Why is the IPCC getting their knickers in a twist over coverage of Mark Duggan investigation?


Mark Duggan (right) with his mother Pam and brother Marlon

It’s almost 4 months since 29 year old Mark Duggan, had a couple of bullets pumped into him by Met police Trident officers. While the public awaits the IPCC investigation to conclude, the IPCC appears to be more concerned about the way a headline in the Guardian was written.

So troubled by Vikram Dodd’s headline in the Guardian that read: “Revealed: Mark  Duggan was not armed when shot by police” that they expressed their concerns to the Guardian on the evening of the 19th November. Not happy that the Guardian had not changed the headline by Saturday (20th) afternoon, they issued the following statement:

The IPCC believes the headline on an article published in The Guardian in connection with the investigation into the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan is misleading, speculative and wholly irresponsible.

The IPCC expressed its concerns to The Guardian last night over the article’s headline and we had been given the impression that the headline would be amended but, disappointingly The Guardian appears to have chosen not to. We will be considering in due course whether it would be appropriate for a formal complaint to be made to the Press Complaints Commission about this matter.

The IPCC investigation into the death of Mark Duggan is examining a range of issues. This is a complex investigation that involves gathering information including witness statements, pathology, forensics and ballistics analysis and we have stated to the coroner that it will be completed within four to six months. One of the key elements we will seek to establish is the sequence of events concerning the non-police issue firearm found at the scene. That has not been established yet, contrary to what has been written in The Guardian article today.  We would urge people not to rush to judgment until our investigation is complete and they have the opportunity to see and hear the full evidence themselves.

The Guardian has since amended their headline to read: “New Questions raised over Duggan shooting”.

A Guardian News & Media spokesman said: “We note that the IPCC statement does not contradict the substance of our story and we stand by the reporting.

“We have amended the online headline as a precautionary measure while we consider their concerns about it and will continue to investigate and report on this vital matter of public interest.”

Campaigner Stafford Scott claims IPCC investigation is tainted.

Dodd must may have been getting his information from someone in the Tottenham community with links to the investigation, because surprise surprise, the next day Stafford Scott announced in the Guardian, that he and another adviser on a 3 member community reference group set up by the IPCC to keep the natives calm in Tottenham, while they cock-up investigate the shooting of Mark Duggan had resigned.

Scott wrote in the Guardian’s comment is free, on his observation and reason for resigning from the panel, calling the IPCC’s investigation “shoddy” while giving us a glimpse of what appears to be a chaotic or at best questionable investigation that leaves one scratching their head.

So why is the IPCC getting so bent out of shape over the Guardians reports? It’s not like they or the police have much credibility or trust in certain community’s. Nor have they got a good track record to instill confidence in the public, following the out-come of so many other police related deaths.

Moments after Mark Duggans death, the police dirty press and damage control machine was in full gear. As I mentioned in my blog piece “The villifying of Mark Duggan family and  friends” a few months ago, there seems to be a pattern soon after a police shooting or custody death, to sully the dead “perp”. In Duggan’s case, he was a “Gangsta” and the press ran with it. Even I bought it for a couple of hours. But that shouldn’t be a surprise since I live in Hackney, where gun totting Black wannabe scarfaces are the scourge of our community.

I’d be content in believing his killing was a very serious mistake, but some how I can’t shake off the knowledge that to  many in the police force, Black men are seen as sub-human. Which is so evident in their treatment of our boys and men.

It would be easy to chalk up my views on law enforcement officers to my unfortunate experiences with them here in London and across the pond or because I am a Black woman. Then I read Inspector Gadgets Blog post about the article in the Guardian, on the Mark Duggan investigation and my view’s of police officers was validated. Shooting Mark Duggan was probably as easy as shooting a rabid animal.

If you are not familiar with Inspector Gadget’s blog, he is a serving police officer, who can be best described as a Police mans Police man, who doesn’t mince his words. But it’s not so much Gadgets opinion on Mark Duggan and the investigation that rattles me, it’s what his colleagues have to say in response. I got the feeling most of them would have had no problem in pulling the trigger after they stopped the taxi he was riding in.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *