The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
La Liga said:
tart by doing some research on stress and memory, especially in short time spans. Our brain may merge things together, change the order or erase them.
I was involved in a bit of a public order fracas involving about 50 football fans and 15 or so officers. Once it was all sorted my mate said to me, "That chap was lucky the punch you threw didn't connect with him". I thought he was joking. I had no memory whatsoever as to throwing a punch. I would have promised I didn't throw one.
When viewing the CCTV, there I was, throwing a punch at someone who had just clipped me in the side of the head. It was a pure, subconscious, instinctive response in which I did not 'record' the memory of. It was a bit of an eye-opener as to how the mind works.
The fact there are inconsistencies with the accounts of the officers is probably the best indication there was no collusion or inappropriate conferring, and that they were operating at a pure, subconscious and instinctive manner to a threat.
I'm well aware thanks, not sure other than misplaced ego why you would feel the need to school me on that.I was involved in a bit of a public order fracas involving about 50 football fans and 15 or so officers. Once it was all sorted my mate said to me, "That chap was lucky the punch you threw didn't connect with him". I thought he was joking. I had no memory whatsoever as to throwing a punch. I would have promised I didn't throw one.
When viewing the CCTV, there I was, throwing a punch at someone who had just clipped me in the side of the head. It was a pure, subconscious, instinctive response in which I did not 'record' the memory of. It was a bit of an eye-opener as to how the mind works.
The fact there are inconsistencies with the accounts of the officers is probably the best indication there was no collusion or inappropriate conferring, and that they were operating at a pure, subconscious and instinctive manner to a threat.
Anyhow, the difference here is you accept the fallibility of your recollection.
pork911 said:
Mr_B said:
Oh, you've moved on to blur it into another unrelated case ?
Entirely relevant when wishing to avoid being killed 
Oakey said:
IPCC Report;
Is "intelligence" some kind of modern substitute for evidence ? - “In 2006 intelligence indicated .....”;
- “In April 2010, police received intelligence .......”;
- “In July 2010, police received intelligence ...... Intelligence indicated ......
- “In September 2010 police received anonymous information ......”;
- Intelligence was received ......”; and
- “In January 2011, intelligence was received ........”
- “In February 2011, intelligence ........”
- DCI Foote stated that on 6 June 2011 intelligence suggested ......
- “On 20 June 2011 I received credible intelligence ..... This intelligence indicated .......
And is it really only anything much more than gossip, or the word of informers etc including criminals under pressure to come up with so-called "intelligence" in order to reduce pressure on themselves?
Worrying.
drainbrain said:
Oakey said:
IPCC Report;
Is "intelligence" some kind of modern substitute for evidence ? - “In 2006 intelligence indicated .....”;
- “In April 2010, police received intelligence .......”;
- “In July 2010, police received intelligence ...... Intelligence indicated ......
- “In September 2010 police received anonymous information ......”;
- Intelligence was received ......”; and
- “In January 2011, intelligence was received ........”
- “In February 2011, intelligence ........”
- DCI Foote stated that on 6 June 2011 intelligence suggested ......
- “On 20 June 2011 I received credible intelligence ..... This intelligence indicated .......
And is it really only anything much more than gossip, or the word of informers etc including criminals under pressure to come up with so-called "intelligence" in order to reduce pressure on themselves?
Worrying.
drainbrain said:
RobinOakapple said:
Until it gets to a court it can't be anything other than intelligence, regardless of its quality.
So 'in court' is it now a substitute for what used to be used, ie 'evidence'?drainbrain said:
Is "intelligence" some kind of modern substitute for evidence ?
And is it really only anything much more than gossip, or the word of informers etc including criminals under pressure to come up with so-called "intelligence" in order to reduce pressure on themselves?
Worrying.
You can read the report, it tells you how they categorise 'intelligence'.And is it really only anything much more than gossip, or the word of informers etc including criminals under pressure to come up with so-called "intelligence" in order to reduce pressure on themselves?
Worrying.
I think one of the sad points about this incident is the Police media response after the IPCC report.
They are never going to placate the family, but they could remind the press & public that committing crime and using illegal firearms is meant to be dangerous to the offender. The public need reminding loudly that this promising footballer was an armed criminal. If race is brought into it a reminder of the fact BME people are also at risk of being victims of these gangsters. I sick of the meek police apologies which let supporters of these criminals focus attention on the Police officers behaviour and responsibilities and gloss over the actions of the criminals.
