It is that the police made outlandish claims to the media that several of his guns has been linked to murders and to other gun crimes in London.
This was not true. There was never any basis for these claims. They were lies.
And I've never disputed any of this.
I've simply pointed out that a firearm dealer who has freely discussed whether licence-exempt, antique, guns can be fired using modern ammo' is likely to become the subject of a police enquiry.
I brought up this case because another FM claimed that the police would not use huge resources in undercover/security/tailing operations for someone who wasn't a serious criminal.
This and the Forest Gate raid says different.
In each case, the police have defended their actions by using the word 'intelligence'.
And, to address your edit, the simple fact is that when the police are investigating a person who owns 1,000 guns, any investigation is going to involve substantial resources. It's inevitable when you're forced to examine up to 1,000 guns, looking for evidence that they might have been used in a criminal manner.
The stuff about suggesting he was some kind of underworld gunsmith is, of course, bullshit of the highest order but, then again, given the way he was operating, he may well have (knowingly or not) sold guns to people who used them for criminal purposes and it'd only be blind luck if he didn't.
The stuff about suggesting he was some kind of underworld gunsmith is, of course, bullshit of the highest order but, then again, given the way he was operating, he may well have (knowingly or not) sold guns to people who used them for criminal purposes and it'd only be blind luck if he didn't.
Well legally owned guns are used for criminal purposes. You don't have to be some kind of Al Capone to use a firearm criminally.
But someone selling guns has to abide by the law and sell them only to persons with the correct licenses. And also keep records of who they sold to and give that information to the police.
Certainly Kent police didn't seem to have a problem with any of his record keeping.
Well legally owned guns are used for criminal purposes. You don't have to be some kind of Al Capone to use a firearm criminally.
But someone selling guns has to abide by the law and sell them only to persons with the correct licenses. And also keep records of who they sold to and give that information to the police.
Certainly Kent police didn't seem to have a problem with any of his record keeping.
You're showing your ignorance again.
I've got no idea whether or not Shepherd had an FAC. The fact that he was a registered firearms dealer suggests that he was dealing in live-firing weapons.
That's all beside the point though.
The fact is that the guns we're talking about fall under Section 58(2) of the Firearms Act which means they're exempt from regulation under that act or, oddly enough, any other.
He can buy as many of them as he wants and sell them to whoever he wants and there's no law compelling him to keep records.
Which is why it's rather disturbing that discussion of whether any such weapon could be fired using modern ammunition should be entered into.
Frankly, no reputable firearm dealer would ever discuss the subject or sell an antique gun to anybody who asked about it and, what's more, the dealer would probably find some excuse to get the buyer's details and then report them to the police as a result of the subject being raised.
Of course it is in the interest of the police to make outlandish claims of 'one of the most violent in Europe' but there is nothing real to link him to that status (something even the police admit).
And with regards to modern street gangs, in fact you can tell a great deal from convictions (and the lack of them). You mustn't have come into much contact with major London gangs if you are going to state that a man with two non violent petty offences on his record was some kind of big wig; if you think that then it is YOU who is showing crass naivety.
Moreover, the intelligence supposedly linking Duggan to the more serious aspects of criminality were graded 'E'. If you don't know what this means, I suggest you look it up, Mr Big Policeman. It is basically the reason the police admit they had NOTHING on him prior to the incident. Nothing.
I would say it is you who is incredibly naive, many of the biggest criminals have no convictions as they are very clever at avoiding being caught not because they are innocent or low level.
I would say it is you who is incredibly naive, many of the biggest criminals have no convictions as they are very clever at avoiding being caught not because they are innocent or low level.
Really? Give me some examples.
I know plenty of people in gangs. Some of them on the sidelines, some of them heavily involved. Some of them outside, some in prison.
Modern street gangs are pretty disparate - not nearly as organised as people think. There is rarely much of an ordered hierarchy. The ones who are most feared generally have hoards of convictions. What is more, they tend to be violent ones (most gang members generally have some convictions for things like robbery or drug offences but the big badasses often have convictions for serious violence).
I think you've probably watched too much TV and think that gang leaders live in suburbia with BMWs while their minions do their dirty work. (If that was the case, it certainly wouldn't include Duggan who never moved out of Tottenham as far as I know).
I know plenty of people in gangs. Some of them on the sidelines, some of them heavily involved. Some of them outside, some in prison.
Modern street gangs are pretty disparate - not nearly as organised as people think. There is rarely much of an ordered hierarchy. The ones who are most feared generally have hoards of convictions. What is more, they tend to be violent ones (most gang members generally have some convictions for things like robbery or drug offences but the big badasses often have convictions for serious violence).
