On Thursday 4th August 2011 Mr Mark Duggan aged 29 years, a father four children was shot dead by one bullet to the chest which according to Wikipedia occurred as Mr Duggan was pinned down after the mini cab in which he was travelling was stopped by undercover officers of Operation Trident which deals with gun crime in African and Caribbean communities in a planned arrest said to be based on information he was on his way to use a weapon.
An inquest has been set for 12 December 2011 because the investigation by the Independent Police Commission is said to take six months. The Independent Police Commission has issued several statements. On August 9th “ The Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan is continuing today, with investigators examining statements, as well as analysing results of forensic tests and awaiting further results. The IPCC is carrying out a full CCTV trawl of the area, as well as CCTV from buses in the area at the time. Our investigators will be examining recordings of radio transmissions from both police and London Ambulance Service, including 999 calls with a view to tracing further witnesses. We will also be examining any intelligence and surveillance material leading up to the planning of the operation.
At this stage, it has been established that at approximately 6.15pm on Thursday 4 August 2011, officers from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Operation Trident and SCD 11 accompanied by officers from the Met’s Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a silver Toyota Estima people carrier minicab in Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale tube station in Tottenham to carry out an arrest.
Mark Duggan was a passenger in the minicab. What happened next is subject to the independent investigation. Two shots were fired by one CO19 firearms officer. Paramedics from London Ambulance Service (LAS) attended along with medics from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) but Mr Duggan was pronounced dead at scene at 6.41pm.A non-police issue handgun was recovered from the scene. A post mortem examination concluded that Mr Duggan was killed by a single gun shot wound to the chest. He also received a second gunshot wound to his right bicep. The IPCC commissioned tests by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) who have so far confirmed that:
The bullet lodged in the MPS radio is a “jacketed round”. This is a police issue bullet and, whilst it is still subject to DNA analysis, it is consistent with having been fired from an MPS Heckler and Koch MP5.
The firearm found at the scene was a converted BBM ‘Bruni’ self loading pistol. This is not a replica; the scientist considers it to be a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act and a prohibited weapon and is therefore illegal. The handgun was found to have a “bulleted cartridge” in the magazine, which is being subject to further tests.
At this stage there is no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired during the incident. The FSS has told the IPCC that it may not be possible to say for certain whether the handgun was fired, however further tests are being carried out in an attempt to establish this. The officer whose radio was hit was taken to Homerton Hospital where he was examined and discharged later that night.
The minicab driver was not physically injured, but was badly shaken by what he saw. His account along with that of the officers is being examined along with the emerging forensic evidence.
IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: “I know this is an incredibly difficult time for Mark Duggan’s family, who have made it abundantly clear that they in no way condone the violence that we have all seen on the streets of London and elsewhere over the past three nights. I am committed to ensuring they are provided with answers from the IPCC about the investigation into Mark’s death as soon as we have them, and I acknowledge their frustration that this can be a lengthy process.
“I know that much of this information has been reported in the media already, alongside much inaccurate speculation. Any concerns expressed by the wider public about a perceived lack of information from the IPCC should be considered in the context that I am only willing to share information once I have had it independently verified and once the people who are directly involved in this case – including Mr Duggan’s family and community leaders – have been fully informed.
“I also have a responsibility to balance the need to provide information, with the need to avoid adversely affecting other judicial and coronial processes. This means that it would not be appropriate for me to put all the information we receive into the public domain as soon as we receive it. I assure you that our findings will be made public as soon as we can legally and legitimately do so I will continue to oversee the IPCC investigation and IPCC family liaison managers continue to be on hand to support Mr Duggan’s family while our investigators get on with establishing the facts of this case.”
The shooting took place on Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale tube station, and anyone who witnessed the incident to contact us in confidence on 0800 096 9079 or e mail ferrylaneshooting@ipcc.gov.uk
Following a march to Tottenham Police Station on Saturday August 6th which was required to wait for 5 hours before being addressed by an officer from the Metropolitan Police, a riot broke out in the Tottenham High Street in which buildings were set on fire endangering the lives of flat dwellers and shops and other businesses were looted. Riots, loss of life, injuries, burned buildings and looting then occurred on a major scale throughout London and major cities of England as for the most part the police, whatever the explanation, appeared to stand by.
