egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:


> He had a minor conviction for possessing cannabis and was fined
> ?280 for handling stolen goods. If you believe everyone with a
> similar record should be shot, the streets of London are going
> to be piled high with bodies. Either that or like so many, you
> fancy yourself as judge and jury.

That's what he was convicted for ? are you seriously telling me that you think he never did anything else that he got away with.

Al Capone was responsible for God knows how many murders and was only convicted in the end on tax evasion. The Krays were responsible for numerous murders, thefts and extortion before they were banged up.

Stop being so contrarian. Duggan is dead. Good.

As I understand it he had a gun on him. He was suspected of planning an attack. What would of happened if that attack had been carried out?

"It's a disgrace, where were the police" ect ect.

I heard his aunt getting interviewed on radio 4 this morning, you would think he had been shot at random the way she harped on!!

The man is dead, and for good reason.

So you base your views on ""His mother is blind to the life her son was leading." on what exactly?

What the police have stated in various stories subsequent to his death?

I base this on her harping on at what an angel he obviously wasn't.

"That's what he was convicted for ? are you seriously telling me that you think he never did anything else that he got away with."

Unlike you, I do not know the answer to that question. Well, actually you are in the same position as me, the only difference is that you haven't cottoned onto that fact yet.

He might have got away with loads. He might not have. He might have killed more people than Harold Shipman. I don't know. All I know is what he has been convicted of in a court.

What I do know is that the IPCC and the police put out a lie initially about Duggan e.g. that Duggan shot first. And it reduces the heat on the police having shot an unarmed man if they can make him out to be Mr Big Gangster.

So given that you don't know the family and you didn't know Mark Duggan the answer to my question is that you read the police reports subsequent to his death and some of the stories in the press and swallowed them whole.

Fair enough. As long as we know where you are coming from.

David Johnson writes and I quote

"All I know is what he has been convicted of in a court"

So Jimmy Saville is innocent of ALL allegations as he has never been convicted.

True or false

Well it certainly looks like Savile is not innocent based on the huge number of complaints currently being made, but given that you cannot try a dead person in a British court, the legal system cannot find him guilty.

Similarly, the Duggan case was not a trial of Mark Duggan because he was already dead. It was an inquest into the circumstances surrounding his death.

To repeat what I have said elsewhere, I have no idea whether Duggan has killed more people than Harold Shipman. I have no idea what crimes or how many he might have committed. What I do know is when an unarmed man is shot dead by the police, it does suit the police to make out Duggan as a Number 1 Big Time Criminal.

How can you compare the cases of Savile and Duggan? What have they got in common?

It also suits the family to paint him as an angel to gather support for their cause.

Also, while I do believe Saville is guilty, your argument that the number of complaints means he is guilty is not without flaws