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.

He may still be confused, unless you change it a bit.

[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" 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" 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.