The Student Room Group

Mark Duggan was assassinated, claims his mother

Scroll to see replies

Original post by unclej
i think it has something to do with her feeling that the death of her son was overshadowed by the riots.
i can understand, people need to remember his death, but i dont think she needed to be so contraversial (but then again i'm yet to see a source of her saying this)


That is understandable. It is frustrating how they are both lumped together, when his death was merely a pre-cursor and not a major factor behind the riots.

To say he was assassinated though, which is a very strong word, is questionable although emotion was probably taking hold.
Reply 61
Original post by rmpr97
You serious, we're justifying criminality because 'they need to feed the family?'

You serious? So if I burgle your house, loot all your goods, then you know lets mix it up with some bank fraud and every time your pay goes into there I just nick that, you'd let it slide because you know, I need to feed the family?

Please shut up and don't spout that type of bull****.


Those are hypothetical examples of why somebody would turn to crime, the main point was that you have to do what you have to do sometimes

It's just unfair that we get to judge him as vile and despicable when we don't know the motives behind his actions or how he ended up dealing drugs

Calm down son you'll have a heart attack
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 62
Original post by diggy
Those are hypothetical examples of why somebody would turn to crime, the main point was that you have to do what you have to do sometimes

It's just unfair that we get to judge him as vile and despicable when we don't know the motives behind his actions or how he ended up dealing drugs

Calm down son you'll have a heart attack


There should never be a reason to turn to crime, and you was basically stating it was acceptable for him to be a drug dealer because 'he need to feed the family'.

It's never acceptable to turn to crime, and my hypothetical example is 'If I needed to feed the family is it okay if I ransack your house and all your money?'

No, and its not acceptable for him to be a drug dealer.
Original post by rmpr97
There should never be a reason to turn to crime, and you was basically stating it was acceptable for him to be a drug dealer because 'he need to feed the family'.

It's never acceptable to turn to crime, and my hypothetical example is 'If I needed to feed the family is it okay if I ransack your house and all your money?'

No, and its not acceptable for him to be a drug dealer.


Can i ask what do you work as ?
Reply 64
Original post by rmpr97
There should never be a reason to turn to crime, and you was basically stating it was acceptable for him to be a drug dealer because 'he need to feed the family'.

It's never acceptable to turn to crime, and my hypothetical example is 'If I needed to feed the family is it okay if I ransack your house and all your money?'

No, and its not acceptable for him to be a drug dealer.


You'd really let your family starve to death before your very eyers rather than turn to crime ? If so that should be a crime in itself that you have sat by and done nothing

If i honestly saw you stealing from my home,i'd stop you ask why your doing this and since it's for your family i'd give you some money
Reply 65
Original post by diggy
You'd really let your family starve to death before your very eyers rather than turn to crime ? If so that should be a crime in itself that you have sat by and done nothing

If i honestly saw you stealing from my home,i'd stop you ask why your doing this and since it's for your family i'd give you some money


Give over, like you would.

And no, there's no reason. He was a citizen of the UK I trust, ergo he could have easily qualified for some sort of benefits, so if he did have a family, I doubt they'd be starving.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 66
Original post by dennisraymondsmith
Can i ask what do you work as ?


I don't see the relevance, but I don't, I'm still at school.
Reply 67
Original post by rmpr97
Give over, like you would.

And no, there's no reason. He was a citizen of the UK I trust, ergo he could have easily qualified for some sort of benefits, so if he did have a family, I doubt they'd be starving.


The average housing benefit is £89.46 per week so that's £357.84 a month
meaning £4294.08 a year

average utility bills for 2011 Elec: £16 per month (cost of bills over year divided by 12)
Gas: £22 per month (again, split over the year, use less in summer).
Council Tax: £120 per month
Water rates: £36.66 per month
TV licence: £139.50 per year
BT Broadband and Land line: £32 per month (Option 3 deal)

all coming to £210 per month so that leaves the claimant with £147 to spend albeit this is all based on one benefit however if he was just getting housing benefit what quality of life would he have with £147 to spare

This total doesn't even include food or petrol,in this world everybody strives for a better quality of life and some people (such as mark) will commit crimes to attain it

If your just living of benefits you won't have any kind of quality of life

My point is we don't have a right to judge because we're more privileged than others because if we were in their conditions we may have done exactly the same thing
Reply 68
Original post by diggy
The average housing benefit is £89.46 per week so that's £357.84 a month
meaning £4294.08 a year

average utility bills for 2011 Elec: £16 per month (cost of bills over year divided by 12)
Gas: £22 per month (again, split over the year, use less in summer).
Council Tax: £120 per month
Water rates: £36.66 per month
TV licence: £139.50 per year
BT Broadband and Land line: £32 per month (Option 3 deal)

all coming to £210 per month so that leaves the claimant with £147 to spend albeit this is all based on one benefit however if he was just getting housing benefit what quality of life would he have with £147 to spare

This total doesn't even include food or petrol,in this world everybody strives for a better quality of life and some people (such as mark) will commit crimes to attain it

If your just living of benefits you won't have any kind of quality of life

My point is we don't have a right to judge because we're more privileged than others because if we were in their conditions we may have done exactly the same thing


Yes we do if they're a criminal. End of, there's no excuse for criminality hencewhy if you partake in a bank hiest even if your're poor, you still go to prison for it.
Reply 69
She cannot let him rest in peace can she.
Reply 70
Original post by rmpr97
Yes we do if they're a criminal. End of, there's no excuse for criminality hencewhy if you partake in a bank hiest even if your're poor, you still go to prison for it.


