It must be time to change the subject.
After being recalled due to the riots and spending most of the week running around like headless chickens Britain's politicians have started to try to stamp their authority on the crisis. First up was the Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative) who promised to tackle the gang culture that has gripped so many young people in Britain's tough inner cities and was totally, utterly and completely the cause of all the rioting. To drive home his point the Prime Minister spoke in front of an audience of young people in the notoriously tough inner-city area of south Oxfordshire(!)
Then the Labour run Hackney council held a "Tea Party" in the streets to peacefully bring together the community. This was clearly a dig at the American Tea Party movement. Next the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) announced a consultation exercise "to allow the victims of the riots to join in a dialogue with the leaders of the three main political parties" before wandering off the stage looking lost and mumbling something about making offenders wear orange.
Bizarrely the party leader who came up with the strongest response was Labour's Ed Miliband who called for a full public inquiry into the riots. Normally I'm not a fan of public inquiries because they're usually just a way of making a lot of noise without getting anything done. However I did see the British TV schedules for Sunday (14/8/11) night.
On ITV1 at 21:00 there was a brand new episode of the UK version of Law & Order. I won't spoil it for you but the story centred on a gang related murder on a Tottenham housing estate. The murder weapon was a converted Bruni 8mm Olympic 6 starting pistol. At the same time on BBC2 there was a British film called Glorious '39. This thriller centred around a gang of British spies, aristocrats and church leaders killing people in order to keep Britain out of the second world war and help Nazi Germany conquer Europe. This was followed by another British film called FishTank which hopes to solve all the problems of Britain's inner-cities through the medium of dance. About six hours earlier firefighters in Croydon had been called to deal with a fire caused by a faulty Fish Tank. Channel 4 is also running a special season of programs dedicated to exploring British urban youth culture including street dance. You can join in the debate at a number of specially dedicated websites.
Of course all of these programs were made and scheduled at least a week before the rioting broke out. So I think there should be a public inquiry into the riots. That inquiry should focus mainly on the events that led to the police shooting dead Mark Duggan on Ferry Road in Tottenham on August 4th
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Riot Damages: The Claim Form.
For my sins I've been going through the "Form of Claim, Riot Damages Act 1886" which can be downloaded here;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
Although it was written in 1921 it's just your standard insurance claim form. On the first page the first five (5) points are rather self explanatory. For point six (6) you need to write in the address where property was damaged, stolen or destroyed. For point seven (7) you need to write a brief description of what happened e.g "Shop looted during riot" or "House set on fire during riot." The "during riot" part is important because the act does not cover crimes committed outside of a riot situation.
For point eight (8) you are asked to provide documents proving both that there was a riot and that the property you are claiming for existed. For the worst hit areas the address should be enough to prove that there was a riot. However you should also include a crime reference number from the police. Photographs of the scene and copies of the local newspaper will also help because no-one's ever had a claim turned down for providing too much evidence. As for proving the existence of the stolen/destroyed/damaged property send photocopies of receipts, invoices, stock lists etc. Remember to label each document with either a number or "Exhibit A", Exhibit B" etc. Then in the small section on the form write things like "Exhibit A - police crime number", "Exhibits B-F - receipts."
Point nine (9) is for any documents like property title deeds, tenancy agreements, business accounts, CCTV footage that is too valuable or too bulky to send in with the form. Simply list them and say that they can be viewed by appointment at contact details.
Then there are the Schedules which I think are too small to be of any use. So don't be afraid to write "See attached" on them and continue on separate sheet(s) provided that those sheets are correctly labelled e.g "Schedule A" and contain all the information the form asks for.
Schedule A covers buildings owned by you that have been completely destroyed. Fortunately this won't apply to most people so simply cross it through and write N/A for non-applicable . If it does apply to you then really need a solicitor. However in the first column you should write the address of the property, what type of building it was and your interest in it. So for example "99 Madeup Road, shop, owned and occupied." or "99A Madeup Road, apartment, owned but rented to another." The second column asks how it was destroyed so you should write something like "fire" or explosion" depending on what happened. The third column just asks how much it will cost to replace it so just write how much you paid for it or an approximate market value. Point one (1) here asks for the name of any insurer who has insured the property and how much they are expected to pay out. This figure will be deducted from the claim under the act. So unless you actually have a firm, written figure from you insurer at the time you submit the form I would just write the name of the insurer and the figure £0.00. However if your insurer does pay out after you make your claim you are obligated to pay that money back.