I think you've probably watched too much TV and think that gang leaders live in suburbia with BMWs while their minions do their dirty work. (If that was the case, it certainly wouldn't include Duggan who never moved out of Tottenham as far as I know).
Examples, so you think I can give you names of people who have not been arrested yet as they don't have enough evidence . Sorry but you are playing games here , I do not need to be watching too much television to know what goes on I can assure you.
Mind you Duggans late Uncle Dessie Noonan is an example, he was a well known crime figure suspected of being behind at least 25 murders and supplying gangs with firearms, behind much of the organised dodgy security at clubs in all the major cities rarely convicted of anything as he was too clever and no one would speak against him.
As for Duggan he had convictions for cannabis possession and handling stolen goods, he was arrested for murder, attempted murder and firearms offences of which he was not charged, not because he was necessarily innocent but there was not enough evidence, that does not make him the low level innocent you are so keen to portray.
As for Duggan he had convictions for cannabis possession and handling stolen goods, he was arrested for murder, attempted murder and firearms offences of which he was not charged, not because he was necessarily innocent but there was not enough evidence, that does not make him the low level innocent you are so keen to portray.
Ha ha! And I get lambasted for being unfair and not giving the police the credit of innocent until proven guilty!
You still have nothing of real value.
As for Noonan - that's another pathetic attempt at a smear. Duggan barely knew Noonan and have little to no contact with him. And besides, he had quite serious convictions so I'm not quite sure how he proves your point. He wasn't related to Duggan by blood at all but was married briefly to his aunt.
You used the term 'his line of work' despite the fact you have nothing concrete to back up claims of a long term serious criminal career. Nothing.
Another person used the odd term 'elder' (presumably indicating he was pretty high up in this gang he is supposed to hang with).
And even the police never claimed to 'know' (like you have just done) - they were very careful to use the words 'suspected', 'intelligence led us to believe, etc'.
I suspect most people know that if challenged by armed police, you stay still.
If you want to pretend he wasn't in a gang, and was just unlucky in terms of associates, and being arrested along with them, carry on, we've worked out your MO. All Police are corrupt, but there is nothing about Duggan to suspect he was in a gang.
He wasn't some young kid being used by a gang. He knew the score, and knew he was going to be stopped. He knew the consequences of being caught with a loaded gun, and he took the brief seconds when first stopped to try and get rid of it.
I have no idea what he was doing with a gun. But many people pick up guns who aren't involved in organised criminality. Some do it because they are paid to do it. Some because they have a one-off score to settle. Some because they are threatened.
The presence of a gun itself does not indicate some kind of hardened organised long-term criminal. And constantly claiming it does; does not make it true.
Collecting a loaded gun from a criminal, and taking it to someone else is not minor crime, and someone of his age and experience with his associates knows that.
I bet your criminals love you with the attitude you have.
Secondly, I work primarily in academic research now - within prisons and youth justice.
So no, I'm not worried.
Why do you think I have a negative attitude towards the judiciary? I generally don't.
I do have issues with trust in the police - and this isn't just from historical cases. It's from pretty day to day infractions that I've seen at police stations with regards to suspects.
Because you've regularly slagged off every element of it on here, leaving us the impression that the only honest person working in the system is you.
If you want to pretend he wasn't in a gang, and was just unlucky in terms of associates, and being arrested along with them, carry on, we've worked out your MO. All Police are corrupt, but there is nothing about Duggan to suspect he was in a gang..
Again dishonest. 'If you want to pretend...'
I've given no indication that I 'want' to do such a thing.
I've given no indication that I 'want' to do such a thing.
You've done nothing but pontificate about how there is nothing to suggest Duggan was a gang member, and you come up with various reasons why he may have had this gun, whilst not considering the obvious.
And that includes 'my' criminals (as you weirdly put it).
Well the Police are made up from the same humans as you. It's possible to comment on wrongdoing without slagging off all in a particular organisation(s) as you do.
I don't quite know what an academic in prison does, but it is not on the frontline of dealing with criminals as they go about their business. You see them after the event, and they can tell you what they like, and play the poor innocent downtrodden by the police State, and they love it when people go along with it.
We have a poster thinking that some caught with guns are victims, brings up yet another case of the police allegedly doing something wrong, this time in Forest Gate but at the same time this person doesn't accept that despite Duggan:
- Had associates that are serious criminals, including one convicted for murder
- Had been arrested of suspicion for serious crimes including murder
- Had been stopped before in a car containing a gun
- Had been shot in the foot by a shotgun
is not some serious criminal that warranted the police having a careful watch over him.
