Riot in London last night

[Robert]

Tottenham:

Emergency crews remain on the streets of Tottenham, in north London, after rioting saw police attacked and buildings and vehicles set alight.

Overnight, eight officers were injured in the violence which erupted following a protest over the fatal shooting by police of Mark Duggan on Thursday.

Police said there were still "pockets of criminality" on Sunday morning and residents reported more looting.

London Fire Brigade said crews were dampening down the scene of some fires.

A spokesman said all the fires were under control "at the moment".

On Sunday morning, police were manning a cordon around the scene of the violence, while horrified residents surveyed the damage to their community.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I condemn utterly the violence in Tottenham last night.

"Such disregard for public safety and property will not be tolerated, and the Metropolitan Police have my full support in restoring order.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The rioting in Tottenham last night was utterly unacceptable.

"There is no justification for the aggression the police and the public faced, or for the damage to property."

Riot police and mounted police were called in after the protest deteriorated into violence about 20:20 BST.

Rioters threw petrol bombs at police and buildings. A double-decker bus was set on fire at the junction of High Road and Brook Street and buildings, including a supermarket and carpet shop, were also set alight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14435251

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Chavs?

 

[Robert]

Chavs?

No doubt there were some but it came about after a protest over police killing a local man on Thursday.

The suggestion, according to the BBC, is that a 16 year old girl at the protest was hit by a police baton and it all kicked off.

-EDIT-
The Beeb now claiming the girl was battoned "accidentally".
Call me cynical but.......

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

-EDIT-
The Beeb now claiming the girl was battoned "accidentally".
Call me cynical but.......

But you don't know.

 

[Robert]

But you don't know.

You're absolutely right - I don't. As I said, call me cynical.

However, when I heard that excuse, two things sprung to mind:
1. How do you accidentally baton someone?
2. I have witnessed, first hand, numerous incidents of UK police thuggery and subsequent lying. So even if they are completely blameless, there's an element of "boy who cried wolf" about it. Hence my cynicism.

 

[Robert]

You're absolutely right - I don't.

update from the Guardian:

The girl who reportedly was involved in causing the violence between police and protesters may have thrown a stone at police.
Laurence Bailey "holed up in a church 10 metres away from the Tottenham riot". He told the Guardian that he saw the girl "throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line".
Bailey said the girl was then "pounded by 15 riot shields". He said that the police "launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend."
He added: "After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them."

 

[redrumloa]

The Beeb now claiming the girl was battoned "accidentally".
Call me cynical but.......

Accidentally? Good lord...

 

[Robert]

Accidentally? Good lord...

According to the latest account, accidentally "pounded by 15 riot shields".

Sounds as though she might have lobbed something at them first.

More to come out in the wash, methinks.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

You're absolutely right - I don't. As I said, call me cynical.

However, when I heard that excuse, two things sprung to mind:
1. How do you accidentally baton someone?

Well, there are some very vulnerable parts on a human's body.

2. I have witnessed, first hand, numerous incidents of UK police thuggery and subsequent lying. So even if they are completely blameless, there's an element of "boy who cried wolf" about it. Hence my cynicism.

Okay, well, I've seen, (not first hand) the opposite. And everytime chavs were involved. On the other hand, the excessive violence against peace protesters in Italy a while ago also comes to mind.

Let's say, I don't know.

 

[Robert]

everytime chavs were involved.

It's an absolute, racing certainty that chavs were involved.

That's quite different from saying chavs caused it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Anybody not had a riot recently?

 

[Robert]

Anybody not had a riot recently?

Scotland - we're far too apathetic.

All we get is the tabloids pretending there are riots every time Rangers play Celtic at fitbaw, when in actual fact nothing really happens.

 

[the_leander]

No doubt there were some but it came about after a protest over police killing a local man on Thursday.

Local gang member, who shot at the police first. One of the big issues and the likely flashpoint was the wording of the statement made by the IPCC, which failed to mention the fact that the police were shot at, one of them was hit, and his assailant was then shot in response.

As for the BBC... Claiming this guy was "murdered" by the police?