Schedule B covers repairable damage to buildings owned by you. If this does not apply to you cross it through and write N/A. However if it does apply in the first column you should write the address of the property, the type of property it is and your interest in it e.g "99 Madeup Road, shop owned and occupied." The second column asks for a brief description of the damage done so you would write something like "Window smashed" or "Shutters torn away." In the third column you write in the cost of repairs if they've already been carried out and include an invoice. In the fourth column you write a tradesman's estimate for the cost of repair if they've not been carried out. Also include a copy of that quote when you submit the form. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule C Part 1 relates to property that belongs to you that has been damaged inside a property. Unless you intend to repair damaged items rather then simply replacing them just cross this section through and write N/A. However if it is more cost effective to repair the first column asks for just the address in question. The second column asks for details of the property damaged. So you would write something like "Cash register smashed open" or "TV knocked from stand and smashed." In the third column you write in the cost of repair if the item has already been repaired and include an invoice. In the fourth column write a tradesman's estimate of the cost of repair if it's yet to be carried out and include a copy of the quote. In the fifth column write any additional costs other then repair such as hiring a replacement while repairs are carried out. Point one (1) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule C Part 2 relates to property that has been damaged which you do not own but has been left in you care by it's owner. The kitchen appliances in a rented apartment would be a prime example. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. However if it does you fill in part 2 in exactly the same way you fill in part 1 but where it asks you for the name and address of the property owner you write in the name and address of the property owner. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as Point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule D Part 1 relates to property owned by you that has either been stolen or damaged beyond repair. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. The first column asks for just the address where the property was stolen/destroyed so you write the address. The second column asks for a brief description of what was stolen/destroyed. So you write things like "Apple iPhone." The third column asks for the value of the item. So you write in the value of the item and include a receipt when you submit the form. Point one (1) here should be treated the same a point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule D Part 2 covers property that was stolen/damaged which was not owned by you but had been placed in your care by it's owner. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. However if it applies to you fill it out in the same was schedule D Part 1 but include the name and address of the property owner. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
There is then the summary where you add up all the totals from the schedules. Finally there is the declaration which you fill out as applicable, write your address, sign and date. Obviously where it says "19" for the date cross it out and write "2011." I should warn you that by signing the declaration you are making the form an official document so if you knowingly submit false information you could be prosecuted. I should also warn you that I have no legal qualification or training so this is simply my opinion. If you have doubts and can afford it you should seek proper legal advice.
There is also some debate about whether or not you can claim for damage to vehicles under the act. In my untrained, unqualified opinion I think that you can but only if those vehicles are used as part of your business. If the vehicle in question is not registered to a business you will have to open you accounts and tax records to prove that it is a machine used for the purposes of running
a business.
Anyway I think it's probably best if I leave this topic alone for now otherwise it will look like I'm starting a campaign and that won't help make things run any smoother.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
Although it was written in 1921 it's just your standard insurance claim form. On the first page the first five (5) points are rather self explanatory. For point six (6) you need to write in the address where property was damaged, stolen or destroyed. For point seven (7) you need to write a brief description of what happened e.g "Shop looted during riot" or "House set on fire during riot." The "during riot" part is important because the act does not cover crimes committed outside of a riot situation.
For point eight (8) you are asked to provide documents proving both that there was a riot and that the property you are claiming for existed. For the worst hit areas the address should be enough to prove that there was a riot. However you should also include a crime reference number from the police. Photographs of the scene and copies of the local newspaper will also help because no-one's ever had a claim turned down for providing too much evidence. As for proving the existence of the stolen/destroyed/damaged property send photocopies of receipts, invoices, stock lists etc. Remember to label each document with either a number or "Exhibit A", Exhibit B" etc. Then in the small section on the form write things like "Exhibit A - police crime number", "Exhibits B-F - receipts."
Point nine (9) is for any documents like property title deeds, tenancy agreements, business accounts, CCTV footage that is too valuable or too bulky to send in with the form. Simply list them and say that they can be viewed by appointment at contact details.
Then there are the Schedules which I think are too small to be of any use. So don't be afraid to write "See attached" on them and continue on separate sheet(s) provided that those sheets are correctly labelled e.g "Schedule A" and contain all the information the form asks for.