To sum it up: a police hater and making excuses for criminals.
Academic research to be of any value also needs to be based on a principle of avoiding bias and prejudiced starting points.
Given Anais' vitriolic level of 'cynicism' I'm somehow doubting it gets left at the door for work...
I find it more worrying that anais32 was once involved in probation. How much of her judgement was clouded?
Ha ha! And I get lambasted for being unfair and not giving the police the credit of innocent until proven guilty!
You still have nothing of real value.
As for Noonan - that's another pathetic attempt at a smear. Duggan barely knew Noonan and have little to no contact with him. And besides, he had quite serious convictions so I'm not quite sure how he proves your point. He wasn't related to Duggan by blood at all but was married briefly to his aunt.
Pathetic attempt at a smear, I worry if you have any involvement with criminals and rehabilitation etc becaue they will be on a hiding to nothing with your guidance . Noonan was his Uncle by marriage so what , or do you have to be a blood relative to be influenced ? As for little or no contact far from it, he visited regularly and continued to visit him and stay even after Noonan and his aunt divorced, that's not a smear that is a fact, though I know you don't really like those and prefer to see gang members as victims as opposed to criminals.
I suspect most people know that if challenged by armed police, you stay still.
If you want to pretend he wasn't in a gang, and was just unlucky in terms of associates, and being arrested along with them, carry on, we've worked out your MO. All Police are corrupt, but there is nothing about Duggan to suspect he was in a gang.
He wasn't some young kid being used by a gang. He knew the score, and knew he was going to be stopped. He knew the consequences of being caught with a loaded gun, and he took the brief seconds when first stopped to try and get rid of it.
I notice you frequently slip that one into your posts. Who are you peddling this to?
There is no evidence Duggan threw the gun before he was shot. That the jury decided it was more likely than not does not make it so. There's actually more evidence he threw it after he was shot, but that has been disproved. There is yet more evidence to suggest the police planted the gun, and nothing to disprove it.
I notice you frequently slip that one into your posts. Who are you peddling this to?
There is no evidence Duggan threw the gun before he was shot. That the jury decided it was more likely than not does not make it so. There's actually more evidence he threw it after he was shot, but that has been disproved. There is yet more evidence to suggest the police planted the gun, and nothing to disprove it.
And you still haven't shown us the evidence that the gun was taken out of the taxi by the police. Why are you ignoring this?
I notice you frequently slip that one into your posts. Who are you peddling this to?
There is no evidence Duggan threw the gun before he was shot. That the jury decided it was more likely than not does not make it so. There's actually more evidence he threw it after he was shot, but that has been disproved. There is yet more evidence to suggest the police planted the gun, and nothing to disprove it.
Actually I thought that the jury believed he threw the gun away right at the point when the car was stopped and before the police arrived on the pavement. Which would mean the marksman seeing the gun being thrown was unlikely.
I'm getting stick for saying there is no real hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal yet people are willing to believe that a police officer who killed someone and didn't manage to utter a single word under oath that could be true; can't possibly be lying.
DP has even invented a scenario for him. He knows that not a single thing he claimed happened could have happened so he's constructed a narrative which even the officer in question doesn't claim happened.
The police officer could have got up on that witness stand and told a pack of lies. That is a distinct possibility. So much so that there will be a judicial review based solely on that possibility.
Actually I thought that the jury believed he threw the gun away right at the point when the car was stopped and before the police arrived on the pavement. Which would mean the marksman seeing the gun being thrown was unlikely.
I'm getting stick for saying there is no real hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal yet people are willing to believe that a police officer who killed someone and didn't manage to utter a single word under oath that could be true; can't possibly be lying.
DP has even invented a scenario for him. He knows that not a single thing he claimed happened could have happened so he's constructed a narrative which even the officer in question doesn't claim happened.
The police officer could have got up on that witness stand and told a pack of lies. That is a distinct possibility. So much so that there will be a judicial review based solely on that possibility.
And here I thought the limited application for JR was granted because of a misdirection by the Coronor and absolutely noting to do with whether V53 lied or not. Why else is the family re-applying on the other points that they raised?
And here I thought the limited application for JR was granted because of a misdirection by the Coronor and absolutely noting to do with whether V53 lied or not. Why else is the family re-applying on the other points that they raised?
I think you need to look at WHY the judge thought the jury was misdirected.
Actually I thought that the jury believed he threw the gun away right at the point when the car was stopped and before the police arrived on the pavement. Which would mean the marksman seeing the gun being thrown was unlikely.
