaceful protesters with direct links to the family of Duggan, who had been shot. They did not start or encourage, much less become involved in, any violence.

An official spokesperson for the family was quoted as saying;


Your attempt at making a link is in fact a grave libel against those people. The rioting that began in Tottenham was not at the police station, nor is there any evidence that it involved any of those protesters.

What you are doing, apart from libelling peaceful protesters, is making a link which really is pure semantics. The situation was simply taken advantage of by those who chose to start looting, and then rapidly inflamed by those who saw criminals "getting away with it" and going on copycat sprees.

If the looted shops had never been built, would they have been looted and burned? No. So did the proprietors of the shops cause the looting and arson by being there? That's about the same level of link as you are trying to make.

Again from what i remember from the news, it was a peaceful protest march up to the police station, when they got there they wanted questions answering, the IPCC had already become involved so they were not allowed to say anything.
It then became a little heated and there were rumours that a woman was assaulted by the police during this heated debate, this was banded about the local neighbourhood, that was the trigger.

It then turned in to a slightly violent protest, then another bunch of local undesireables realised the police were just standing there doing nothing and the looting started

Yes the situation that a large number of people were on the streets who wouldn't normally be there as a result of a protest about a police shooting.

Your English comprehension is letting you down. The looters on the streets was not "a result of" the protest at the police station. It was something that those who looted did as a completely separate personal choice.

Unless you can provide evidence that any single individual looted a shop because that was his chosen method of protesting against the Duggan shooting. Can you?

Also, even if some cretin [iadvanced[/i that as a cause-and-effect, surely you are not so stupid as to [iaccept [/iit as the truth? How does stealing from a shop and burning it down "protest", in any any the English language recognises, against a shooting by police of an individual? It doesn't. The cretin would obviously be lying.

But the fact is that NO reported convicted rioter has yet claimed he/she did it for Duggan, so where does that leave your theory? I really don't know why you would persist in trying to make this purely bogus causative link.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree then.

It's simple factual causation for me (and I suspect many others).

Don't really know why you have to start trying to be offensive with your posts though, 'cretin etc', bit immature isn't it?

My considered view of a hypothetical scumbag looter/arsonist who chose to loot and burn down shops trying to blame his actions on the shooting of Mark Duggan would be a "cretin". What's your problem with that, exactly? What has it to do with "maturity"? You've lost me.

This

You're the one losing the argument. Without the shooting of Mark Duggan and the subsequent peaceful march on the police station taking place, the subsequent rioting/looting would not have taken place and it wouldn't have escalated to other cities.

With all due respect, the view of "World of Redboy" as to which arguments are being won or lost is not a benchmark I suspect many use, but it would be of benefit to the discussion if you actually understood what the argument was.

Sadly though it's clear you're another one that can't come to grips with the simple idea that just because A follows B, that is not the same thing as "A causes B".

Without Celtic playing Rangers, there would be no sectarian chanting at the games. The games do not cause the sectarian chanting. Without Anuj Bidve travelling to Salford and walking in Ordsall Lane, he would not have been shot by some lunatic. But his travelling to Salford or his walking in Ordsall Lane did not CAUSE the shooting.

Am I making this any clearer for you?

I think it's fair to say the shooting of Duggan was the cause of a single protest march, which then kicked off. However, it seems the protest was mainly peaceful until a rumour spread that [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-peaceful-protestpolice had beaten a 16 year-old girl[/url. It could therefore be argued that this rumour was in fact the cause of riots?

Still, that doesn't mean that the sudden growth of violence was caused by the protest march or rumour - what caused the explosion of rioting was people seeing an opportunity when it became clear the police weren't geared up for such disorder, and were adopting a stand-off policy.

Further, consider that in the investigations and interviews with participants, the shooting simply hasn't been cited. Not, it seems, once. The shooting did not cause gangs to riot in Croydon. The shooting did not cause teenagers from Salford to go out and smash up Salford precinct [size=85(but then who could tell the difference?)[/size. What caused that trouble was the perception that the police weren't interested in tackling looters or rioters, and/or had lost control, a desire to be part of the events, and the chance to get hold of free loot.

Causation is not the same as a chain of linked events.

I am with FA. There is no due respect for workshy people who resent the powers of the law intervening in their drug deals. Seriously, these people can fro as far as I'm concerned. No DUE respect not a lot to do with sectaririanism.

Good post.