Schedule A covers buildings owned by you that have been completely destroyed. Fortunately this won't apply to most people so simply cross it through and write N/A for non-applicable . If it does apply to you then really need a solicitor. However in the first column you should write the address of the property, what type of building it was and your interest in it. So for example "99 Madeup Road, shop, owned and occupied." or "99A Madeup Road, apartment, owned but rented to another." The second column asks how it was destroyed so you should write something like "fire" or explosion" depending on what happened. The third column just asks how much it will cost to replace it so just write how much you paid for it or an approximate market value. Point one (1) here asks for the name of any insurer who has insured the property and how much they are expected to pay out. This figure will be deducted from the claim under the act. So unless you actually have a firm, written figure from you insurer at the time you submit the form I would just write the name of the insurer and the figure £0.00. However if your insurer does pay out after you make your claim you are obligated to pay that money back.
Schedule B covers repairable damage to buildings owned by you. If this does not apply to you cross it through and write N/A. However if it does apply in the first column you should write the address of the property, the type of property it is and your interest in it e.g "99 Madeup Road, shop owned and occupied." The second column asks for a brief description of the damage done so you would write something like "Window smashed" or "Shutters torn away." In the third column you write in the cost of repairs if they've already been carried out and include an invoice. In the fourth column you write a tradesman's estimate for the cost of repair if they've not been carried out. Also include a copy of that quote when you submit the form. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule C Part 1 relates to property that belongs to you that has been damaged inside a property. Unless you intend to repair damaged items rather then simply replacing them just cross this section through and write N/A. However if it is more cost effective to repair the first column asks for just the address in question. The second column asks for details of the property damaged. So you would write something like "Cash register smashed open" or "TV knocked from stand and smashed." In the third column you write in the cost of repair if the item has already been repaired and include an invoice. In the fourth column write a tradesman's estimate of the cost of repair if it's yet to be carried out and include a copy of the quote. In the fifth column write any additional costs other then repair such as hiring a replacement while repairs are carried out. Point one (1) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule C Part 2 relates to property that has been damaged which you do not own but has been left in you care by it's owner. The kitchen appliances in a rented apartment would be a prime example. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. However if it does you fill in part 2 in exactly the same way you fill in part 1 but where it asks you for the name and address of the property owner you write in the name and address of the property owner. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as Point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule D Part 1 relates to property owned by you that has either been stolen or damaged beyond repair. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. The first column asks for just the address where the property was stolen/destroyed so you write the address. The second column asks for a brief description of what was stolen/destroyed. So you write things like "Apple iPhone." The third column asks for the value of the item. So you write in the value of the item and include a receipt when you submit the form. Point one (1) here should be treated the same a point one (1) in schedule A.
Schedule D Part 2 covers property that was stolen/damaged which was not owned by you but had been placed in your care by it's owner. If it does not apply to you simply cross it through and write N/A. However if it applies to you fill it out in the same was schedule D Part 1 but include the name and address of the property owner. Point two (2) here should be treated the same as point one (1) in schedule A.
There is then the summary where you add up all the totals from the schedules. Finally there is the declaration which you fill out as applicable, write your address, sign and date. Obviously where it says "19" for the date cross it out and write "2011." I should warn you that by signing the declaration you are making the form an official document so if you knowingly submit false information you could be prosecuted. I should also warn you that I have no legal qualification or training so this is simply my opinion. If you have doubts and can afford it you should seek proper legal advice.
There is also some debate about whether or not you can claim for damage to vehicles under the act. In my untrained, unqualified opinion I think that you can but only if those vehicles are used as part of your business. If the vehicle in question is not registered to a business you will have to open you accounts and tax records to prove that it is a machine used for the purposes of running
a business.
Anyway I think it's probably best if I leave this topic alone for now otherwise it will look like I'm starting a campaign and that won't help make things run any smoother.
Operation Oil Theft: Month 5, Week 4, Day 1.
In Libya this week the unofficial Ramadan ceasefire has not held. In the east of the country the rebels have still failed to regain control of the town of Brega almost a month after Libyan government forces abandoned the town and the rebels promised to re-take it in record time.
The rebels have had slightly more success on the Misrata front line. As of Saturday (13/8/11) they seem to be in control of the town on Tawargha south of Misrata save for some small pockets of government resistance. Although of limited strategic importance Tawargha is where Libyan government forces had based the artillery and long range rockets they'd been using against rebel positions in and around Misrata. With extensive help from NATO close air support the rebels have been able to push those heavy weapons out of Tawargha meaning that they are no longer in range of most of Misrata.
