Interesting prime time debate here on the Today programme focusing on the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police in London last year. Showing that renowned impartiality we had Duggan’s aunt demanding to get to “the truth” and then we had a lawyer  demanding to get “to the truth”.  The suggestion was Duggan was “executed” on the streets of our Capital city but the Police seek to hide the details of the operation.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to STARRISH MARK

  1. Abandon Ship! says:

    “Executed” and “murdered” by police were the explicit suggestions from Duggan’s aunt, with the strong suspicion that there is a cover up or conspiracy. I think that Duggan’s family and the lawyer will only be interested in the truth if it reveakls such a scenario; otherwise they will not be interested in the truth and instead claim a further conspiracy or “whitewash”. I can see it now, and the BBC will provide plenty of platforms for these views.


  2. hippiepooter says:

    Writing as I listen. Humphrys in full campaign journalism mode, making inflammatory statements. Reaching the conclusion of his interview – nay – agitprop police on behalf of a gangster family and a sympathetic legal representative, this is pure Radio Gramsci we’re hearing.

    Nothing broached about whether the Police should reveal all the information they have on the gangster activities of Mr Duggan.

    Humphrys is basically muck raking.

    There is an IPCC investigation going on into the circumstances of Mr Duggan’s death. Humphrys is trying to prejudice it.

    I dont recall this type of concerned, one sided in-depth coverage over the case of Dr Christian Raab over the democratic outrage of him being thrown off a Home Office panel on drugs before he’d even sat on it because a few years before he’d co-authored a report on paedophilia and the disproportionate incidence of homosexual paedophilia that chimed with the Home Office’s own findings (the HO went further from what I’ve so far read in its report below).

    Click to access fprs99.pdf

    As a public, license fee funded body, I wonder if we’re going to have right to access of the minutes to TODAY editorial meetings that decided how to handle this news item? In the interests of full disclosure in the public interest, of course.

    The TODAY programme really is a tawdry, squalid set of bent journalists embezzling the license fee to push a leftie agenda.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The BBC is protected from any such inquiry on the grounds that it involves journalism.


  3. RCE says:

    As I put on the OT, Today this week has been reasonable, IMO.

    As for this particular item I don’t see how the other ‘side’ could have been presented. No-one from the Met or IPCC will touch it, and no-one will get anywhere by being seen to pick on a grieving relative.

    That said, I am willing to bet that the vast, vast, vast majority of people listening were thinking the same thing: namely, that the Police should actually shoot far more thugs who carry guns around and that the Aunt should be ashamed to even be associated with her drug-dealing violent scumbag nephew.


    • Umbongo says:

      There doesn’t have to be an “official” response to this blatant “muckraking” (per hippiepooter). There are any number of reasonably fluent commentators out there who could have been invited on to Today to give the “other” side. That no unofficial opposing view was entertained or even sought is the bias here.


  4. Fred Bloggs says:

    They are waiting for the compensation cheque to be got out!


  5. chrisH says:

    Didn`t even bother to be honest.
    The left are simply talking to themselves…like the cause for killing Bin Laden…the liberal elite have no purpose now but to be Lord Longfords with ever-extreme cases.
    Surely Ian Bradys case to be allowed to go to Zurich needs a serious twenty minutes of analysis….or how about a shrine on the A69 for Raoul Moat?
    Perversions of cases from psychic perverts and prep school misfits…why don`t the Beeb let Duggans lads have the run of Television Centre instead of forever trawling the streets of Tottenham…and get the next years output done in the one sweep.
    Desperate and despicable don`t come close….


  6. Ian says:

    Duggan had a gun. Grainger didn’t – but he was white, so probably deserved to be shot dead by police