Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

riots sparked by police beating 16yr old girl


Little Fish

Recommended Posts

Why does everybody have blackberries and cell phone with cameras? Just to twitter to each other on when and where to riot?

If all these rioters were "rioting because they are poverty-stricken" then where the hell did they get their Blackberries from? Did they steal them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Little Fish

    38

  • FLOMBIE

    22

  • TSS

    15

  • Abramelin

    8

I cannot believe some of the remarks people here are making.

I just cannot get my head around it.

Little fish, lets get somehting straight here and confirm what you are saying...

That the riots happened because a girl got beaten by police, right?>

A majority of rioters were aware of this in each city/town that violence errupted, right?

and basically by default, the police are to blame, society is to blame, politicians are to blame.....but the poor gangster shot by police along with the many idiots causing the riots are all innocent....? is this correct?

I dont actually know why I am bothering as I think you are interested in arguing for the sake of it or have some other agenda!

I think the only people that can agree with some of your points would be the idiots that 'are owed' everything including respect simply because they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in England, and have been bombarded with all the news. It started off with people protesting the, as they call it, "unjust shooting of a man in the back of a taxi." And ended up with what we call Chav's using it as an excuse to cause damage and steal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because she is, in most likelihood, a little hoodie, trouble-making thug who was pushed by the police because she started throwing rocks at them and is not the poor, little, innocent victim that was set upon for the police for no reason that one or two people on this thread like to portray her as.

Most police officers with any training at all would know that when there is a large crowd of people present at any type of protest or gathering, the actions of that 16 yr. old girl could spark a confrontation. They were right in trying to get her back into the crowd to attempt to defuse it. She must have been there with some of her friends because none of the family or their friends were involved in the riot or condoned it from everything I've read. Sounds like some punks who were only there to start trouble and managed to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eyewitness from the first video of the first post:

"what actually ignited everything was a young female who approached the police standing line and she was set upon by police with batons...the police charged towards her and started hitting her with their batons and this made everyone go up in uproar"

the eyewitness gave the answer:

"a young 16 year old approximately went to approach them just to, again, roughly find out what's going on"

eyewitness in the first video of the first post also gave the answer:

" "she just approached the police saying the community demanded answers and justice must prevail and they just set upon her""

this is a 16 year old girl, one in number.

they are the riot police clad in armour with battons and shields, many in number.

they felt intimidated? can you explain how they would be obviously intimidated?

the officers policing the initial peacefull demo were in normal uniform not in riot gear formed up in a lines with p24 batons and shields .if this happend something before it had made them get kitted up.also if you approach kitted up coppers you are gonna get a kicking ask thousands of ex miners in the north.funnily enough though they didnt then go and trash there communitys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems almost certain now that the trouble started when a little 16 year old thug threw rocks at riot police.

here is a fuller quote that the daily mail selectively quoted.

"I saw the girl throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line… she was pounded by 15 riot shields… then police launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend. After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them"

for the hard of thinking, I would add that the last line proves this 16 year old girl did not throw a champagne bottle since the witness heard glass bottles being thrown "after a few minutes", yet he is uncertain what the 16 year old threw after she threw a piece of card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the officers policing the initial peacefull demo were in normal uniform not in riot gear formed up in a lines with p24 batons and shields .if this happend something before it had made them get kitted up.also

your logic is not good. you assume that the protestors did something to cause the police to "get kitted", rather than just an order from the police being the cause to "get kitted".
if you approach kitted up coppers you are gonna get a kicking
it is not rational nor reasonable to expect to get a kicking from the police if you approach "kitted police".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the riots happened because a girl got beaten by police, right?> A majority of rioters were aware of this in each city/town that violence errupted, right?
the thread is about what sparked the initial violence in tottenham, and how a protest turned into a riot.

I think that is a legitimate question.

what happened after that across the country is a much wider discussion and there are other threads for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a fuller quote that the daily mail selectively quoted."I saw the girl throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line… she was pounded by 15 riot shields… then police launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend. After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them"for the hard of thinking, I would add that the last line proves this 16 year old girl did not throw a champagne bottle since the witness heard glass bottles being thrown "after a few minutes", yet he is uncertain what the 16 year old threw after she threw a piece of card.

yeah right....15 shields indicates teh girl was attacked by 15 officers (ignore the space limitations of 15 people attacking one...and ignoring the witnesses ability to count 15 officers in the heat of the moment)...and lets concentrate on 15 riot police attacking a 16 year old girl with batons and shields 'with STARTLING force' and she gets up...give me a break.

the thread is about what sparked the initial violence in tottenham, and how a protest turned into a riot. I think that is a legitimate question.what happened after that across the country is a much wider discussion and there are other threads for that.

no the thread is labelled 'riots sparked' riots indicating plural so you are not talking about just the initial violence, although I am sure this is now preferential seeing as the other argument didnt have a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not rational nor reasonable to expect to get a kicking from the police if you approach "kitted police".

If you throw something at the police, you get hit back - what is difficult to understand in that simple concept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a fuller quote that the daily mail selectively quoted.

"I saw the girl throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line… she was pounded by 15 riot shields… then police launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend. After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them"

for the hard of thinking, I would add that the last line proves this 16 year old girl did not throw a champagne bottle since the witness heard glass bottles being thrown "after a few minutes", yet he is uncertain what the 16 year old threw after she threw a piece of card.

Is the daily mail your preferred choice of information? what hospital was the girl taken to? whats her name? how is her recovery going? what police station was her assault reported to? i suggest the mods move this posts to the urban myth section or the conspiracy boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the daily mail your preferred choice of information?

you are not paying attention, I never quoted the daily mail. the original quote in post 124 was given by another poster as "certain" proof she threw a stone. It was a quote from the daily mail, the quote the daily mail bases it's story and assertion of rock throwing on was distorted and not a quote at all: "One resident, Laurence Bailey, told the Guardian that the violence started after a 16-year-old girl 'threw something, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line'.".

I gave a fuller quote which says something different ""I saw the girl throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line… she was pounded by 15 riot shields… then police launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend. After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them""

it is just speculation she threw a stone, what is clear from the quote is that she did not throw a bottle, and that she threw a piece of card.

it is also conclusive that the 16 year old girl was attacked by many police. you can beleive that this did not happen if you prefer but you would be denying the available facts, there are 3 witness statements to this in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are not paying attention, I never quoted the daily mail. the original quote in post 124 was given by another poster as "certain" proof she threw a stone. It was a quote from the daily mail, the quote the daily mail bases it's story and assertion of rock throwing on was distorted and not a quote at all: "One resident, Laurence Bailey, told the Guardian that the violence started after a 16-year-old girl 'threw something, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line'.".

I gave a fuller quote which says something different ""I saw the girl throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line… she was pounded by 15 riot shields… then police launched into her with startling force using both batons and shields. She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend. After she was removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them""

it is just speculation she threw a stone, what is clear from the quote is that she did not throw a bottle, and that she threw a piece of card.

it is also conclusive that the 16 year old girl was attacked by many police. you can beleive that this did not happen if you prefer but you would be denying the available facts, there are 3 witness statements to this in this thread.

Who is she? what hospital was she taken to? please answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is she? what hospital was she taken to? please answer.

i don't know. do you think it is important?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know. do you think it is important?

Yes if the "story" is to have any credibility, don't you find it strange? have you ever seen the film "the invention of lying"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.