It is evident from the reactions of senior and other Parliamentarians during the special meeting of both Houses on Thursday 11th August that there are serious official concerns about the police operation and the shooting and to why a peaceful march on the Saturday was kept waiting for five hours and the subsequent skirmishes became a riot with lives endangered and properties, burnt, trashed and looted. There is also information which links the rioting in Manchester, the rioting elsewhere and to why the police were cautious about intervening except through trained and equipped police officers. First what was said in Parliament:
In the House of Commons the Prime Minister said in col 1051 “ A week ago today, a 29-year-old man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police in Tottenham. Clearly, there are questions that must be answered, and I can assure the House that this is being investigated thoroughly and independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We must get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we will.”
Mr David Lammy Labour the Member for Tottenham the constituency prefaced his question Col 1061 by saying “I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the death of Mark Duggan.” Mr Lammy returned to the the death of Mr Duggan when he contributed to the subsequent debate: “The events of last week started with the death of Mark Duggan, one of my constituents, during a police operation. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there were reports of an exchange of fire between Mr Duggan and the police. We now know that two shots were fired and that they both came from police weapons. A grieving family and my constituents deserve to know the truth about what happened that night. The IPCC investigation must be thorough; it must be open; and it must be seen to be independent. Other serious questions need answering. Why did the Duggan family first hear about the death of their son not from a police officer, but when the news was broadcast on national television? Why, when they arrived at Tottenham police station to ask questions and to stage a peaceful protest, were they made to wait for five hours before a senior police officer was made available to them? Why, when that peaceful protest was hijacked by violent elements, were a few skirmishes allowed to become a full-scale riot, with far-reaching consequences? Mistakes have been made by the Metropolitan police, and this must be subject to a full public inquiry.
Bob Stewart the Conservative Member for Beckenham Col 1103): When Mark Duggan was shot last week, the IPCC immediately went in and sealed the crime scene, but then no statement was made, and that gave an excuse to the rioters. It would be good if the IPCC, or someone, could make a definitive statement on what happened. Otherwise, conspiracy theories build up. The Prime Minister: The difficulty with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the IPCC has got to get across the detail before it makes a statement. There is a huge danger on such occasions of making statements that turn out not to be true and that inflame passions either at the time or afterwards when their veracity is questioned. This is an extremely difficult situation, but we must have confidence and faith in the IPCC system, which is independent of the police and can, therefore, give victims confidence.
In the House of Lords, former Director of Social Services Lord Laming said Col 1515; “Secondly, while no criticism of the police is implied, does the Minister agree that a detailed review must include a review of how the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission initially responded to the death of Mr Duggan? Did the police appoint a family liaison officer? Did a senior officer of the IPCC immediately explain in detail to the family exactly how the inquiry would be conducted and the rights of the family secured? I raise these questions simply because, like many others, I wonder why the family felt it necessary to march to secure such basic information.”
Lord Morris of Handsworth said “The Statement made reference to the victims, which, of course, is right. There are many victims, apart from those seen jumping from windows. The family members of Mr Duggan, who was shot by a police bullet, are victims as well. We must remember, in these sorry days, that the family was in the police station for more than five hours and still left without any answers from the Metropolitan Police or indeed from the IPCC. It seems to me that when the report from the IPCC is available, the family should receive it at the same time as the Metropolitan Police Service. They are victims too and their interests should be considered in the wider restoration and rebuilding of our society.”
As I have said one now needs to be cautions about leaked police statements to the media and statements made by some of the media although the Independent Police Commission has also contributed to misinformation however unintentional, stating on 12th of August that “ Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4th August.
The IPCC's first statement, issued at 22.49 on 4th August, makes no reference to shots fired at police and our subsequent statements have set out the sequence of events based on the emerging evidence. However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital. Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident.”
The Mail on line August 13th does provide the most important briefing todate. There is no reference to Mr Duggan having a criminal record or to have been charged and prosecuted without a conviction. He is reported to have become an elder in the Tottenham Drug distribution gang known as the Star Gang which is described as an off shoot of Tottenham’s Mad Crew which has links with London’s Caribbean gangsters often referred to as Yardies.