The most dramatic developments though have come on the Nafusa mountains front line. Today (14/8/11) the rebels claim to be in control of the town of Zawiya some 18 miles (30km) outside of the capital Tripoli. This is almost incredible because it would have required the rebels to have advance some 125 miles (200km) from their positions in the foothills of the Nafusa mountains in little over four days - something that would have required the complete collapse of the Libyan government forces. So I think this is the result of a commando style lighting raid rather then a proper military advance. The idea being that a small but highly mobile raiding party smash their way into an area in order to grab a high profile, attention grabbing and morale boosting victory. They are then very quickly pushed out of the area but not before they've caused panic and gathered intelligence on how the area is being defended. So a bit like the London riots then only with heavier weapons.
Also the mystery of whether or not Muammer Qaddafi's youngest son, Khamis al-Qaddafi was killed in a NATO air strike near Ziltan last week has been solved. Put simply he wasn't. What did happen though was NATO aircraft attacked civilian positions in Majar near Ziltan killing at least 85 and injuring hundreds more. NATO claimed that Khamis al-Qaddafi's 32nd Armoured Brigade was in the area in an attempt to cover up the fact they'd attacked a civilian target. This ruse fell apart somewhat when Khamis al-Qaddafi was filmed visiting survivors of the attack in hospital. I hope you weren't expecting to see that on the western media.
The rebels have had slightly more success on the Misrata front line. As of Saturday (13/8/11) they seem to be in control of the town on Tawargha south of Misrata save for some small pockets of government resistance. Although of limited strategic importance Tawargha is where Libyan government forces had based the artillery and long range rockets they'd been using against rebel positions in and around Misrata. With extensive help from NATO close air support the rebels have been able to push those heavy weapons out of Tawargha meaning that they are no longer in range of most of Misrata.
The most dramatic developments though have come on the Nafusa mountains front line. Today (14/8/11) the rebels claim to be in control of the town of Zawiya some 18 miles (30km) outside of the capital Tripoli. This is almost incredible because it would have required the rebels to have advance some 125 miles (200km) from their positions in the foothills of the Nafusa mountains in little over four days - something that would have required the complete collapse of the Libyan government forces. So I think this is the result of a commando style lighting raid rather then a proper military advance. The idea being that a small but highly mobile raiding party smash their way into an area in order to grab a high profile, attention grabbing and morale boosting victory. They are then very quickly pushed out of the area but not before they've caused panic and gathered intelligence on how the area is being defended. So a bit like the London riots then only with heavier weapons.
Also the mystery of whether or not Muammer Qaddafi's youngest son, Khamis al-Qaddafi was killed in a NATO air strike near Ziltan last week has been solved. Put simply he wasn't. What did happen though was NATO aircraft attacked civilian positions in Majar near Ziltan killing at least 85 and injuring hundreds more. NATO claimed that Khamis al-Qaddafi's 32nd Armoured Brigade was in the area in an attempt to cover up the fact they'd attacked a civilian target. This ruse fell apart somewhat when Khamis al-Qaddafi was filmed visiting survivors of the attack in hospital. I hope you weren't expecting to see that on the western media.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Yay Paperwork.
It's 23:24 on Friday 12/8/11. I'm a little bit late because I've decided to print off this document;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
which is the claim form for the Riot Damages Act 1886.
Obviously I will need to read through this in much more detail tomorrow. However for now I will say that for Schedules A, B, C and D where it says "Deduct sum or which Claimant is entitled to or may receive as compensation for" you should name your insurance company but unless you have actually received a letter containing a written figure from that insurance company at the time you submit the form you are legally entitled to subtract the sum of "£0.00" from the amount claimed.
Oh f*ck it. It's now 23:36 and the fewer of these forms that come in with my signature the more chance there is of them getting paid.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
which is the claim form for the Riot Damages Act 1886.
Obviously I will need to read through this in much more detail tomorrow. However for now I will say that for Schedules A, B, C and D where it says "Deduct sum or which Claimant is entitled to or may receive as compensation for" you should name your insurance company but unless you have actually received a letter containing a written figure from that insurance company at the time you submit the form you are legally entitled to subtract the sum of "£0.00" from the amount claimed.
Oh f*ck it. It's now 23:36 and the fewer of these forms that come in with my signature the more chance there is of them getting paid.
