Thursday, 24 November 2011

Mark Duggan Inquiry

Stafford Scott

We heard this week that two of the three members of the community reference group who are giving advice to the IPCC regarding the police shooting of Mark Duggan, have resigned. One of them, Stafford Scott, has stated that he no longer wishes to be associated with the investigation, which he describes as shoddy and flawed. It is true that he raised some concerns but also that he refused to attend a meeting with the IPCC where they wished to try and allay those concerns.

I have been involved in many incidents where the police have pulled together 'community consultants' to give advice and to try and ensure some transparency. On many occasions I have wondered who these representatives speak for and what their motives are. Stafford Scott works as a community and race relations consultant. He clearly has some passion regarding Tottenham but are his views really representative of the community? His idol is Bernie Grant, so I doubt it. And doesn't membership of these consultative groups give some credibility for the paid day job? Is there not a a conflict of interest here?

The other member of the group who resigned is John Noblemunn. He also declined to attend the meeting where the IPCC hoped to allay any concerns they had. Noblemunn is, among other things, Chair of Haringay Black Independent Advisory Group and Deputy Chair of Trident Independent Advisory Group.

Perhaps there are flaws in the IPCC investigation, they are by no means perfect. I really suspect that Mr Scott and Mr Noblemunn have seen the writing on the wall. They would like to be seen as the architects of an investigation that results in the conviction of police officers for the cold blooded murder of Mark Duggan. Perhaps the investigation just shows that the police lawfully shot an armed gangster. Time to bail out and distance yourself.


  1. Let me make a quick detour to avoid threatening fog. If their views mirrored yours, inasmuch as agreeing that police had lawfully executed an armed 'gangsta', they would be fine fellows?

  2. MTG, defender of the indefensible as always. Duggan was a fine fellow Melvin,unless he wanted to marry your daughter?

  3. Melv - as someone who appears to at least try and think a position through - if you honestly felt an investigation was flawed wouldn't you take the opportunity to attend a meeting with the team to address your concerns?

    If nothing else you would be in a position to emerge from the meeting and state the points that you felt were flawed in the investigation, hadn't been addressed, and therefore provided a reason for you now to resign.

    Of course doing that would mean that you would have to actually produce some half decent arguments to suggest why the investigation was flawed in advance of seeing the results rather than - dare I say it - jumping on whatever popular band wagon starts to rumble on the publication of the report.


  4. I think Stafford Scott, stage name Marcus Collins, should just be honest and say that he has found it difficult doing X-Factor with all these other responsibilities. Amelia Lily to win though!!

  5. Melvyn - as an avid reader of this blog you will know that I have been banging on about when someone in the black community is going to speak out against the disproportionate number of that community involved in crime. I am fed up with hearing the excuses. The black community can blame poor education, housing, policing etc. The bottom line is that nothing is going to change, young black people will continue to be drawn into crime until someone has the balls to stand up and denounce the robbers and drug dealers. The community then needs to get behind that message and drive them out. All the time excuses are being made and people are too afraid to denounce those criminals, and in some cases support them, young black people will continue to waste their lives in a cesspit of criminality.
    David Lamentable MP for Tottenham doesn't have the balls for it and it appears that Stafford Scott and John Noblemunn don't either. They apparently want to maintain their credibility with the criminal underclass and continue earning a living out of the status quo.

  6. Directness has a bold, appealing quality, lex. I have always shared the journey with you on this route to condemnation junction but we arrive at my stop long before yours.

  7. Interesting logic - "Perhaps the investigation just shows that the police lawfully shot an armed gangster"
    Are you sure?
    From the beginning we have had nothing but "dis information"
    He had shot at Police and they had returned fire, a bullet lodging in an officers radio if i remember correctly ..... only to find out he had not fired a weapon at all and it was a Police (CO19 issue?) MP4 round that had ricocheted.
    A weapon was recovered from the scene - nice and vague.
    Then unnamed Police sources muddy the water further with "well known gangster" and a "major player and well known to the police in Tottenham".
    I suppose he may have been smart and did not get caught but how can you be sure?
    Also your Richard Littlejohnesque thinking that his send off proves he's a villain (how else could they afford it) akin to the Krays.
    I just saw a tacky/gay funeral that's all, nothing more nothing less.
    What's your idea of a befitting funeral for Duggan - dragging his corpse in the street and being fed to dogs?
    Facts are;
    Police shoot man in the heat of the moment "i feared for my life"
    IPCC tell some lies.
    Unnamed Police sources tarnish what ever reputation the victim has left by telling everybody he's a villain - so majority of the public thinks he deserved it.
    Riot starts because of the shooting (any excuse will do) followed by copy cat riots.

    Perhaps you could fill us all in with details of his criminal record to back up your beliefs.

  8. The writing on the wall? You mean the writing that has shown that thus far everything said by the police on this issue has been a pack of lies.

  9. 1. The 'dis information' re the exchange of fire came from the IPCC. Their cock up not the fault of the police.
    2. 'A weapon was recovered from the scene.' Of course it is vague! Being too specific at the outset and undermining the investigation would be wholly wrong. (See 1.)
    3. Police officers who know him will, unfortunately, give opinions and the press will report them. I don't believe they are wrong though. Do you recall his friend saying 'Yes he was involved in things......' or his partner Semone saying. 'I believe if he had a firearm and if he saw police he would run rather than shoot.' Strange she didn't say he would never have possessed a gun in a million years.
    4. His funeral was a tacky show befitting the Krays. Poor choice by the family.
    5. I cannot relay his previous convictions. The IPCC report and inquest will give detail on why he was under surveillance and stopped.

    To the other anonymous. Please tell me ONE thing the the POLICE have said that is not true.