I need to do separate research into the extent of known adult criminal and teenage gangs and their relationships in London and other cities with references in Parliament to 200-250 across London alone, most said to have 50 hard core members using teenagers and school children as part of the distribution network often forced to participate although able to earn £30 a day from being involved in distribution and money collection.
What is known is that Duggan and his immediate family were in the process of moving away from the Broadwater Farm Estate where he lived with his girl friend and their children and who he was intending to marry. He has been with 29 year old Simone Wilson for 12 years and they have three children, two sons aged 10 and 7 and an 18 month daughter. He has a fourth child by another relationship.
He is described as having been an aggressive and disruptive child bringing a knife into primary school. It is said that he had become paranoid about his safety following the death of a cousin aged 23 years who had been stabbed in the heart by a broken champagne bottle at an East End night club in March follow a row over drugs and a woman. It is said that Duggan was out to avenge the death and had acquired the gun but other sources claim he was well known for carrying a gun or that he had recently acquired a gun for personal protection, while his family say he was unarmed and by implication that the gun was planted by the police. The gun was in a sock which is an established practice by criminals to reduce forensic evidence including spent cartridges.
It is the Daily Mail which has released the connection between Mr Duggan and the notorious Manchester Noonan gangster family. Mr Duggan’s mother is the sister of the second wife of the former head of the Noonan family and that Duggan had regular contact with his Dublin born Uncle who was part of a family for 11 brothers and sisters who terrorised and ruled the Manchester underworld since the 1980’s. The head of the family was Desmond Dessie Noonan. He and a brother were interviewed in the Channel 5 Television documentary “Gangsters” in which they boasted about their numerical power and weaponry, including an involvement in 27 murders. He had convictions for violent disorder and perverting the course of justice and wounding after threatening prosecution witnesses. He was discharged because a jury failed to reach a verdict after a retrial in 1993 for gangland murder. He was killed by an enforcer for an established Yardie Drug dealer in 2005.
The Mail also disclosed that a brother of Dessie Noonan has been arrested in Manchester having been identified through CCTV and that a large number of associates are known to have participated were part of the Noonan gang culture. A report in the Express on Sunday 14th August claims that some 600 of those arrested to date in England, about a third of the total, have been found to be on licence from prison or subject to an existing youth or community rehabilitation order.
It is speculation on my part but the obvious question is that given the known background of Mr Duggan and the intelligence available, did an officer over react and if as stated Mr Duggan was shot twice in his chest and in his bicep how did a bullet become lodged in the radio of another police officer? Was there any attempt to cover up what happened? If so this would not be the first time and which in other cases was followed by an understandable closing of ranks often with the support of Government, the courts and the media. With the help of the Wikipedia I have traced five previous cases which have a bearing on the death of Mr Duggan together with the Broadwater Farm Riot in 1985.
In 1985 A young black person was arrested by the police having stopped his vehicle because of an allegedly suspicious tax disc and when four police officers searched his home, his mother fell over and died instantly. Because a week earlier a young black woman had been shot by a police officer in Brixton there was outrage in the community and demonstration took place outside Tottenham Police Station with a day of violence between the police and the community leading to riot police deployed and the use of baton charges followed by petrol bombs and bricks be hurled by some demonstrators. Gun shots were fired and two police men were injured. Cars were set on fire and barricades made. A Policeman, PC Blakelock became surrounded by a mob with weapons who not only killed the officer but nearly decapitated him. A second officer who attempted to help the fallen officer suffered severe facial injuries. Six people were tried and three were convicted of murder with juveniles released because of the form and nature of their interrogation. There was also concern at the strength of the prosecution case and in 1991 the three men were cleared of the murder in the Court of Appeal. The officer in charge of the interrogation was cleared of the charge of perjury. Police notes, the only evidence were shown to have been tampered with. One of the men remained in remained in prison for 18 years in relation to the murder of another person, released in 2003.