The Mark Duggan Shooting
Today (12/8/11) life in Britain is slowly returning to normal after a week in which vicious and violent rioting engulfed large parts of the country. This rioting was the worst civil unrest that has been seen in Britain since the General Strike of the 1920's and was more akin to the sort of violence that you see in places like Syria, Nigeria and Haiti. It was all sparked by the shooting of a man called Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan police in the Tottenham area of London on Thursday August 4th 2011.
Obviously this incident is still the subject of an ongoing investigation. I do not know any of the people involved and I do not have access to all the facts. However in my opinion what happened is as follows;
On the day in question Mark Duggan was acting as a courier. That is to say he was transporting a gun from one person in one location to another person in another location. He may have been doing this because he's been paid too or because he's been intimidated into it and he may not have known exactly what he was transporting. The problem was that even before Mr Duggan set out on his journey somebody had already informed the Metropolitan police's anti-gun crime unit known as Operation Trident (SCD11) that he would be travelling through Tottenham carrying a gun on that day. This gave the SCD11 officers little choice other then to mount an operation to arrest Mr Duggan and take the illegal gun off the streets. As is standard procedure in this type of operation SCD11 enlisted help from armed officers from the Metropolitan police's specialist firearms unit (CO19) to stop the vehicle, secure the suspect(s) and secure any firearms.
Unfortunately when the CO19 officers surrounded the silver Toyota Estima taxi that Mr Duggan was travelling in on Ferry Road at 18:15 something went wrong. One of the CO19 officers either deliberately or accidentally discharged a single 9mm jacketed round from their Heckler & Koch MP5 carbine. Although DNA tests have yet to be completed it is unlikely that this bullet struck Mr Duggan. Instead it struck one of the other CO19 officers in their radio/bulletproof vest. Thinking that Mr Duggan had fired at them and therefore being in fear of their lives either the CO19 officer who'd been struck by the bullet or more likely a third CO19 officer reacted as they'd been trained too and fired two 9mm jacketed rounds from their H&K MP5 carbine in quick succession into what shooters call the central body mass. These two bullets struck Mr Duggan in his chest and upper left arm killing him almost instantly. He was pronounced dead at the scene at 18:41.
After searching the vehicle the police also recovered a third firearm that has so far only been identified as some sort of Bruni 8mm blank firing/sporting pistol which had been converted to fire 9mm jacket rounds. Although this gun had most certainly been fired at some point in it's life it had not been fired on that day. In fact it only contained one bullet which was in the magazine rather then the chamber so it had not even been made ready to fire and according to some reports it was still firmly wrapped in a sock.
Normally in high profile situations like this the police immediately try to calm things down by providing the victims family with lots of support and making neutral statements about the need not to jump to conclusions until the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) conduct a thorough investigation. On this occasion though the police chose to inflame the situation further by pretty much ignoring the Duggan family and releasing an entirely false but hugely provocative statement about how their officers had heroically shot and killed an armed gangster who was trying to kill them. Although the exact words were not used this statement may as well as said; "The police think the only good nigger is a dead nigger." Obviously this made the people of Tottenham furious so when the police continued to ignore the Duggan family on Friday and Saturday the rioting started.
Although the circumstances of the actual shooting are still somewhat unclear the mistakes in how the aftermath was handled are such elementary mistakes I am in little doubt that someone - not necessarily the police - set Mark Duggan up to be killed in order to create an interesting talking point and provoke a very real riot but one that was limited to the Tottenham area over one or possibly two nights. There are many reasons for why this was done however the main ones are;
As for what should now be done about the people involved in the Mark Duggan shooting the key questions are who gave him the gun and who told the police he had a gun? If a link between these people and the police can be found then they and all of the police officers involved in the operation should be tried for murder by way of joint enterprise because although only one of them actually killed Mr Duggan they were all involved and no-one tried to stop it.
If no such link can be found I think it would be unfair to try the CO19 officer who fired the fatal shots for murder on their own. This is because if I had a gun and I was getting shot at I would most certainly shoot at the person I thought was doing it until they stopped. I don't see why this shouldn't apply equally to a police officer. However the CO19 officer who fired the first shot should most certainly be tried for negligent manslaughter through the careless handling of a firearm because it would be nearly impossible to prove that they fired on purpose.
Failing that the entire Metropolitan Police force should be tried for corporate manslaughter as the were over the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes.