I'm getting stick for saying there is no real hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal yet people are willing to believe that a police officer who killed someone and didn't manage to utter a single word under oath that could be true; can't possibly be lying.
DP has even invented a scenario for him. He knows that not a single thing he claimed happened could have happened so he's constructed a narrative which even the officer in question doesn't claim happened.
The police officer could have got up on that witness stand and told a pack of lies. That is a distinct possibility. So much so that there will be a judicial review based solely on that possibility.
You're getting stick for ludicrous comments about Duggan, and his history.
I've given a possibility. if you're looking for an invented scenario check out ras.
I think you need to look at WHY the judge thought the jury was misdirected.
I did and It clearly shows that the directions where not adequate. That is it. They got the review on a technicality. Basically, he should have said to the jury if it was reasonable for V53 to have been mistaken considering all of the circumstances of the shooting.
I notice you frequently slip that one into your posts. Who are you peddling this to?
There is no evidence Duggan threw the gun before he was shot. That the jury decided it was more likely than not does not make it so. There's actually more evidence he threw it after he was shot, but that has been disproved. There is yet more evidence to suggest the police planted the gun, and nothing to disprove it.
I'm still waiting to see this evidence, rather than your story invented to fit a video.
The Jury saw and heard all the evidence, and I think they got it right.
Comments
And I've never disputed any of this.
I've simply pointed out that a firearm dealer who has freely discussed whether licence-exempt, antique, guns can be fired using modern ammo' is likely to become the subject of a police enquiry.
And, to address your edit, the simple fact is that when the police are investigating a person who owns 1,000 guns, any investigation is going to involve substantial resources. It's inevitable when you're forced to examine up to 1,000 guns, looking for evidence that they might have been used in a criminal manner.
The stuff about suggesting he was some kind of underworld gunsmith is, of course, bullshit of the highest order but, then again, given the way he was operating, he may well have (knowingly or not) sold guns to people who used them for criminal purposes and it'd only be blind luck if he didn't.
Well legally owned guns are used for criminal purposes. You don't have to be some kind of Al Capone to use a firearm criminally.
But someone selling guns has to abide by the law and sell them only to persons with the correct licenses. And also keep records of who they sold to and give that information to the police.
Certainly Kent police didn't seem to have a problem with any of his record keeping.
You're showing your ignorance again.
I've got no idea whether or not Shepherd had an FAC. The fact that he was a registered firearms dealer suggests that he was dealing in live-firing weapons.
That's all beside the point though.
The fact is that the guns we're talking about fall under Section 58(2) of the Firearms Act which means they're exempt from regulation under that act or, oddly enough, any other.
He can buy as many of them as he wants and sell them to whoever he wants and there's no law compelling him to keep records.
Which is why it's rather disturbing that discussion of whether any such weapon could be fired using modern ammunition should be entered into.
Frankly, no reputable firearm dealer would ever discuss the subject or sell an antique gun to anybody who asked about it and, what's more, the dealer would probably find some excuse to get the buyer's details and then report them to the police as a result of the subject being raised.
I would say it is you who is incredibly naive, many of the biggest criminals have no convictions as they are very clever at avoiding being caught not because they are innocent or low level.
Really? Give me some examples.
I know plenty of people in gangs. Some of them on the sidelines, some of them heavily involved. Some of them outside, some in prison.
Modern street gangs are pretty disparate - not nearly as organised as people think. There is rarely much of an ordered hierarchy. The ones who are most feared generally have hoards of convictions. What is more, they tend to be violent ones (most gang members generally have some convictions for things like robbery or drug offences but the big badasses often have convictions for serious violence).
I think you've probably watched too much TV and think that gang leaders live in suburbia with BMWs while their minions do their dirty work. (If that was the case, it certainly wouldn't include Duggan who never moved out of Tottenham as far as I know).
Examples, so you think I can give you names of people who have not been arrested yet as they don't have enough evidence . Sorry but you are playing games here , I do not need to be watching too much television to know what goes on I can assure you.
Mind you Duggans late Uncle Dessie Noonan is an example, he was a well known crime figure suspected of being behind at least 25 murders and supplying gangs with firearms, behind much of the organised dodgy security at clubs in all the major cities rarely convicted of anything as he was too clever and no one would speak against him.
As for Duggan he had convictions for cannabis possession and handling stolen goods, he was arrested for murder, attempted murder and firearms offences of which he was not charged, not because he was necessarily innocent but there was not enough evidence, that does not make him the low level innocent you are so keen to portray.