The second “case” of recent decades occurred back on 23 April 1979 is that of Clement Blair Peach a New Zealand-born teacher who was fatally assaulted by a police officer during an anti-racism demonstration in London, England. The reason for including the case is that reports into the death of Blair Peach were made available to the public on 27 April 2010. Mr Peach was a campaigner and activist against the far right, He was knocked unconscious in April 1979 during an Anti-Nazi League demonstration in Southall against a National Front election meeting in the town hall. He died the next day in hospital from head injuries that he sustained. Fourteen witnesses said they had seen members of the Metropolitan Police Special Patrol Group (SPG) strike Peach.. No one was ever charged, but it was suspected that he been hit by a rubberised police radio. An inquest jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure in May 1980. Peach's girlfriend, Celia Stubbs, continued to campaign for many years for a public inquiry into his death. The Metropolitan Police Service reached an out-of-court settlement in 1989 with Peach's brother.
The third case is more relevant because 39 year old James Ashley was a known criminal man who was shot dead by armed police while unarmed and naked during a raid on his flat in St Leonards, East Sussex, United Kingdom, on 15 January 1998. Ashley and several of the apartment's other residents were suspected of involvement in large-scale drug deals. Having previously served two years on a charge of manslaughter, Ashley had been involved in a pubroom stabbing several months earlier, although only in so much as a friend of his attacked someone else before Ashley pulled him away. A search of the premises later turned up a small amount of cannabis. Five officers were all charged and found not guilty in James Ashley's death, they continued to serve as policemen. Five police officers who were suspended following the shooting later unsuccessfully attempted to sue the Sussex police for the "psychiatric injury" they suffered due to alleged improper training they received. In March 2009 Sussex Police agreed to compensate and apologise to the Ashley's family. The police admitted negligence - that there had been a series of police failures - but not unlawful killing. Ashley's son however maintained the killing was illegal.
The fourth case may have also have a direct bearing on the the death of Mr Duggan. Mr. Harry Stanley was a painter and decorator who was fatally shot by police in controversial circumstances on 22 September 1999, when returning home from the Alexandra Pub in South Hackney carrying, in a plastic bag, a table leg that had been repaired by his brother earlier that day. Someone had phoned the police to report "an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag". Close to his home, and Police Inspector and a PC members of a Metropolitan police Armed Response Vehicle challenged Mr. Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them, they shot him dead at a distance of 15 feet. The two officers were initially suspended but after a protest of 100 colleagues who returned their weapons, the suspensions were lifted. In May 2005 the High Court under Mr Justice Leveson ruled that there was insufficient evidence for unlawful killing and reinstated the open verdict of the first inquest.
The shooting seven times in the head of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005) a Brazilian man a Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by the London Metropolitan police, after he was misidentified as one of the fugitives involved in the previous day's failed bombing attempts. While no officer was prosecuted an officer was found guilty in relation to a private prosecution and fine. It is said that the death led to the resignation of the Metropitan Police Commissioner.
The most recent case is perhaps the most significnat one which was referred to several times in the special debates held in Parliament last Thursday. This is the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009, an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died after being struck by a police officer in the City of London while on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. Although a first postmortem examination indicated he had died of natural causes, an inquest jury in May 2011 ruled that he had been unlawfully killed, stating that the police officer had used excessive and unreasonable force against him. The officer concerned is due to stand trial for manslaughter in October 2011. It is that a police officer is standing trial for manslaughter which I believe has understandably conditioned the recent approach of the police at all levels to intervening in certain situation of public unrest and disorder, particularly when the media or passers by with camers/ video, internet phones are also present.
Last November in relation to protests against Higher tuition fees and government Cuts demonstrations led to attacks on the Conservative Party Headquarters at Millbank London and the Liberal Democratic Headquarters at Crawley. There were allegations of underpolicing and of inappropriate tactics when demonstrators were not stopped from attacking government buildings, a ticket machine was set on fire, and the Royal car carrying the Prince of Wales and his wife was attacked as well as stores looted in Oxford Street. Police officers were attacked and injured.
The police through their “unions” and now the deputy Commissioner/acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan and the Sir Hugh Order appear to be adopting the line we must be free to police as we wish regardless of Parliamentary and public opinon, or the behaviour of individual officers in specific situations. They are clearly angry at what the Prime Minister said and in particular the Home Secretary when while emphasing she would support robust policing but also emphasised that this had to be within the law.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) Col 1062 was the first to raise the issue with the Prime Minister in relation to the G20 summit: “Metropolitan police officers have shown great courage and a high degree of determination over the past few days, but does the Prime Minister share my concern about reports that police officers on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe the rioting and looting? Does he agree that that cannot be acceptable behaviour, and that, if perhaps for understandable reasons because of the controversies after the G20 summit the police are concerned that they might be criticised for over-reacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity and that it is the police, and not looters and rioters, who will control our streets?
