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