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.

Exit polls for rioters

He's preparing his case even as we type.

So you agree then that if Duggan hadn't of been shot their wouldn't have been a riot?

Let him...

He tells porkies.





Wonder if Cronus will have a word for 'twisting articles to suit agendas'. I guess it's probably ok when it's their 'side' doing the twisting.

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.

The majority agree with me, best to leave us all in our ignorance.

So its all Mark Duggans mothers fault, if she hadnt got pregnant all those years ago , there wouldnt have been any riots

All sorted

I did mention a few pages back that he was a nutter.

Didn't expect him to demonstrate it so aptly though.

C can still happen without A.
C could depend on B.
C could happen independently of both A and B.
They are all possibilities.
Would you accept that just from a mathematical point of view (or logical point of view)?
If you accept that, you can't definitely say A caused C.

Love how when people are losing an argument on this messageboard they immediately resort to dishing out abuse.

It's funny because it seems like it's the mods who do it most often, aren't they the ones supposed to be enforcing the rules?

I bet if I was to start dishing it out in response then I would be first to get banned too.

I've already had a 'warning' off a moderator for him abusing me?!

If you don't agree with my points, debate it out. Don't just start dishing out abuse. It really is quite immature that you can't construct an argument without resorting to abuse.

There is a difference between debating and repeating your (badly thought out) point until people are sick of it. Several posters have pointed out the flaw in your pointg yet you still think you are right. Oh and the addy you need is admin@rlfans.com.

There is a difference between debating and repeating your (badly thought out) point until people are sick of it. Several posters have pointed out the flaw in your pointg yet you still think you are right. Oh and the addy you need is admin@rlfans.com.

The only thing true in your argument is that A happened first.
If you were the person charged with coming up with the cause/s of the riots (assuming you were capable of doing that job) then I think that you would be more open to the possibilities and not just dive into what happened first as the cause (bad as it was).

Quote ="Big Graeme"There is a difference between debating and repeating your (badly thought out) point until people are sick of it. Several posters have pointed out the flaw in your pointg yet you still think you are right. Oh and the addy you need is admin@rlfans.com.'" Thank you. If you had read the thread, you will see that numerous people have agreed with my viewpoints. If people are sick of the debate then don't visit the thread any more, I don't force people to read my posts and I'm not forced to read others posts. What I don't do is dish out abuse for no apparent reason. I'm a grown up.

Quote ="Big Graeme"There is a difference between debating and repeating your (badly thought out) point until people are sick of it. Several posters have pointed out the flaw in your pointg yet you still think you are right. Oh and the addy you need is admin@rlfans.com.'" Thank you. If you had read the thread, you will see that numerous people have agreed with my viewpoints. If people are sick of the debate then don't visit the thread any more, I don't force people to read my posts and I'm not forced to read others posts. What I don't do is dish out abuse for no apparent reason. I'm a grown up.

Erm, no they haven't, yet again your comprehension is lacking.



Act like it then.

Erm yes they have. 'World of Redboy' and 'Smokey TA' I think.



You disagreed with my opinion so you dished out abuse.

Who is the one acting like a child?