Mark Duggan Killed by Anonymous Cop

Written by ministryofjustice on . Posted in Latest News

This video clip exposes all the hanky pankie between the police and the IPCC trying to cover up the circumstances surrounding the police shooting dead Mark Duggan. It would appear he was killed by an unknown police officer using an illegal Dum Dum Bulletts outlawed by the Hague convention and the geneva convention previously.

Soldiers on battle fields are only allowed to use full metal jackets, yet the british police seem to think the can use ballistic tip, partition bullets domestically. In this documentary film, the IPCC make the point of saying that a police radio was damaged by a full metal jacket bullett, fired from a standard police issue weapon.

Are the police marksman that incompetent that they shoot their own radios? Whilst an unknown marksman shoots Mr Duggan using ammunition that is banned on battlefields under international law?

The standards of justice and law enforcements seem to be better in Nigeria than what is currently going on in the UK.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Hana

    |

    What the tribunal said was, If the canimlat had been called “a black bitch” she would not have waited for nearly three weeks to raise the issue and done so only because it looked as though she herself might be taken through a disciplinary process.’ It made no expicit reference to a cynical lie’ and this was an inference drawn by the EAT.It is well-known by practioners that, if a tribunal says that a party lied, this is an invitation to appy for costs. However, equally, I have seen many cases where the tribunal will allude to dishonesty but will not spell at out because it has taken the view that it is not serious enough to merit an award of costs. I have noticed that, since this decision, some tribunals now take great pains to emphasise the fact that a claim was brought in good faith because they are afraid of their decision on costs being overturned but this cannot be right. The presumption should be that costs will not be awarded and it is for tribunals to justify any decision to award costs, rather than the other way round.I have also seen plenty of cases where it is obvious to everyone that one of the parties is lying but nothing is said about it in the judgment. I am all for upholding the importance of the oath but, if this is to be taken seriously, tribunals should be willing to criticise those who abuse it, even where they deserve to win the case for other reasons. However, awarding costs would be inappropriate in these situations. The discretion of tribunals should be unfettered.

    Reply

Leave a comment