I standards were slipping over at Aunties, but ffs.

The suggestion, according to the BBC, is that a 16 year old girl at the protest was hit by a police baton and it all kicked off.

Saw this on twitter. Despite all the talk, no pictures or first hand accounts have yet shown up. Rumours like this are a cancer.

-EDIT-
The Beeb now claiming the girl was battoned "accidentally".
Call me cynical but.......

Call me cynical, but if there was a shred of truth about this, the pictures would all over the net and on the mainstream media, which takes great delight in slamming the police at every given opportunity.

As the old saying goes: Pix or it didn't happen.

 

[Robert]

Call me cynical, but if there was a shred of truth about this, the pictures would all over the net and on the mainstream media

A shred of truth about which part?
The 'accidental' part?
The claim that the girl threw something at the police first?
The claim that the police 'launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields'?
Or that there was an incident with a girl at all?

As for the BBC... Claiming this guy was "murdered" by the police?

They did? I haven't heard or seen that.

The BBC reports earlier today were that the dead man fired first and the police were acting in self defence.

 

[Robert]

London riots: Looting and violence continues

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970

Metropolitan Police Commander Adrian Hanstock said: "This is not groups of people acting on behalf of communities or with any consent.

"This is individuals who are actually attacking communities, businesses, properties and houses and actually causing a huge amount of upset and criminality."

The Met said it had dealt with several incidents of "copycat criminal activity" across the city.

These included:

Three officers injured after being hit by a vehicle in Chingford Mount, Waltham Forest, at about 00:45 BST
More than 30 youths vandalising and looting a number of shops in Walthamstow and Waltham Forest
Vandalism carried out by about 50 youths in Oxford Circus, central London
A police vehicle being attacked in Islington, north London
A shop on the King's Road in Chelsea damaged
A Tesco store in Ponders End being attacked and items stolen

 

[the_leander]

Or that there was an incident with a girl at all?

This, it's too convenient a justification. If some kid had been turned over, I would have expected to have seen pics show up, not to mention interviews with eye witnesses. In this age of smartphones which can upload photos to the net in the blink of an eye...

Don't get me wrong, I've seen both on the TV and first hand the police do pretty underhand crap, especially when it comes to these sorts of incidents. But at the same time I've seen them at their best and am not really impressed that the automatic assumption not only by a great many on the left but by in large the media too is that they are guilty.

They did? I haven't heard or seen that.

Was on the tv, my jaw actually dropped when the reporter said it. Nothing like stoking things up.

Then again there have been a couple of things (small admittedly) where the bbc have been reporting things that are out and out wrong (Ark Royal being a Falklands veteran, by way of a recent example that I've seen).

The BBC reports earlier today were that the dead man fired first and the police were acting in self defence.

Not turned the telly on yet today, am guessing it's all over though right?

One thing that does worry me is the way the IPCC worded their statement, as it's not clear that this is the case and would quite likely have negated the first (peaceful) protest.

 

[Robert]

This, it's too convenient a justification. If some kid had been turned over, I would have expected to have seen pics show up, not to mention interviews with eye witnesses.

Have you read the thread?
There's a quote from yesterday's Guardian by an eyewitness. I posted that hours after the BBC's "accidental" claim.

Are the Guardian and the BBC colluding to make up stories about imaginary 16 year old victims of police brutality?
-EDIT-
And the Independent are in on it too?

A number of eyewitnesses said a 16-year-old girl was "set upon" by several police officers and struck with a baton after she had "thrown something".

I'm not claiming a girl was attacked but at least two named eyewitnesses are so the implication that the BBC made the whole thing up is completely absurd.

In this age of smartphones which can upload photos to the net in the blink of an eye...

That's all well and good but not everyone films every waking hour of their day.
And if it did happen the way the eyewitness claims, it was all over very quickly.

the automatic assumption not only by a great many on the left but by in large the media too is that they are guilty.

Strange, because I saw the BBC's reporting in completely the opposite light from you.