However at the risk of provoking further riots which I do not want to see I think that achieving any of these outcomes is going to be very difficult because the case is not as clear cut as the Ian Tomlinson killing and that was incredibly difficult to bring to trial. So the Duggan family will have to decide if the pain of not seeing justice done is worse then the pain of trying to get justice done.
Obviously this incident is still the subject of an ongoing investigation. I do not know any of the people involved and I do not have access to all the facts. However in my opinion what happened is as follows;
On the day in question Mark Duggan was acting as a courier. That is to say he was transporting a gun from one person in one location to another person in another location. He may have been doing this because he's been paid too or because he's been intimidated into it and he may not have known exactly what he was transporting. The problem was that even before Mr Duggan set out on his journey somebody had already informed the Metropolitan police's anti-gun crime unit known as Operation Trident (SCD11) that he would be travelling through Tottenham carrying a gun on that day. This gave the SCD11 officers little choice other then to mount an operation to arrest Mr Duggan and take the illegal gun off the streets. As is standard procedure in this type of operation SCD11 enlisted help from armed officers from the Metropolitan police's specialist firearms unit (CO19) to stop the vehicle, secure the suspect(s) and secure any firearms.
Unfortunately when the CO19 officers surrounded the silver Toyota Estima taxi that Mr Duggan was travelling in on Ferry Road at 18:15 something went wrong. One of the CO19 officers either deliberately or accidentally discharged a single 9mm jacketed round from their Heckler & Koch MP5 carbine. Although DNA tests have yet to be completed it is unlikely that this bullet struck Mr Duggan. Instead it struck one of the other CO19 officers in their radio/bulletproof vest. Thinking that Mr Duggan had fired at them and therefore being in fear of their lives either the CO19 officer who'd been struck by the bullet or more likely a third CO19 officer reacted as they'd been trained too and fired two 9mm jacketed rounds from their H&K MP5 carbine in quick succession into what shooters call the central body mass. These two bullets struck Mr Duggan in his chest and upper left arm killing him almost instantly. He was pronounced dead at the scene at 18:41.
After searching the vehicle the police also recovered a third firearm that has so far only been identified as some sort of Bruni 8mm blank firing/sporting pistol which had been converted to fire 9mm jacket rounds. Although this gun had most certainly been fired at some point in it's life it had not been fired on that day. In fact it only contained one bullet which was in the magazine rather then the chamber so it had not even been made ready to fire and according to some reports it was still firmly wrapped in a sock.
Normally in high profile situations like this the police immediately try to calm things down by providing the victims family with lots of support and making neutral statements about the need not to jump to conclusions until the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) conduct a thorough investigation. On this occasion though the police chose to inflame the situation further by pretty much ignoring the Duggan family and releasing an entirely false but hugely provocative statement about how their officers had heroically shot and killed an armed gangster who was trying to kill them. Although the exact words were not used this statement may as well as said; "The police think the only good nigger is a dead nigger." Obviously this made the people of Tottenham furious so when the police continued to ignore the Duggan family on Friday and Saturday the rioting started.
Although the circumstances of the actual shooting are still somewhat unclear the mistakes in how the aftermath was handled are such elementary mistakes I am in little doubt that someone - not necessarily the police - set Mark Duggan up to be killed in order to create an interesting talking point and provoke a very real riot but one that was limited to the Tottenham area over one or possibly two nights. There are many reasons for why this was done however the main ones are;
- The Olympics. Inspectors from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have been in London all week to inspect preparations for the 2012 games including the all important security plan. The shooting of Mark Duggan raised the issues of gun/gang crime in east London. The rioting raised the issues of protests, riots and public order policing. Blaming the riots on Research In Motion's (RIM) Black Berry Messenger (BBM) service raised the issue of the security of communication networks. The BBM network has been of particular international interest for a couple of years now. Some authoritarian middle-eastern governments like Bahrain have banned it completely because they can't crack the network's encryption and America have added extra levels of security to allow US President Barack Obama to continue to use his Blackberry whilst in office.
- Property Developers. As simple as it sounds. The rioting was used as cover to destroy old buildings in poor neighbourhoods so property developers could make huge profits at the public's expense re-developing the derelict sites.
- Police Cuts. Like everyone else the police are not happy about being made redundant and having their pensions cut. By provoking riots they make themselves seem essential to the public and politicians and get themselves exempted from the cuts.