They are never going to placate the family, but they could remind the press & public that committing crime and using illegal firearms is meant to be dangerous to the offender. The public need reminding loudly that this promising footballer was an armed criminal. If race is brought into it a reminder of the fact BME people are also at risk of being victims of these gangsters. I sick of the meek police apologies which let supporters of these criminals focus attention on the Police officers behaviour and responsibilities and gloss over the actions of the criminals.
The standard police methodology for evaluating intelligence was referred to as the 5x5x5 recording and evaluation process. The ACPO / NPIA Guidance on the Management of Police Information (2010) stated that “…5x5x5 is a tool which allows the Police Service to manage information which has risk attached to it….it is the standard format for managing the evaluation, the source and the provenance of the information and the manner in which it should be handled and disseminated.”
The three areas of intelligence assessment are: source evaluation, information / intelligence evaluation and handling code. The code definitions are as follows:
This evaluation method has been included in this report to make clear that intelligence is not necessarily fact. It can originate from sources of varying reliability and the information itself can vary in reliability.
The variation in reliability was recognised by DCI Foote (the Operation Dibri SIO) who stated,
“…In general, sources of intelligence range from the extremely reliable through to untested or even malicious, and individual pieces of intelligence similarly range from things that are known to be true without reservation through to those which cannot be judged or are even believed to be false. The nature of intelligence means that it has not normally been subject to the sort of scrutiny faced by evidence in a trial at court.”
In relation to Mr Duggan, DCI Foote recorded in his statement that,
“…However, there are a variety of means through which experienced police officers can test the reliability and veracity of criminal intelligence. Given the volume of consistent intelligence held about Mark DUGGAN, from a variety of intelligence sources, over such a long period of time, I found it to paint a compelling picture of a young man involved in organised crime.”
The three areas of intelligence assessment are: source evaluation, information / intelligence evaluation and handling code. The code definitions are as follows:
This evaluation method has been included in this report to make clear that intelligence is not necessarily fact. It can originate from sources of varying reliability and the information itself can vary in reliability.
The variation in reliability was recognised by DCI Foote (the Operation Dibri SIO) who stated,
“…In general, sources of intelligence range from the extremely reliable through to untested or even malicious, and individual pieces of intelligence similarly range from things that are known to be true without reservation through to those which cannot be judged or are even believed to be false. The nature of intelligence means that it has not normally been subject to the sort of scrutiny faced by evidence in a trial at court.”
In relation to Mr Duggan, DCI Foote recorded in his statement that,
“…However, there are a variety of means through which experienced police officers can test the reliability and veracity of criminal intelligence. Given the volume of consistent intelligence held about Mark DUGGAN, from a variety of intelligence sources, over such a long period of time, I found it to paint a compelling picture of a young man involved in organised crime.”
davidball said:
RobinOakapple said:
I really can't imagine the circumstances in which I would want to follow one of your recommendations.
You obviously have a closed mind and no contradictory opinions are going to change that.pork911 said:
And not be a 'dusky' guy on the tube?
Playing a race card doesn't do you any credit - Duggan was a known gangster and dangerous criminal irrespective of his colour. The extrapolation is redundant, unless you can provide evidence of a police conspiracy/strategy/intent to kill those you describe as dusky.Oakey said:
In relation to Mr Duggan, DCI Foote recorded in his statement that,
“…However, there are a variety of means through which experienced police officers can test the reliability and veracity of criminal intelligence. Given the volume of consistent intelligence held about Mark DUGGAN, from a variety of intelligence sources, over such a long period of time, I found it to paint a compelling picture of a young man involved in organised crime.”
It's beyond reasonable doubt that MD was involved in so-called 'organised crime'. That's what DCI Foote appears to be saying and with good reason. And MD's involvement included proximity to firearms. “…However, there are a variety of means through which experienced police officers can test the reliability and veracity of criminal intelligence. Given the volume of consistent intelligence held about Mark DUGGAN, from a variety of intelligence sources, over such a long period of time, I found it to paint a compelling picture of a young man involved in organised crime.”
But even the 'intel' provided, whilst clearly indicating this proximity, at no time appears to suggest MD required to be hard stopped and shot. Does it?
He required to be apprehended and prosecuted for anything illegal that evidence could show he had done.
Raoul Moat required to be shot. Andrew(?) Cregan required to be shot. Duggan required to be arrested. Armed maybe but dangerous to the police or general public, no.
(IMO)
Edited by drainbrain on Thursday 5th November 10:39
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff