So Tottenham burns!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laudrup said:
It seems as if the illegal gun wasn't discharged. We know that simply carrying it doesn't justify being shot dead, but we don't know what the cab driver has said or what the officer involved said. At a guess the officer said he felt his life was in danger as Duggan was reaching for his gun. We'll probably never know unless CCTV caught it.

Amy Winehouse's demise can be summed up somewhat laconically.
Click to expand...

That hasn't answered the question and you know it, the bit about Duggan is the same answer you have given before. I didn't want you to second guess any inquest or investigation. I wanted you to admit that Duggan was exercising personal choice by carrying a gun. You can't admit this to be the case, as if you did you then have to admit that other people, such as single mothers may have made a choice. Not only does this bring your house of cards down, it's actually incredibly patronising of you to believe that people aren't capable of making a conscious decision.

Your comment about Amy Winehouse is just another example of bullsh£t baffles brains. You have pretensions to be an intellectual, but don't have the wit to apply the necessary rigour to your argument, especially as you seem to want to end every post with what you perceive to be a withering one liner. Oscar Wilde you're not.
 
Splog said:
Yes it does! .... Why carry it?
Click to expand...

The same reason a load of people in Middle America have guns, for protection. If everyone carries knives, carrying a gun is a sure fire way of not being messed with. I am aware of Duggans past, but it is a skewed sense of security.

I asked a kid at school who admitted to going out with a knife what he did it for, he replied "I wasn't gonna use it, but people knew I had it so no one f***** with me". Not in any way a sensible way of thinking, but a common one.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Wrong. Again.
Click to expand...

How is he wrong, is their a law that states if in possession of a firearm then shoot to kill?

Taser Guns are an effective weapon, used in the USA, but to use them here I think police have to have fire arm training, then take an extension to be able to use one. Surely that is a backwards way of thinking. Taser has a lot less chance of killing than shooting with a gun.
 
matty said:
You know you've just typed that and posted it, right? If they wanted to work, they would, but they don't, that's why there are lots of migrant workers doing the jobs they 'can't find'

And on that note, g'nite folks. Interesting debating, thanks to all for mostly keeping it on the right tracks
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if these migrant workers had a better grasp of literacy (and I mean English as well as Polish) and numeracy than some of these youths. Even a job at McDonalds or a supermarket you will still have to impress with a CV or demonstrate trustworthiness. Unfortunately patchy school records, maybe some trouble with the police, and ultimately being unable to converse in that sort of environment would probably rule a lot of them out.

It's a difficult situation to rectify.
 
ding76uk said:
How is he wrong, is their a law that states if in possession of a firearm then shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

No, but there is a law that says that if a police officer feels that a criminal is about to use a firearm then they can shoot them. Which is what appears to have happened in Duggan's case.

Personally I'm quite happy to see an armed drug dealer get shot by the Police, whether he fired on them first or not.

One less scumbag that has the chance to kill an innocent member of the public.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
No, but there is a law that says that if a police officer feels that a criminal is about to use a firearm then they can shoot them. Which is what appears to have happened in Duggan's case.

Personally I'm quite happy to see an armed drug dealer get shot by the Police, whether he fired on them first or not.

One less scumbag that has the chance to kill an innocent member of the public.
Click to expand...

But you said Laudrup was wrong, which he was not. The problem with your "one less scumbag on the streets" argument is that his place will be taken by many more. Just getting rid of them is not an answer.

A cycle of change needs to take place, which leads to the "Why should I/We" but someone has to.
 
Laudrup said:
It seems as if the illegal gun wasn't discharged. We know that simply carrying it doesn't justify being shot dead, but we don't know what the cab driver has said or what the officer involved said. At a guess the officer said he felt his life was in danger as Duggan was reaching for his gun. We'll probably never know unless CCTV caught it.

Amy Winehouse's demise can be summed up somewhat laconically.
Click to expand...
I has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the gun, it has everything to do with intent or perceived intent.

I make at least 4 car journeys a week with at least 1 gun in my car. On both Sat and Sun this week, there were 3 of us in my car with 5 guns between us. None of us were in the slightest danger of being shot by the police because
1. The guns weren't visible
2. We didn't threaten anyone with them
3. None of us are known criminals
4. The police had no reason to believe that we were in any way dangerous.

I don't know what happened with Mr. Duggan, but if the police had good reason to believe that he had a gun and that he was likely to use it against them, or if they saw him with a gun, then they were perfectly entitled to defend themselves. It doesn't even matter whether the gun was real or not or whether or not it was loaded. As it happens it was real, in the sense that it was a blank firer that had been converted to fire live ammo (even though, knowing the build quality of that particular piece of junk, I'm guessing that it would fall to bits if it was ever fired).
 
ding76uk said:
The same reason a load of people in Middle America have guns, for protection.
Click to expand...

