IPCC 'May Have' Misled Media Over Mark Duggan

[dipsydoodle]

Source: SKY NEWS

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has admitted it may have mistakenly given "misleading" information to journalists in the wake of the Mark Duggan shooting, it has emerged.

The body admitted that it may have inadvertently led media organisations to believe that Mr Duggan, who was shot dead in Tottenham last Thursday, fired at police first.

The 29-year-old was travelling in a minicab when police apparently stopped the vehicle and the incident occurred.

Mr Duggan's death sparked riots in the centre of Tottenham over the weekend, which spread to other areas of London and then cities across England earlier this week.



Read more: http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16049023

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[gratuitous]

2. Yeah, "may have"

Okay, you know how we said Duggan fired at police first? Okay, that didn't happen. And how we said he was clenching a bloody knife in his teeth as he leaped out of the minicab screaming, "Die Bobby pig, die!" Turns out that didn't actually happen quite that way, either. And you might recollect that we said had half-eaten baby carcasses in the back of the cab? Turns out that it was the driver's lunch, a roast beef sandwich. We get those things mixed up all the time, and who doesn't?

But if you take exception to any of this, you're just a common hooligan.

[defendandprotect]

3. And if he didn't "shoot first" they he must have been a looter -- !!!

[jimlup]

4. I guess I'm suffering from acronym overload: IPCC

(IPCC) International Panel on Climate Change ... er eh no!

[GliderGuider]

5. Well, Duggan did heat up the climate in the UK quite a bit... nt

[jimlup]

7. Indeed he did! /nt

[ikri]

8. IPCC - Institutional Police Cover-up Commission

They're not independent and they always seem to back the police, at least until the story has died down and vanished from public consciousness.

Cover everything up, possibly suspend officers (on full pay), possibly transfer them to a different force temporarily (at which point they can be lent back to the original police force), never really anything more than a slap on the wrist unless the evidence to charge them is blatant that it can't be ignored or the press get a hold of it.

Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none

They're a joke and their lack of action to at the very least talk to Mark Duggan's family was the initial spark for the riots.

[Nihil]

12. Oh when will you people wake up?

He was a fucking drug dealer, a piece of shit with a past crime record
and he went out with an illegal weapon (a modified "safe" gun that had
been "adapted" to shoot bullets rather than blanks).

How much of a fucking chance are you going to give him?

How many people were you going to let him kill before you grudgingly
admit that he was a risk to society?

If even half of you folks who are complaining about him knew a fraction
of his history, you'd run a fucking mile before daring to defend him.

:argh:

[Solly Mack]

6. "may have"..."inadvertently"

Snort

[dipsydoodle]

11. They were under pressure to comment.from the media.

Following this I doubt there will any verbal comments in future on any give subject and the media will be made to wait for the full report. That way this can't happen again.

[slackmaster]

9. If he had a gun and brandished at police, it doesn't make any difference whether he fired it or not

British police are permitted to use deadly force to defend themselves.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Yes - "being in possession of"

and the special support group considering imminent threat was sufficient. The law covers that. It does not follow that he was shot with deadly intent : may have been an unfortunate fluke.