- Debt Default and Libya. Britain seems to be positioning itself to argue to the international community and the financial markets that Britain could not possibly be expected to pay it's debts or be stopped from stealing Libya's oil because the threat of major civil unrest is so great. Meanwhile we pay over £20 million for a Royal Wedding and the Prime Minister continues to go on £20,000 a week holidays. This is part of the reason why the London stock exchange dropped below 5000 points during the riots.
As for what should now be done about the people involved in the Mark Duggan shooting the key questions are who gave him the gun and who told the police he had a gun? If a link between these people and the police can be found then they and all of the police officers involved in the operation should be tried for murder by way of joint enterprise because although only one of them actually killed Mr Duggan they were all involved and no-one tried to stop it.
If no such link can be found I think it would be unfair to try the CO19 officer who fired the fatal shots for murder on their own. This is because if I had a gun and I was getting shot at I would most certainly shoot at the person I thought was doing it until they stopped. I don't see why this shouldn't apply equally to a police officer. However the CO19 officer who fired the first shot should most certainly be tried for negligent manslaughter through the careless handling of a firearm because it would be nearly impossible to prove that they fired on purpose.
Failing that the entire Metropolitan Police force should be tried for corporate manslaughter as the were over the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes.
However at the risk of provoking further riots which I do not want to see I think that achieving any of these outcomes is going to be very difficult because the case is not as clear cut as the Ian Tomlinson killing and that was incredibly difficult to bring to trial. So the Duggan family will have to decide if the pain of not seeing justice done is worse then the pain of trying to get justice done.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The Riot Damages 1886
In Britain we are forced by law to pay for a police force. In return that police force has a duty to protect our person and property from harm or damage. When the police fail in that duty on a large scale known as a riot the Riot Damages Act 1886 means that they have to pay compensation for all damage done. The act can be read in it's full Olde Worlde glory here;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1886/38/pdfs/ukpga_18860038_en.pdf
However the main point is that whenever a house, shop or building or it's contents are damaged, destroyed or stolen by a riotous and tumultuously assembled crowd the police authority have to pay for the damage or loss provided the person took reasonable steps to protect that property. For the purposes of the act;
So if you had property damaged or stolen in the riots and you're not insured my advice is to use this form;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
In London you then hand this form in at your local police station. For Croydon that would be Croydon Central Police Station, 71 Park Lane, CR9 1BP but any police station is good enough provided it's in the correct Borough. Outside London the form must be sent to the Clerk to the County Council who can be found at your local Town Hall. Your claim will then be investigated and provided it's an honest claim you should then receive some money.
If you are insured you should make a normal insurance claim but also follow the above steps to also make a claim with the police. If you can afford it you should seek proper legal advice and inform your insurance company of the police claim. Many insurance policies do not cover riot damage because there is an assumption that the police will do their duty so insurers are unlikely to pay out when they really don't have to.
Tomorrow (11/8/11) the House of Commons will hold an emergency session to allow MP's to discuss the riots. The Conservatives with froth at the mouth about all the new powers and weapons they want to give the police. Labour and the Liberal Democrats will use it all as an opportunity to score political points about spending cuts. However it would be nice if they could also find the time to ask the Home Secretary to extend the claim period for the act from 14 to 42 days and produce an online claim form to help the police and the public cope with a rarely used and often forgotten piece of legislation.
Edited@15:10 on 11/8/11: The government have now extended the claims period for the Riot Damages Act to 42 days and made a claim form available online which you must use to make a claim so I've updated my advice accordingly.
Also part of the act makes reference to a £100 limit which has given some people the impression that the maximum compensation you can claim is £100. It's not. That part of the act only refers to what action you can take against the police if they refuse your claim and you can pursue them through the small claims court the same you would any other bad debtor. At the time the act was written the maximum cap for the small claims court was £100. It's now about £12,000 and even if your claim is above that you can still pursue the matter through the normal county courts because there is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be claimed. I wouldn't worry about that too much though because if legitimate claims are refused I'm sure the insurance companies will be more then happy to bring test cases and class action suits.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1886/38/pdfs/ukpga_18860038_en.pdf
However the main point is that whenever a house, shop or building or it's contents are damaged, destroyed or stolen by a riotous and tumultuously assembled crowd the police authority have to pay for the damage or loss provided the person took reasonable steps to protect that property. For the purposes of the act;
- Riot is defined as; Three or more people acting with common purpose using force, violence or alarm to achieve an aim. That aim can be to make a political point, demolish a wall or loot a shop. [Field V Metropolitan Police Receiver (1907)]
- Tumultuously is defined as; Being in such large numbers and acting in such an aggressive manner that the police should have been well aware of the threat and taken action to prevent it. [J.W. Dwyer Ltd V Metropolitan Police District Receiver (1967)]
So if you had property damaged or stolen in the riots and you're not insured my advice is to use this form;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksro/1921/1536/pdfs/uksro_19211536_en.pdf
In London you then hand this form in at your local police station. For Croydon that would be Croydon Central Police Station, 71 Park Lane, CR9 1BP but any police station is good enough provided it's in the correct Borough. Outside London the form must be sent to the Clerk to the County Council who can be found at your local Town Hall. Your claim will then be investigated and provided it's an honest claim you should then receive some money.
