[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:27 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

:lol: so you think that my opinion is that anyone with a criminal record can safely be shot ?


Why don't you just admit that you got yourself in a right old strop this lunchtime, one that Violet Elizabeth Bott would be proud to call her own and it caused you to post a meltdown style message complete with CAPS and big fonts to make it look important, if only you'd used a green crayon font then we might have even been impressed.

Don't worry about it though, we're used to you and it made us laugh a bit.

Your attempt to get away from the fact that YOUR quotes indicate that you have no problem with what happened to Duggan is the issue. You talked about the Scum of society and live by the sword die by the sword. You can now laugh it off as a joke or that i was suggesting something that you did not mean is the funny thing.

YOUR words condemn YOUR attitude.

The use of caps and colours is to highlighyt the key points. You just seem to ignore them.

Did you post what i quoted or not, did you mean you support the police actions or not. Your posts give the answers.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:28 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Your attempt to get away from the fact that YOUR quotes indicate that you have no problem with what happened to Duggan is the issue. You talked about the Scum of society and live by the sword die by the sword. You can now laugh it off as a joke or that i was suggesting something that you did not mean is the funny thing.

YOUR words condemn YOUR attitude.

The use of caps and colours is to highlighyt the key points. You just seem to ignore them.

Did you post what i quoted or not, did you mean you support the police actions or not. Your posts give the answers.

LOLZ - you're getting stroppy again, of course I'm ignoring your points, we've been here before with you, you'll get all full of angst and self-righteous fluster and then stomp off in a flurry of feathers -

But to answer your question do I support the police actions, yes of course I do, as did the court, as do most people who don't throw strops and type in very large CAPS to try and make their point that the police set out to kill lots of people every year, yes of course they do - now back in your box and calm down.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:08 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

At least 333 from 1999 to 2009
86 of which were RESTRAINT related

Let's take a closer look at those figures.

Most of those 333 deaths in or following police custody were actually from "self-inflicted wounds, overdose, suicide or natural causes", the primary causes of death being as follows: 104 natural causes, 45 suicides, 64 overdoses, 36 injuries prior to arrest, 25 alcohol/drug related, 18 unascertained/inconclusive, 11 airway obstruction, 10 restraint related, 6 injuries during detention, 6 hypothermia, 5 'other' and 3 'not stated'. In many of these cases secondary causes were also given (ie, choking due to alcohol, hypothermia due to alcohol/drugs). In 6 cases 'restraint related' was given as a secondary cause. So, 16 restraint-related deaths.

Your figure of 86 is actually those who were restrained and later died. Not deaths that were restraint related. There's a difference.

From 1999 to 2009 (inclusive), there were 15,022,164 arrests in England and Wales. I hardly think they're bumping people off.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:17 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Let's take a closer look at those figures.

Most of those 333 deaths in or following police custody were actually from "self-inflicted wounds, overdose, suicide or natural causes", the primary causes of death being as follows: 104 natural causes, 45 suicides, 64 overdoses, 36 injuries prior to arrest, 25 alcohol/drug related, 18 unascertained/inconclusive, 11 airway obstruction, 10 restraint related, 6 injuries during detention, 6 hypothermia, 5 'other' and 3 'not stated'. In many of these cases secondary causes were also given (ie, choking due to alcohol, hypothermia due to alcohol/drugs). In 6 cases 'restraint related' was given as a secondary cause. So, 16 restraint-related deaths.

Your figure of 86 is actually those who were restrained and later died. Not deaths that were restraint related. There's a difference.

From 1999 to 2009 (inclusive), there were 15,022,164 arrests in England and Wales. I hardly think they're bumping people off.

Lol
So in 0.0001% of arrests there might be a massive conspiracy by the police to kill people they don't like?

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:41 pm  

Him wrote:

Lol
So in 0.0001% of arrests there might be a massive conspiracy by the police to kill people they don't like?

But even one is more than enough surely ?

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:45 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

LOLZ - you're getting stroppy again, of course I'm ignoring your points, we've been here before with you, you'll get all full of angst and self-righteous fluster and then stomp off in a flurry of feathers -

But to answer your question do I support the police actions, yes of course I do, as did the court, as do most people who don't throw strops and type in very large CAPS to try and make their point that the police set out to kill lots of people every year, yes of course they do - now back in your box and calm down.

So you admit i was right to link you in with those who support the Police killing people on the grounds that they are scum and criminals. Even after you denied it initially and tried to deflect attention away from yourself.


Trouble is your approach of the Police right or wrong then allkows them to get away with killing and then getting off with it people who are not criminals or scum like Colin Roach, Ian Tomlinson and Charles de menezes

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

But even one is more than enough surely ?

Not to suggest its a regular occurrence, no.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:44 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Your attempt to get away from the fact that YOUR quotes indicate that you have no problem with what happened to Duggan is the issue. You talked about the Scum of society and live by the sword die by the sword. You can now laugh it off as a joke or that i was suggesting something that you did not mean is the funny thing.

YOUR words condemn YOUR attitude.

The use of caps and colours is to highlighyt the key points. You just seem to ignore them.

Did you post what i quoted or not, did you mean you support the police actions or not. Your posts give the answers.

Hi DG: are you still representing yourself with the symbol of an anti-semitic, anti-worker, right-wing so-and-so?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:06 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

So you admit i was right to link you in with those who support the Police killing people on the grounds that they are scum and criminals. Even after you denied it initially and tried to deflect attention away from yourself.


Trouble is your approach of the Police right or wrong then allkows them to get away with killing and then getting off with it people who are not criminals or scum like Colin Roach, Ian Tomlinson and Charles de menezes

You're getting calmer, thats good, no use of CAPS, large fonts or weird conspiracy theories about how government forces are killing hundreds of us AND NO-ONE CARES EXCEPT ME.

Think of this as therapy, I'm pleased with your improvement in just one day, we'll keep working with you though.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:16 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Black drug dealers do get treated worse than white drug dealers. How come Curtis Warren is still in prison whilst Howard Marks is out?

I agree with those people who say that if Duggan was white then he wouldn't have been shot..

You cannot seriously be comparing Warren to Marks?