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?

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), 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.'"

Exit polls for rioters

Let him...

He tells porkies.

If you look at your bargraph, you will see that the SAME people gave a variety of things that they thought were a cause (a factor might be a better word).
It's a fair old list as well.
it's clear that the Duggan thing wasn't THE cause (as in singular).
It was a factor.

There wouldn't have been a protest march.

It was a contributory factor to the initial subsequent trouble, but had little directly to do with the looting even in Tottenham later that night. It had very little to do with the violence that spread throughout London and even less nationwide.

And if it hadn't been the Duggan shooting, another incident would have been the trigger. Note - the trigger, not the cause.

There was no other incident, it was a shooting.

The Duggan shooting 'triggered' (set off; initiated) the rioting.

So but for the shooting there wouldn't have been a riot.

(I'm just talking about Tottenham here. Not other parts of the UK)

The shooting did not initiate any rioting, it initiated a protest match and angry response. An incident at the protest gathering initiated some violence. The weak police response caused others to see an opportunity for looting and rioting. It's what's known as a chain of events rather than direct causality.

A causes B; B causes C; C causes D. That does not mean A caused D, or even necessarily C, despite being linked. Please try and understand that.

To say that without the shooting there would have been NO riots is to say there were no other reasons people rioted, which is clearly not true. The main cause of the initial violence -underlying anger against the police - would have been triggered by another event. That it was the shooting of Mark Duggan is largely irrelevant.

The clear difference between 'the Duggan thing' and the rest is that 'the Duggan thing' is the only single incident on there. The rest are perceptions of society and communications. Whilst nobody would argue that the rest of the issues weren't contributory factors, 'the Duggan thing' was the actual incident which set off the chain of events of which the riots were the consequence.

If A does not happen, then neither does C or D.

No one has said otherwise. It's called a chain of events.

That still doesn't mean A actually caused anything beyond B.

A (Shooting of Mark Duggan)

C (Riot)

Take away A, and C doesn't happenn.

Ie, No shooting, no riot.

It's clearly beyond him. I'll leave him in his ignorance.