The Tottenham Riot

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:42 pm

We have an opportunity to discuss the upcoming inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. Rather than having yet another thread-wreck may I suggest that anyone wanting to rubbish my points of view, or to quote from the Daily Mail, posts in one of the other existing Mark Duggan threads that they've already started? That way the site can, for once, actually have a discussion rather than be obliged to watch an online bully bullying.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:45 pm

The preparatory work is still in progress.

Mr Foote told the inquest into Mr Duggan's death that in January 2011 the Metropolitan Police received intelligence that Mr Duggan had shot "someone in a nightclub" and in February 2011 that he had "fired shots in club car park".

BBC News - Mark Duggan 'among Europe's most violent criminals', inquest told

I wonder whether the police have shown paperwork to the hearing which confirms that these claims were followed up at the time, and that the reports were taken seriously in January 2011 and February 2011 and aren't simply backdated inventions. Because they're not worth a can of beans otherwise. There's been a slew of name-blackening since the day Mr Duggan was killed, more of the same is scarcely evidence.

The slew of name-blackening from the moment a person dies at the hands of a Leman Street team is so routine that one could credibly investigate whether it's institutionalized lying, if one were actually interested in putting an end to institutionalized lying by elements of the Metropolitan Police. I doubt very much whether anyone of influence within the Metropolitan Police has any such interest.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:09 pm

(See 1.0) 1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.

(See 1.0) 1.2 No "Trolling": Please do not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this board. Don't create threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures and the creation of duplicate accounts.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:38 am

Týr;1436496 wrote: We have an opportunity to discuss the upcoming inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. Rather than having yet another thread-wreck may I suggest that anyone wanting to rubbish my points of view, or to quote from the Daily Mail, posts in one of the other existing Mark Duggan threads that they've already started? That way the site can, for once, actually have a discussion rather than be obliged to watch an online bully bullying.
This OP Is a perfect example of of why you fail to engage members Into discussion with you.

Snooze Is right. This OP Is nothing short of baiting, flaming and whilst accusing others of bullying, an attempt to bully others out of the thread.

There Is no thread wrecking or bully bullying here as you put It. You seem hell bent on wrecking your own thread from the get go by this OP.

What you are really saying Is ' Anyone who doesn't agree with me and lap up every word I write, stay out of the thread'. I have written extensively In the past on Mark Duggan but you're accusation that my differing viewpoint Is bullying Is childish In the extreme. You want a discussion ? No. You want members to agree with you. Is that because you have no counter claim, no evidence to offer, only summerisation even going to the lengths of attempting to dictate which newspaper members can quote.

That's no discussion. That's bullying anyone who fails to agree with you out of the thread.

Back to topic.

You wish to completely erase Duggan's past criminal activity because It doesn't suit your agenda that the police killed an Innocent man.

Yet, It Is Duggan's past criminal activity that Is the pinnacle of why the police reacted the way they did on that day. For without It, they may have killed an Innocent bystander.

So let's play your game and leave out the Daily Mails record of Duggan being one of the most dangerous men In the country and linked to several murders of which I am sure the family will be suing, have they made that up.

Another sources that give a background to the man and the very essence of why police acted the way they did.

Or are the Telegraph suddenly biased now also ?

London riots: Dead man Mark Duggan was a known gangster who lived by the gun - Telegraph

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:20 am

I would ask the general membership whether this is, or is not, in fact, a wrecked thread, and whether or not I am to be able to write further on ForumGarden at all. If I have no opportunity of discussing matters without deliberate bullying interventions on oscar's part then I am checkmated, and deliberate long-term bullying has won.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:38 am

Týr;1436514 wrote: I would ask the general membership whether this is, or is not, in fact, a wrecked thread, and whether or not I am to be able to write further on ForumGarden at all. If I have no opportunity of discussing matters without deliberate bullying interventions on oscar's part then I am checkmated, and deliberate long-term bullying has won.

For goodness sake, get a grip.

The majority of your threads I do not even enter. I have entered this one because I have written before extensively on the Duggan case and am well read on the subject.

If I was bullying you, I would troll every thread and post you write as you did to a dying member here weeks before her death.

Your OP was blatantly flaming. The hard fact Is you are posting on a social website forum with a multitude of members while trying to dictate who posts In this thread, who posts what and which newspaper sources they can use. The bully Is you. No-one else starts a thread In the manner that you did which Incites and flames. All you had to do was write a regular OP and do what every other member does when someone posts that they don't agree with, ie Ignore the poster and post. You have wrecked your own thread again from the very start with such an absurd OP In which the desire to portray yourself a victim Is greater than the desire to discuss the topic.

When you posted In the TR thread asking members to debate the Inquest with you, no-one replied.

Because I did, you threw a hissy fit and started a new thread. I wasn't killed In the rush to post here, In fact I am still the only one It appears who wishes to engage with you In this subject.

This has nothing at all to do with you being bullied and you know It but It's this exact behaviour that deters others from entering Into any discussion with you as you have clearly set out In your OP that It's your opinion or none at all. The only problem you have with me In this thread Is you know damn well, I'll give you a good counter-argument that I suspect you'll have no answers for. Instead of admitting that, you try the bully tactic.

I at least have offered you debate so let's try again shall we?

Mark Duggan's past criminal history Is a key element of the Inquest for It Is that on which the police actions on the day were brought.

So, do you you think, given his criminal history, the police over-reacted and could have done things differently? let's try that.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:00 pm

You are on ignore on the tyr account so he won't read this.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:06 pm

Betty Boop;1436525 wrote: You are on ignore on the tyr account so he won't read this. Alley bloody lullah... at last he's got It !!!!! :wah:

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:14 pm

oscar;1436537 wrote: Alley bloody lullah... at last he's got It !!!!! :wah:

Well, you've been on ignore for a year, so is it 'at last' at all... :-2

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:19 pm

Betty Boop;1436538 wrote: Well, you've been on ignore for a year, so is it 'at last' at all... :-2 You do realise you're now trashing his thread ? :wah:

So, If I was on Ignore, he couldn't see what I posted. By merely seeing I had made a post, that becomes ' bullying' ? hmmmmm

Anyway, back to topic....

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:23 pm

oscar;1436539 wrote: You do realise you're now trashing his thread ? :wah:

So, If I was on Ignore, he couldn't see what I posted. By merely seeing I had made a post, that becomes ' bullying' ? hmmmmm

Anyway, back to topic....

It was already trashed in his opinion, so I'm sure he will forgive me.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:43 pm

Enough!

This has finally gone too far. When the simple act of asking that a thread be allowed to develop as a discussion leads to it immediately being trashed I can only take it as a concerted campaign against the poster concerned.

It was a reasonable topic for discussion - it is now yet another stupid argument.

This will stop - any further deliberate disruption of this nature will be acted on.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:51 pm

Betty Boop;1436541 wrote: It was already trashed in his opinion, so I'm sure he will forgive me.

If I was on Ignore, he couldn't see my posts had I posted here so there was no point to his OP other than to flame.

What exactly would be the point of telling a member to keep out of the thread If he couldn't see that members posts? That makes no sense at all unless It was a way of bullying other members Into not debating with that particular member, only him.

Whatever, now you have stated he has me on Ignore, It confirms my suspicion that the OP was designed to flame me Into posting so he could play the bully card as soon as I did.

It's game playing, plain and simple.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:54 pm

We must have posted at the same time Bryn... I did not post after your post.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:55 pm

Bryn said enough.

I've also had enough of he said she said.

I do recall quite some time ago both parties were told to leave one another alone. I guess that means staying out of one another's threads.

He's had you on ignore, it's time you put him on ignore and stayed out of his threads.