For example, why would they claim a girl was "accidentally" hit by a baton if they wanted to blame the police?
(especially when the eyewitness claims she was brutally attacked by around 15 of them)

I'm also a little puzzled by your own apparent assumption that the dead man is to blame for his own death.
Form what I've read, it's a lot murkier than that. From the Independent today:

One officer's radio was hit by a bullet and Mr Duggan was shot and killed. It was reported last night that the round recovered from the radio was a police-issue bullet. A gun was also recovered from the scene. One eyewitness claims Mr Duggan was shot while he was pinned to the floor by police

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a-vigil-that-turned-to-violence-2333590.html

Was on the tv, my jaw actually dropped when the reporter said it. Nothing like stoking things up.

Well, I never heard that but I agree, if a BBC reporter accused the police of murdering someone (in fact, anyone) it's outrageous and I'd expect him to be sacked.

 

[the_leander]

Have you read the thread?
There's a quote from yesterday's Guardian by an eyewitness. I posted that hours after the BBC's "accidental" claim.

Are the Guardian and the BBC colluding to make up stories about imaginary 16 year old victims of police brutality?

Given the quality of recent coverage by both groups. No, I don't believe them to be colluding on this. I do however believe that it suits their own biases which at least in this case are similar.

Remember the student protests? Remember those secondary school girls who surrounded that police transit van? According to the Guardian they were doing so to stop the police going through. According to everyone else, including the girls, it was to stop the protesters from tipping it and smashing it up.

I have no faith in the Guardians reporting on these sorts of events, any more than I do the BBC. Sure, no-one is unbiased but the former at least have form for out and out making things up to suit their biases.

It's one thing to report the news, it's another to create it.

That's all well and good but not everyone films every waking hour of their day.
And if it did happen the way the eyewitness claims, it was all over very quickly.

15 riot police going hammer and tongs on one person = hospitalised at best.

I will withhold further comment until there is some independent verification on this. To me it just smells wrong as presented.

Well, I never heard that but I agree, if a BBC reporter accused the police of murdering someone (in fact, anyone) it's outrageous and I'd expect him to be sacked.

Won't happen, sadly. No doubt it'll be played down as either the reporter repeating what he was told by someone else or it was a heat of the moment thing if it ever gets brought up.

 

[the_leander]

Just to lighten the mood a bit, caught this just a moment ago:

‘Tottenham destroyed in riot’.

How can they tell?

 

[Robert]

Given the quality of recent coverage by both groups. No, I don't believe them to be colluding on this. I do however believe that it suits their own biases which at least in this case are similar.

OK, how about the Telegraph? Same biases?

The 16 year-old was said by some witnesses to have thrown a stone at a line of officers during the initial protest at Tottenham police station.

She was then allegedly knocked to the ground, and as the crowds retaliated it led to two squad cars being set alight at the start of a night of violent disturbances and looting.

However by Sunday night the identity of the teenage girl had not been established and the Metropolitan Police were unable to confirm the truth of the alleged incident.

Asked about the rumours at a press conference, Commander Adrian Hanstock replied: “We are still looking into that. There are conflicting responses to what that incident was. We want to concentrate on the scene, getting the area back to normal.”
Regardless of whether or not a girl was attacked by police, a rumour about it certainly spread among the crow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-girl-blamed-for-start-of-Tottenham-riot.html

It's one thing to report the news, it's another to create it.

Which is exactly what I mean. Where have the BBC created this story? You seem to be implying that has happened here. That the BBC have some sort of agenda against the police and created this news out of thin air.

The implication is looking increasingly ridiculous. All that has happened is that the claims of the attack are being reported in different ways. Furthermore, the only outlet to have claimed it was "by accident" were the supposedly anti-police BBC. None of this fits your implication that the BBC invented this story.

15 riot police going hammer and tongs on one person = hospitalised at best.

That's an unfounded assumption on a couple of counts. First of all "15 riot police" could well be (and in my opinion probably is) an exaggeration. Only one witness mentioned "15". Secondly, the same eyewitness claimed she was dragged away very quickly.
I've also seen people battered with shields and batons and emerge relatively unscathed.