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth Col 1067): Front-line officers were telling me last night that they have been afraid to use a measure of physical force because of concerns about criticisms by Members of Parliament, which they have seen before. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that we will be robust and do whatever it takes, but can he assure us that Members of this House will support the police if they have to strike people with batons or kettle them in? Force has to be met with greater force. The Prime Minister responded: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise, because he serves as a special policeman. The point is this: people want robust policing, and of course the police have to be sensitive to things that have happened in the past—sometimes the pendulum can swing too far one way, and then too far the other way—but I am sure that the message has been received loud and clear that when there is such violent criminal behaviour, people want a very robust response.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) Col 1075 raised the issue with the Prime Minister and then the Home Secretary : Does my right hon. Friend accept that following the G10 demonstrations in London, and the unfortunate death that occurred, many police officers have been reluctant to use force? If they do use force, what reassurances can he give them? The Prime Minister: The reassurance that I can give is that we will put the resources into the police force to make sure we have the trained officers whom we need.
The Home Secretary was also questioned on the issue and her response countered the view that the police were being given licence to interpet robustness without regard to the law. Margot James (Stourbridge) Col 1140: During the Prime Minister’s statement, we heard a lot about the stand-and-observe order that was apparently given to the police in particular circumstances. We all agree that that was terrible, but was not the policy determined mostly by police concern about over-reaction, given that they have been so criticised for how they dealt with the G20 riots, on which there is a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever police powers we end up agreeing with, in such circumstances we must provide consistent support when things go wrong? Mrs May: My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in my remarks.The police are concerned to ensure that when we talk about robust policing, we definitely give them backing for what they want to do. Policing by consent is the British way, but the police retain the confidence of the wider community only if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that there simply were not enough officers on duty. The largest policing event in London is the Notting Hill carnival. There were about 6,000 officers on duty on Monday night, which is the number that the police usually deploy for the Notting Hill carnival. It was clear that in the circumstances that developed that was not enough officers on duty. It is clear to me that the original police tactics were insufficient—exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) raised. After the criticism of previous public order operations for excessive force, some officers appeared reluctant to be sufficiently robust in breaking up groups. Many arrests were made, but in some situations officers contained suspects in a specified area where they were free to commit criminal damage and steal, instead of intervening and making arrests. I want to make it clear to the House that in making these points, I am not criticising the police. Too often, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nowhere is that truer than in public order policing. I want to be clear that as long as officers act within reason and the law, this Home Secretary will never damn the police if they do.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) Col 1141 immediately pursued the issue again: Earlier, I raised with the Prime Minister the nervousness of the police in acting since the G20 disturbances and the sad death. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that officers who take robust action will not find themselves on the wrong end of the law? Mrs May: As I have just said and as I have made clear to the police from when I first took on this role, I will always back officers who do the right thing and operate within the law. Appropriate action must be taken against officers who do the wrong thing, but we will back officers who do the right thing and I will back them as Home Secretary.
When Angie Bray Ealing col 1160 raised the issue of Damned if they do, damned if they don’t Bob Stewart intervened. The Member for Ealing said :” I also think that this country needs to have a debate about what policing it wants. As the Home Secretary said earlier, the police are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Too often we hear criticism that on occasion they are too heavy-handed, and next they are accused of being too soft. It is up to the public, their elected representatives and the police to have a debate and decide exactly what policing we want. Policing in this country is performed by consent. The police need our consent if they are to go in and provide a slightly more robust response, which is the sort of response that I am happy to see and for which they would certainly have my consent. Bob Stewart said One of the real problems is that the police are extremely concerned that if they act out of a defensive position and go forward while holding the crowd or watching for evidence, they might find themselves in the dock. We must support them utterly and completely and say that from now on when they act in good faith they will have our total support, unlike what happened after the G20 riots .Angie Bray: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. They need our consent and the confidence to be able to go into any situation knowing that they have the authority to act of our behalf to do whatever is necessary to enforce the law, which is what they are there to do. In Ealing, we welcome the extra police officers we have had on the streets on the past few nights and the extra measures announced today by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
Keith Vaz Leicester East, Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned that Col 1186 : We will of course look at police tactics, the operation of gangs and mobile communications, and we will revisit issues that we have looked at in the past, such as in our inquiry into the G20 protests.
It is also understandable that officers in the Metropolitan Police are also feeling under pressure following the revelations that individual officers have been releasing confidential information about victims as well as public figures to the media and media investigators and are said to have done so for money in some instances and this has led to the establishment of a separate internal police investigation- Operation Elvden.
There has been united Parliamentary concern over the way senior offiers of the Metropolitan Police dealt with the information acquired from one private detective in relation to the first News of the World telephone hacking scandal in the context of Operation Motorman which was carried out in association with the metropolitan police and the reports of the Information Commissioner and will have been horror at the resignations of the previous Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the criticism of the previous Assistant Commissioner Commissioner, and the Deputy Assistant Commissioner in charge of the original phone hacking investigation, together with their referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The concern also included the relationships senior officers established with the media including accepting hospitality and subsequent employment.
While understanding the decision of the Labour Parliamentary leadership to criticise the decision of the Government to press for a cash reduction in police budgets as part of the overall criticism at the reduction in public service expenditure, there is the risk of appearing to regard the police as being in a special and untouchable position in terms of needing reform and to share in the financial pressues as everyone else. Is it right that police officers, as well as other emergency services workers such as the fire service have been able to retire exceptionally early on excellent pensions only to walk immediately into other jobs in security and detection for example, often at the same or higher incomes than before thus doubling their incomes? Is it right that highly trained police officers should be allocated to office based jobs which could be undertaken by less qualified civilian administrative and clerical officers?
Does the Metropolitan Police needs such a large Media relations department at present going into full throttle gaining media time to put the case for disgruntled officers and their managers, often without balancing viewpoints?
I have been struck by the fact that the rioting and looting did not take place in Scotland, in the North East of England or in Wales and by the apparant assumption of senior police officers that they and they alone are reponsible for all operational policing decisions. This is not just arrogant but dangerous in a Parliamentary democracy with the rule of law. The Police must remain subject to the decisions of government national and local, and sanctioned by Parliament in terms of national policing policies, operational priorities and strategy, its organisation and training and budgets. The public outbursts of Sir Hugh Orde and the Acting Commissioner for London need to be stamped on by the Labour Leadership as well as by the Coalition.
I am confident that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee will investigate what happened and why, and will to make criticism of the police if appropriate. I also believe that the more senior officers protest in public I believe greater the need there is for a public inquiry at an appropriate time.
Having appeared critical of the police leadership speaking out in public and of the initial response to what happened in Tottenham, and in Croydon, Ealing, Birmingham, Manchester and Salford, all areas which I know well from having lived, worked and studied, that it is important to stress that recidivist criminality is not a product economic poverty but that recidivist criminals do tend to live in areas of economic and social deprivation. Parental, spiritual, educational poverty together with peer group and environemtal conditions can however become significant factors why some become part of gangs and turn to organised criminality.
In the 1980’s a dozen police officers were needed to protect myself and a dozen away football supporters in an almost empty stand at Tottenham Football Club from an organised gang of 50 hooligans who had got tickets, sat in in separate seats and then congregated to chant foul abuse and hurtle objects over our heads to the standing away fans below. Nor is the participation of primary and secondary children in dangerous criminal activity new for also in the early 1980’ I experienced over 100 primary and secondary school children in groupd of three to six stoning the coach convoy I was in from behind parked cars, garden walls and streets corners, one evening leaving Liverpool and was told this was a regular occurrence until the police changed the stragegy. I also experienced having twenty police officers protect me and a handful of other away football supporters at the Tottenham Football stadium because some thirty to forty gangsters had also obtained tickets in the segregated part of the stadium and the congregated behind us throwing objects and liquid over to the supportys below and uttering foul, threatening and abusive language. Similarly I was I an underground train in London when some two hundred hooligans smashed their way into the train and using the holding strap and knuckle dusters and boots attacked members of a London football supporters club an hour after the match had ended and I stopped a youngster about 12 who had entered the carriage from passing through to where the main fight was taking place. Similarly in the late 1970’s and 1980’s I expereinced the rioting including smashing up of the toilet facilities of an enetrtainment facility by 18-30 holiday makers in Northern Spain high on drink and drugs and with no shortage of money
But it does have to be said that my understanding is that Tottenham is an area of significant social deprivation with above average unemployment levels, espcially among young people and that the covering local authority has already made cuts to the youth budget and closed public funded youth facilities. If so this will not help the community to recover and move forward.