You've failed to understand the point of this debate .....
Reply 71
Original post by Kennedy7697
She cannot let him rest in peace can she.


She's his mum ffs! Have some f*cking empathy!
Original post by diggy
The average housing benefit is £89.46 per week so that's £357.84 a month
meaning £4294.08 a year

average utility bills for 2011 Elec: £16 per month (cost of bills over year divided by 12)
Gas: £22 per month (again, split over the year, use less in summer).
Council Tax: £120 per month
Water rates: £36.66 per month
TV licence: £139.50 per year
BT Broadband and Land line: £32 per month (Option 3 deal)

all coming to £210 per month so that leaves the claimant with £147 to spend albeit this is all based on one benefit however if he was just getting housing benefit what quality of life would he have with £147 to spare

This total doesn't even include food or petrol,in this world everybody strives for a better quality of life and some people (such as mark) will commit crimes to attain it

If your just living of benefits you won't have any kind of quality of life

My point is we don't have a right to judge because we're more privileged than others because if we were in their conditions we may have done exactly the same thing


You seem to have very little idea as to how benefits work - you forgot to include a basic basic job seeking benefit (such as JSA) in that calculation? Also, since you claimed he needed to feed his family, you forgot Child Benefit. You don't need to deduct council tax as that is paid for by benefits.

If you are truly struggling so much to feed your family, you shouldn't be spending the money you aren't spending on food on a TV licence, nor a £32 each month broadband and landline deal. If you are on benefits, they are luxuries. If you want both luxuries and food and can't afford both, choose the food, or get a job.

However, it seems he wasn't struggling for money, judging by his bling, or the fact that he had ostensibly just purchased a gun.

(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 73
Original post by DotComBoom
That is understandable. It is frustrating how they are both lumped together, when his death was merely a pre-cursor and not a major factor behind the riots.

To say he was assassinated though, which is a very strong word, is questionable although emotion was probably taking hold.


Yeah I highly doubt he was assassinated but it was a mojor police F-up that they tried to cover up and left unanswered questions and a dodgey stink around the matter
Original post by unclej
Yeah I highly doubt he was assassinated but it was a mojor police F-up that they tried to cover up and left unanswered questions and a dodgey stink around the matter


Given that we all know he had a gun and most of us can accept that fact, we need to just get on with the enquiry as to how exactly it went down and stop with the sob stories abot how his family and friends and 'community' feel and how people are claiming he was 'assassinated'.

This man had a gun. When you realise that, the family, friends and community should keep quiet about the loss his death has brought, given that that particular member of the community is unlikely to be using it to do anything other than bring death and sadness to others.
Original post by Snagprophet
I don't see why police would gun someone down in public with no proof and then do a risky evidence placing.


As reported, the gun had none of Duggan's DNA or fingerprints on it, and was contained in a sock. But the box that contained the gun had Duggan's fingerprints on it, the exchange of the gun was caught on CCTV and the guy who he obtained the gun has just recently been charged with supplying the weapon and will be in court shortly.

This this seems to indicate the gun was in fact in Duggan's possession and he was off to use it. If there was no DNA or fingerprints on it, this would be because it had been carefully handled and cleaned recently, as if you were about to use it to kill someone, you'd want to make sure there was no forensic evidence left on the gun to attach it to you, should you need to dump it unexpectedly and it is later recovered by the police. The usual MO is to keep the gun in a sock because it will catch the cartridge case and minimise any residue left on your person when fired, and also prevent your fingerprints transferring to the gun when you handle it.

As I read it, it's not going to be a police plant. In the event the police were dishonest enough to do this, you would think at the very least they would have taken the time to smear some of Duggan's DNA and fingerprints all over it :confused:
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 76
Original post by marcusfox
Given that we all know he had a gun and most of us can accept that fact, we need to just get on with the enquiry as to how exactly it went down and stop with the sob stories abot how his family and friends and 'community' feel and how people are claiming he was 'assassinated'.

This man had a gun. When you realise that, the family, friends and community should keep quiet about the loss his death has brought, given that that particular member of the community is unlikely to be using it to do anything other than bring death and sadness to others.


The man was innocent he was unarmed at the time of the shooting.
The police report has lied to us a number of times in the case.

you have also fallen victim to propaganda and media that suggests Mark Dugan was a professional gangster who was killed justly by the police.

Like I said he most likely was not assassinated but I understand his families frustration in how there son was unfairly killed by a police force in place to protect society, not kill innocent unarmed men.
Original post by unclej
The man was innocent he was unarmed at the time of the shooting.
The police report has lied to us a number of times in the case.


Re the bit in bold, how have you come to this conclusion?

Original post by unclej
you have also fallen victim to propaganda and media that suggests Mark Dugan was a professional gangster who was killed justly by the police.


I suppose the gun magically appeared at the scene somehow then.

Original post by unclej
Like I said he most likely was not assassinated but I understand his families frustration in how there son was unfairly killed by a police force in place to protect society, not kill innocent unarmed men.


How have you come to the conclusion he was innocent and unarmed?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 78
since when do UK police have guns?
Original post by Sheep
since when do UK police have guns?


The special armed units are only turned out when there is intelligence that the person they are seeking is armed, or later called to the scene when that turns out to be the case. Apart from these, police do not routinely carry guns, although some routinely carry tasers.

Oh, and at airports and other sensitive places, generally there will be specially trained firearms officers on hand for obvious reasons.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest