Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Mark Duggan was assassinated, claims his mother

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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 ?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    She cannot let him rest in peace can she.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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 .....
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kennedy7697)
    She cannot let him rest in peace can she.
    She's his mum ffs! Have some f*cking empathy!
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    since when do UK police have guns?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: August 5, 2013
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.