You have missed one VERY important point. In the vast majority of US states it legal to own and carry a hand gun.

In Britain it is Illegal
 
whiteflyer said:
You have missed one VERY important point. In the vast majority of US states it legal to own and carry a hand gun.

In Britain it is Illegal
Click to expand...

And even in the States, they have to be licenced. Concealed weapons are a big no-no, aren't they? And I certainly don't think that particular right would extend to converted semi-automatic pistols...
 
The police don't shoot anyone for simply carrying a firearm. The standard procedure is for officers to shout a warning that they're armed ( if practical in the circumstances) and to discard the weapon. As soon as that weapon begins to be pointed in the direction of the officers or anyone else then they're shot - any less of a response is lunacy, jeopardising the officers' lives and potentially those of others in the vicinity. It's often a split second decision but there's no room for hesitation.
 
Catdaddy said:
And even in the States, they have to be licenced. Concealed weapons are a big no-no, aren't they? And I certainly don't think that particular right would extend to converted semi-automatic pistols...
Click to expand...

It changes from state to state.

For example in Nevada

State Requirements
Rifles and Shotguns

Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.


Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? No.
Registration of handguns? No.
Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
Permit to carry handguns? No. (A permit is required if concealed.)

On July 7, 1995, Senate Bill 299 was signed into law, and soon afterward, thousands of Nevada residents took advantage of the State law that allowed them to carry a handgun concealed upon them. A steady stream of Nevadans have been obtaining carry of concealed weapon (CCW) permits ever since. In 1999, Assembly Bill 166 improved upon the existing law by making legal concealed carry possible in more public places.
Click to expand...


So basically you ONLY need a permit to carry a concealed gun, otherwise just pop out to the shop and buy one no questions asked.


The point was that there are NO circumstance when you can carry a hand gun it the UK, and as CT points out in the post above the police are right in shooting anybody who points a gun at another person. Just because Mr. Duggan did not discharge his gun it totally irrelevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Laudrup said:
If you haven't found a job after 6 months and your benefits are stopped what happens? What happens to the 2 or 3 children, starve, on the streets, what?
Click to expand...

The 2 or 3 kids were probably out theiving, mugging or throwing petrol bombs just like their parents. Put 'em all in the same cell.
 
I find the talk of depravation in this thread laughable. Try being born in post war Britiain in 1943, son of a coal miner with three brothers. I left school about 2 days after my 15th birthday and went to work in the coal mine like most kids in the area. The only time I was out of work was for about 2 weeks. I went to sign on and was treated like a piece of pond life which was the norm then. I think there were 3 waiting days before you could get benefit or something like that - anyway, I was so disgusted with the way I was treated I never went back and consequently I can say I've never claimed a penny of benefit in my life.

Why should people work when they can get more in benefit? Simple bloody self respect and contributing something to the community instead of being a dead weight parasite and encouraged to be just that!
 
Last edited:
Catdaddy said:
And even in the States, they have to be licenced. Concealed weapons are a big no-no, aren't they? And I certainly don't think that particular right would extend to converted semi-automatic pistols...
Click to expand...

No, not at all. This is a long way from being correct. AFAIK, 49 of the 50 states have now passed CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) laws. Illinois is the exception, and their refusal is being challenged in the courts. The majority of these states have "shall issue" laws, meaning that the state must issue the CCW permit if you comply with the criteria, they don't have any discretion.

Generally speaking, firearms ownership is governed by the 2nd Amendment. You don't need a licence, and firearms are not registered. There are some restrictions - Federal and local - but the main ones apply to automatic weapons and suppressors etc. Legal, within limits.
 
matty said:
based on the fact that when i earned 25k i didnt get any rent or rates rebate with 2 kids :shrug:

if you were better off working, then why are the government trying to change the system to reward working?
Click to expand...

Just had an example of this at work, guy started a couple of months a go and
found he was worse off then on benefits so packed in and signed on again
This an intelligent educated person with a trade that he can't find work in at the moment
It makes a total mockery of things, why should the rest of us work and manage when others have this attitude :shrug:
Oh of course it's to pay for them to continue doing nothing :bang::bang:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
No, but there is a law that says that if a police officer feels that a criminal is about to use a firearm then they can shoot them. Which is what appears to have happened in Duggan's case.

Personally I'm quite happy to see an armed drug dealer get shot by the Police, whether he fired on them first or not.

One less scumbag that has the chance to kill an innocent member of the public.
Click to expand...