In the House of Lords question and comment section last Thursday Lord Harris of Haringey said My Lords, “I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a former leader of Haringey Council, where I spent about 12 years of my life trying to secure the sustainable regeneration of the area of Tottenham. One of the tragedies of what has happened in the past few days is that the stigma of an area of riot has again fallen on that community, and that the efforts built up over many years are now being undermined, with businesses no longer being able to survive. Does the Government believe that the Bellwin formula will be a sufficient response to ensure the reconstruction that will be needed? This will be of communities after the damage that has been done, and must also tackle underlying problems. Will they review the resources being made available to local government for regeneration in such areas? Will they also review the way in which the Riot (Damages) Act operates? If it would drain funds from police forces to compensate people who have been hit and damaged by the riots, that would be extremely damaging to the sustaining of police numbers.
The last word must however go to David Lammy who in the House of Commons debate said “There is no connection between the treatment of the Duggan family and Niche, the landlord of the Spirit of Tottenham, being held at knifepoint while his pub was ransacked. I could go on. This violence was criminal, and we condemn it utterly.
Tottenham has brave and very resilient people—I have no doubt that we will get through this together—but as the TV cameras begin to move out, I urge the Government and the House not to forget the people of Tottenham. In the House and beyond, we must also begin a much more difficult discussion: we must address why boys and girls aged as young as 11 engage in the kind of violent and destructive behaviour witnessed this week, and as we do so, I urge hon. Members on both sides to avoid reaching for easy slogans and solutions.These riots cannot be explained away simply by poverty or cuts to public services. That the vast majority of young men from poor areas did not take part in the violence is proof of that. Many young men showed restraint and respect for others, because they have grown up with social boundaries and a moral code. They have been taught how to delay gratification and to empathise with others rather than terrorise them. Those values were shaped by parents, teachers and our neighbours.” Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) intervened “The right hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the all-party group on fatherhood. Does he agree that there is more we can do to encourage fathers to be committed to the mothers of their children and to their children?”
Mr Lammy: I certainly agree that that is the major issue this country must confront, but a “Grand Theft Auto” culture that glamorises violence must also be confronted; a consumer culture fixated on brands that we wear rather than who we are and what we achieve must be confronted; a gang culture with warped notions of loyalty, respect and honour must also be confronted. A civilised society should be policed not just by uniformed officers, but by notions of pride and shame and of responsibility toward others. In this House and beyond, we have some deep thinking to do about what that means.
Although that is true, there is another side to the story. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister warned that those involved in the rioting were risking their own futures. I am afraid the problem is far greater than that. Those lashing out—randomly, cruelly and violently—feel that they have nothing to lose. They do not feel bound by the moral code that the rest of society adheres to; they do not feel part of the rest of society. We cannot live in a society where the banks are too big to fail, but whole neighbourhoods are allowed to sink without trace. The problems of those neighbourhoods have not emerged overnight, but the events of the past week are a wake-up call.
Following the race riots 10 years ago, the Cantle report warned of white and black communities living “parallel lives”. Today the same is true, but the polarisation is not between black and white; it is between those who have stake in society and those who do not; those who can see a future through education and those who cannot; those who can imagine doing a job that is respected and well paid and those who cannot; those who might one day own their own home and those who will not.
I repeat that nothing justifies what we have seen this week, but I remember what it means to grow up poor, to live without a father as a role model, to feel frustrated and angry about my circumstances, to want to lash out and to consider the idea of picking up a bottle and joining in with the crowd. I was steered away from those things by my mother, by an elder brother, by my pastor, by great teachers, role models and youth workers, and I thank them all for that, but I was also steered away by the promise of something different—by the idea that, one day, I might go to university and get a decent job. That idea is what we have to realise for so many people in the coming weeks, months and years.”