Ha ha! And I get lambasted for being unfair and not giving the police the credit of innocent until proven guilty!
You still have nothing of real value.
As for Noonan - that's another pathetic attempt at a smear. Duggan barely knew Noonan and have little to no contact with him. And besides, he had quite serious convictions so I'm not quite sure how he proves your point. He wasn't related to Duggan by blood at all but was married briefly to his aunt.
I suspect most people know that if challenged by armed police, you stay still.
If you want to pretend he wasn't in a gang, and was just unlucky in terms of associates, and being arrested along with them, carry on, we've worked out your MO. All Police are corrupt, but there is nothing about Duggan to suspect he was in a gang.
He wasn't some young kid being used by a gang. He knew the score, and knew he was going to be stopped. He knew the consequences of being caught with a loaded gun, and he took the brief seconds when first stopped to try and get rid of it.
Collecting a loaded gun from a criminal, and taking it to someone else is not minor crime, and someone of his age and experience with his associates knows that.
I bet your criminals love you with the attitude you have.
Because you've regularly slagged off every element of it on here, leaving us the impression that the only honest person working in the system is you.
Again dishonest. 'If you want to pretend...'
I've given no indication that I 'want' to do such a thing.
I'm pretty cynical about human nature in general.
And that includes 'my' criminals (as you weirdly put it).
You've done nothing but pontificate about how there is nothing to suggest Duggan was a gang member, and you come up with various reasons why he may have had this gun, whilst not considering the obvious.
Well the Police are made up from the same humans as you. It's possible to comment on wrongdoing without slagging off all in a particular organisation(s) as you do.
I don't quite know what an academic in prison does, but it is not on the frontline of dealing with criminals as they go about their business. You see them after the event, and they can tell you what they like, and play the poor innocent downtrodden by the police State, and they love it when people go along with it.
We have a poster thinking that some caught with guns are victims, brings up yet another case of the police allegedly doing something wrong, this time in Forest Gate but at the same time this person doesn't accept that despite Duggan:
- Had associates that are serious criminals, including one convicted for murder
- Had been arrested of suspicion for serious crimes including murder
- Had been stopped before in a car containing a gun
- Had been shot in the foot by a shotgun
is not some serious criminal that warranted the police having a careful watch over him.
To sum it up: a police hater and making excuses for criminals.
I find it more worrying that anais32 was once involved in probation. How much of her judgement was clouded?
Pathetic attempt at a smear, I worry if you have any involvement with criminals and rehabilitation etc becaue they will be on a hiding to nothing with your guidance . Noonan was his Uncle by marriage so what , or do you have to be a blood relative to be influenced ? As for little or no contact far from it, he visited regularly and continued to visit him and stay even after Noonan and his aunt divorced, that's not a smear that is a fact, though I know you don't really like those and prefer to see gang members as victims as opposed to criminals.
I notice you frequently slip that one into your posts. Who are you peddling this to?
There is no evidence Duggan threw the gun before he was shot. That the jury decided it was more likely than not does not make it so. There's actually more evidence he threw it after he was shot, but that has been disproved. There is yet more evidence to suggest the police planted the gun, and nothing to disprove it.
And you still haven't shown us the evidence that the gun was taken out of the taxi by the police. Why are you ignoring this?
Actually I thought that the jury believed he threw the gun away right at the point when the car was stopped and before the police arrived on the pavement. Which would mean the marksman seeing the gun being thrown was unlikely.
I'm getting stick for saying there is no real hard evidence that Duggan was a serious criminal yet people are willing to believe that a police officer who killed someone and didn't manage to utter a single word under oath that could be true; can't possibly be lying.
DP has even invented a scenario for him. He knows that not a single thing he claimed happened could have happened so he's constructed a narrative which even the officer in question doesn't claim happened.
The police officer could have got up on that witness stand and told a pack of lies. That is a distinct possibility. So much so that there will be a judicial review based solely on that possibility.
And here I thought the limited application for JR was granted because of a misdirection by the Coronor and absolutely noting to do with whether V53 lied or not. Why else is the family re-applying on the other points that they raised?
I think you need to look at WHY the judge thought the jury was misdirected.
You're getting stick for ludicrous comments about Duggan, and his history.
I've given a possibility. if you're looking for an invented scenario check out ras.
I did and It clearly shows that the directions where not adequate. That is it. They got the review on a technicality. Basically, he should have said to the jury if it was reasonable for V53 to have been mistaken considering all of the circumstances of the shooting.
I'm still waiting to see this evidence, rather than your story invented to fit a video.
The Jury saw and heard all the evidence, and I think they got it right.