Quite right. What are the police supposed to do, wait till he shoots a copper or member of the public. If they believe he is about to use it, say a sudden movement they they are totally right to shoot first.

If u have a weapon you are likely to use it
 
one think ive learned from this thread, some people really are trolls.

anyway, going back to this:

Laudrup said:
we should look at apprenticeships or something practical that would engage these pupils more than academia.
Click to expand...

i read earlier in the week that there are at least 2000 unfilled apprenticeships in london alone.

as i said earlier, these scrotes do not want to work. hence our businesses have to employ harder working european counterparts.
 
Laudrup said:
If you asked them you'd probably find the majority do want to work. Why would they be any different to the rest of the population who want a better standard of living?
Click to expand...

one of my freinds is a warehouse manager at amazon in milton keynes - last xmas they were offering £11/hour for night shift pickers and packers , a job that requires you only to be relatively fit and havbe a basic standard of literacy (as my freind put it, if you can fill in a dole claim form accurately you are litterate enough) , could they fill all these vacancies - could they ****

but meanwhile you've got people who are both fit and literate signing on, because they rather be paid a bit to do **** all than be paid more to go out and graft.

so no actually these useless *******s dont want to work - they just want it all given them on a plate, and if its not given they'll go out and steal it.
 
CT said:
I find the talk of depravation in this thread laughable. Try being born in post war Britiain in 1943, son of a coal miner with three brothers. I left school about 2 days after my 15th birthday and went to work in the coal mine like most kids in the area. The only time I was out of work was for about 2 weeks. I went to sign on and was treated like a piece of pond life which was the norm then. I think there were 3 waiting days before you could get benefit or something like that - anyway, I was so disgusted with the way I was treated I never went back and consequently I can say I've never claimed a penny of benefit in my life.

Why should people work when they can get more in benefit? Simple bloody self respect and contributing something to the community instead of being a dead weight parasite and encouraged to be just that!
Click to expand...

Spot on. My late grandfathers were coal miners in deprived parts of the North East. They did what they had to do in order to survive, taking handouts was inconceivable. I can't imagine what their lives were like but my parents, who left school young, did alright. My father won a place at a technical college and my mother found a job with the Coal Board then became a nurse. My father joined the forces, got a pilot's licence, and we lived all over the world on military postings. I'm sure I'll get accused again of nostalgia, but hard as it is where the will exists it is possible for some people to make a better life. Of course back then there were different standards of discipline so most people had stronger values and the work ethic was different. That has largely evaporated from some sectors of modern society so it's unsurprising we have the problems we now have.

I saw a TV programme a while back about a chap who refused to take any of the jobs offered to him. He had countless children, and another on the way, he refused to let his exhausted wife use contraception or abstain because it was against the teachings of his religious leaders and he wanted as many children as possible (I think the count was something like 8 or 9 at the time). He refused work because he said he was too well qualified for the jobs offered and they were beneath him. The level of benefits he was receiving was extraordinary. I'm not saying everyone we're discussing is like that, that would be wrong, but there is a contingent out there with exactly that mindset.
 
I stand corrected on the gun laws in the States... thanks for putting me straight, guys... I thought they were a little tighter than that over there...
 
CT said:
I find the talk of depravation in this thread laughable. !
Click to expand...

i dunno , the behaviour of the rioters seem pretty depraved to me - deprived on the other hand they arent :lol:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Well, in relation to operation Trident there is an obvious remedy, but to even utter it one would be immediately branded as racist.
Click to expand...

the other thing is that trident is an investigation into black on black gun crime, and scumbags like duggan prey on their own communities so how did shooting him become an act of oppresion ?
 
PsiFox said:
Have a look here for all the variations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

Some states don't even recognise other states permits!!!
Click to expand...

The gun lobby are pushing for reciprocity - it already exists between some states - but it can be quite difficult for us to understand just how much legal autonomy the individual states have. There can be variations at local level too. For example, it's an offence to carry a gun in licensed premises in some jurisdictions; in others, it's fine, providing you don't consume alcohol.

There is also some resistance to the CCW laws by gun enthusiasts, who argue that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the constitution, and that the states have no authority to restrict it by issuing permits.

Federal (government) agents can carry concealed weapons anywhere in the US, but state and local LEOs (law enforcement officers) don't have this right. Some jurisdictions have reciprocal arrangements, others don't and officers have to leave their weapons at home or rely on professional courtesy.
 