If you are insured you should make a normal insurance claim but also follow the above steps to also make a claim with the police. If you can afford it you should seek proper legal advice and inform your insurance company of the police claim. Many insurance policies do not cover riot damage because there is an assumption that the police will do their duty so insurers are unlikely to pay out when they really don't have to.
Tomorrow (11/8/11) the House of Commons will hold an emergency session to allow MP's to discuss the riots. The Conservatives with froth at the mouth about all the new powers and weapons they want to give the police. Labour and the Liberal Democrats will use it all as an opportunity to score political points about spending cuts. However it would be nice if they could also find the time to ask the Home Secretary to extend the claim period for the act from 14 to 42 days and produce an online claim form to help the police and the public cope with a rarely used and often forgotten piece of legislation.
Edited@15:10 on 11/8/11: The government have now extended the claims period for the Riot Damages Act to 42 days and made a claim form available online which you must use to make a claim so I've updated my advice accordingly.
Also part of the act makes reference to a £100 limit which has given some people the impression that the maximum compensation you can claim is £100. It's not. That part of the act only refers to what action you can take against the police if they refuse your claim and you can pursue them through the small claims court the same you would any other bad debtor. At the time the act was written the maximum cap for the small claims court was £100. It's now about £12,000 and even if your claim is above that you can still pursue the matter through the normal county courts because there is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be claimed. I wouldn't worry about that too much though because if legitimate claims are refused I'm sure the insurance companies will be more then happy to bring test cases and class action suits.
Birmingham's Still Bubbling.
Across the UK the rioting that has plagued the past four days seems to be blowing itself out with a sense of calm and normality returning to most areas. The exception seems to be in Birmingham.
Yesterday (9/8/11) local residents in the West Bromwich area formed neighbourhood watch groups to protect their homes and business. At one point a car drove into one of these groups killing three young Asian men. Whatever the truth the rumours flying about claim this was a racist attack and as a result there are large groups of young men assembling in the street divided along ethnic lines. This creates the obvious worry that race riots will break out over night. I hope they don't.
Already politicians like David Cameron are talking about sections of British society that are "sick" and need to feel the strong arm of the law. In Eltham in London, scene of the Stephen Lawerence murder, the English Defence League (EDL) have been organising large groups to white men to go around "hunting looters" which really means beating up young black men.
So my worry is that it if Asian areas of the country continue to riot long after everywhere else has calmed down people will forget what really caused this violence and and blame it all on a Muslim problem.
That would be a shame because up until now the one good thing you can say about the rioters is that they've been a very ethnically diverse group with Black, White and Asian, Christian, Jew and Muslim all united in their hatred of the police and their desire for free stuff.
Yesterday (9/8/11) local residents in the West Bromwich area formed neighbourhood watch groups to protect their homes and business. At one point a car drove into one of these groups killing three young Asian men. Whatever the truth the rumours flying about claim this was a racist attack and as a result there are large groups of young men assembling in the street divided along ethnic lines. This creates the obvious worry that race riots will break out over night. I hope they don't.
Already politicians like David Cameron are talking about sections of British society that are "sick" and need to feel the strong arm of the law. In Eltham in London, scene of the Stephen Lawerence murder, the English Defence League (EDL) have been organising large groups to white men to go around "hunting looters" which really means beating up young black men.
So my worry is that it if Asian areas of the country continue to riot long after everywhere else has calmed down people will forget what really caused this violence and and blame it all on a Muslim problem.
That would be a shame because up until now the one good thing you can say about the rioters is that they've been a very ethnically diverse group with Black, White and Asian, Christian, Jew and Muslim all united in their hatred of the police and their desire for free stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)