Some issues

Regarding the shooting of Mark Duggan there are still many unanswered questions. However we do known that the firearms officers did not explicitly claim they were shot at but claimed their lives were threatened. We know that a loaded gun was at the scene. we know that at this stage there is no evidence the pistol at the scene was fired.

This leaves the very real possibility that the gun was still being used in a threatening manner - Firearms officers are not obliged to wait until they are shot upon in order for themselves to open fire.

The IPCC are, as the name suggests, and independent entity from the police. The tone of this article is tending towards an attempt to cover something up for the police - use of the word "admitted" suggests an attempt to initially conceal the information which seems unnecessarily inflammatory to me.

I also take issue with the way the shooting is described as sparking the riots in this articles and indeed in other reports in the mainstream media. I would argue that the shooting sparked a riot in Tottenham on saturday. It is this riot that then set precedent for other riots to take place. By wording it this way I think that the subsequent riots seen this week are more suitably distanced from the shooting of Mark Duggan, which most people seem to aggree but some of the media seem slow to pick up on (calling the riotors protesters etc).