Sadly this quote sums it up for me:

RIP Broken Britain.. You went soft on discipline!.. You went soft on immigration!You went soft on crime.. Parents were told.. 'No you can't smack the kids'....Teachers were prevented from disiplining kids in schools.. The police couldn't clip a troublemaker round the ear.. Kids had rights blah blah blah.. Well done Britain..You shall reap what you sow..
 
What choices do the courts have with this influx of people (lets call them kids, as most of them are under 18)?

There isnt room in the general prison population to house them
An 'ASBO' is just a badge of honour
Any community service will most likely be shirked as the consequence of not attending is an ASBO.

What is an effective punishment to youths today who seem to have no morals/conscsience to prick?
I heard interviews with some of the kids in Manchester the other night who had actively weighed up the consequences " Even if I do get caught it will be my first offence and Im only 14...what can they do to me??"

As a middle aged man with a comfortable life (and a spell in the forces) my immediate reaction is 'short sharp shock/national service etc' , but I know that would be too difficult to implement and hard to swallow in todays liberal times.
These are the sons and daughters of my generation, we worked hard to ensure that they didnt face the difficulties we grew up with and in the process we, and the school system (not education) seemed to have taught them that they deserve things and that any wrongdoing will be dealt with by a 'question and answer' session to find out why they felt they should behave that way.
 
CT said:
I find the talk of depravation in this thread laughable. Try being born in post war Britiain in 1943, son of a coal miner with three brothers. I left school about 2 days after my 15th birthday and went to work in the coal mine like most kids in the area. The only time I was out of work was for about 2 weeks. I went to sign on and was treated like a piece of pond life which was the norm then. I think there were 3 waiting days before you could get benefit or something like that - anyway, I was so disgusted with the way I was treated I never went back and consequently I can say I've never claimed a penny of benefit in my life.

Why should people work when they can get more in benefit? Simple bloody self respect and contributing something to the community instead of being a dead weight parasite and encouraged to be just that!
Click to expand...


Deprivation now means not having a colour tv with satellite feed in the bedroom, not having the latest trainers, clothes or the latest phone. We've mostly brought up a generation that expects everything handed to them on a plate, right now, which probably explains the debt level of some as well.

Being poor when I was growing up meant not having 3 meals a day, or the school dinner was the best you got
 
dod said:
Individual freedom, the right to do what I want to do regardless of all others. EXACTLY why we're in the mess we are.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, and you're missing the point I made in another post.

Classical liberals - including JSM and others - argue that the individual has a right to make choices about their own life, and that the state and society have a very limited authority to interfere in this. You are free to do - more or less - as you please, providing you do no harm to others. In the modern context, you can get drunk if you want to and the state have no right to make moral judgements about this, but you do not have the right to drive on a public road or stagger about in public, accosting other people and making a nuisance of yourself, or neglect (harm) your family because of intoxication. The same argument would apply to drugs.

No liberal would argue that you have a right to do as you please "regardless of all others", or have any reservations about taking strong action against rioters and other criminals. The debate is about the right of the state and society to impose their will on others, in matters that do not concern them, not their right to impose sanctions on deviants whose behaviour is a threat to others.
 
MartynK said:
No, not at all. This is a long way from being correct. AFAIK, 49 of the 50 states have now passed CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) laws. Illinois is the exception, and their refusal is being challenged in the courts. The majority of these states have "shall issue" laws, meaning that the state must issue the CCW permit if you comply with the criteria, they don't have any discretion.

Generally speaking, firearms ownership is governed by the 2nd Amendment. You don't need a licence, and firearms are not registered. There are some restrictions - Federal and local - but the main ones apply to automatic weapons and suppressors etc. Legal, within limits.
Click to expand...


I think thats a bit of a general statement. Gun laws are specific to state not country i.e. the CCW terms differ. Illinois for example you need to obtain a FOID card, pretty much the same as getting a license here. In Florida where we lived you need a certificate of training and a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License. To get it you need to give your inside leg measurement! ;)

We have guns here in the UK. If we were stopped by the police with them in the car, no problem... we have a license. If however they were loaded and uncased we would be behind bars end of.
 
Treesie said:
...We have guns here in the UK. If we were stopped by the police with them in the car, no problem... we have a license. If however they were loaded and uncased we would be behind bars end of.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, these hypothetical uncased and loaded guns that would see you behind bars if you were caught by the police... would that be if they were in the glovebox or on the seat? Or would that be if you were holding them?
 
whatdoesthisbutt said:
I heard interviews with some of the kids in Manchester the other night who had actively weighed up the consequences " Even if I do get caught it will be my first offence and Im only 14...what can they do to me??"
Click to expand...

Frightening thing is these are the future of this country.:shake:
 
To confirm, wherever they were if they were loaded we would be in deep doggie doo period.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top