Quote: Ajw71 "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.'"
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".
Quote: Ajw71 "www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/anger-police-fuelled-riots-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.'"
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), 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 reactionHome Officerl
"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"
rlUK Riots Executive Summaryrl (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 isAlthough rioters expressed a mix of opinions about the disorder, many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots.
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.'"
