[size=85=#0080FFHe may well be, but at least he's shut up [/size

I thought it was a link for a moment.


We're both up rather late.

Very true.

And now the BBC puts a rather mischievous slant on newly released historical records:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16313781Thatcher 'considered arming police' during 1981 riots[/url

The article in fact simply says that Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw agreed that using the Army "could not be contemplated", and they would prefer to arm the police. To me, that hardly sounds controversial. The PM and Deputy consider what may be needed to deal with serious rioting, obviously there is the army, it is considered and dismissed seemingly out of hand, and the way it reads, it's like saying "I'd sooner arm the police than contemplate troops". But that's as far as it went. Any PM would of necessity "consider" any possible options. Arming the police seems to have been an obvious bullet point on a list of options, but one which was rejected. The police were not armed, they got better equipment and they were sent out in numbers.

Good morning.


I love it when people write things like that by accident.
I'm sorry, you can't claim it retrospectively.

Quote Cronus="Cronus" 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? '" But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... iots-study "They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London" See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances' But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.

Quote Cronus="Cronus" 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? '" But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... iots-study "They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London" See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances' But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.

Interesting article.... www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... ry-england Saturday 6 August, 8.30pm Alex watched the car he set fire to smoulder. He waited for the windows to crack and the petrol tank to explode. He had known nothing about the protest when he first left the pub. When people in the crowd explained why they were there, he quickly decided to join in. Alex rioted 'when the crowd explained why they were there' - to protest over Duggan. But for the shooting their would have been no protest, no violence, no riot - In Tottenham.

Interesting article.... www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... ry-england Saturday 6 August, 8.30pm Alex watched the car he set fire to smoulder. He waited for the windows to crack and the petrol tank to explode. He had known nothing about the protest when he first left the pub. When people in the crowd explained why they were there, he quickly decided to join in. Alex rioted 'when the crowd explained why they were there' - to protest over Duggan. But for the shooting their would have been no protest, no violence, no riot - In Tottenham.

75% of rioters said the shooting of Duggan was an important or very important cause of the riots.

More rioters that mention Duggan.... www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactiv ... nteractive

More rioters that mention Duggan.... www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactiv ... nteractive

LSE-Guardian Study....

"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots,[size=150and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned[/size – even outside London"


Now let FA come on and try and argue otherwise....

No, i agree with you, the police responding more aggressively would have only inflamed the situation.

However if the police had needed to respond more aggressively in a specific situation to save lives then they of course, without question, would have needed to do so, but only in that very specific situation.

Are you going to try and do this then or just stick with what surely must be a willful misunderstanding and failed attempts at humer?

Someone doesnt seem to understand what the word IF means. i.e IF they didnt think they couldnt use lethal force it was because they were mistaken, because they could use whatever force was necessary to save lives. Of course IF they knew they could use lethal force but chose not to because the situation didnt warrant it then that is a different matter. However neither of these IF scenarios affect the fact they could use it.
It seems because of your lack of understand of the word IF, and the reason it was used, it has sent you on a strange wild goose chase.

I think AJW has conclusively proved what 'arrant nonsense' you have put here.

Causation is not the same as linked events. This is the part you don't seem to understand.

Of course the protest was because of the shooting, but a copper did not hit a girl with a shield because of the shooting. Of course, she was there because of the shooting, but he hit her because she threw a stone. He didn't think "we shot Mark Duggan earlier, therefore I'll belt this girl", he thought "she's throwing stuff at me, therefore I'll give her a shove".


Erm, yes, that's exactly what I said. No-one is saying the initial trouble in Tottenham wasn't linked to the shooting, or indeed that anger and confusion over the shooting wasn't the trigger that caused crowds to gather and some disturbances, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the wider lootings and riots. The initial protest march in Tottenham was, of course, caused by reaction to the shooting. Actual violence, it seems, started as a result of a rumour of police assault on a teenage girl. Further violence spread as people perceived a loss of control by the police.

I can also find statements in articles (the same article we've both quoted, in fact): [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-peaceful-protest" "Didn't you see the girl getting roughed by the Feds, man? Come on."[/url, as well as "Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm."

Those people of course were there because of the shooting. But it did not turn violent BECAUSE of the shooting. It turned violent. it seems, because of the rumour of an assault.

Let's look at some actual reports into the disturbances, not a survey commissioned by a newspaper, and you'll find many reasons for the trouble - primarily opportunism based on a weak police reaction:

[url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/HC%201456-I%20Final%20Report.pdfHome Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011[/url
"Even in Tottenham, it is not clear that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan were the only influences at play. In other locations, the link to the original trigger is even more tenuous and provides no explanation for what went on."
"There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution"

[url=http://www.5daysinaugust.co.uk/PDF/downloads/Executive-summary-UK-Riots.pdfUK Riots Executive Summary[/url (an independent body)
"The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London."
"Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct"
"Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas."
"It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will"

And don't edit articles to suit your agenda. What the article actually says is:

So, "policing" was in fact the most significant cause.

I'll say it again. Causation is not the same as a series of linked events. Yes, initially, a small number were in situ because of the shooting. The subsequent violence did not start because of the shooting, but because of events that occurred while crowds were gathered in relation to the shooting. The wider trouble across London and England was barely even linked to the shooting.