News2 mins ago
Stephen Lawrence Murder 20 Years On.
113 Answers
http://
It is now twenty years since the brutal and savage murder of Stephen Lawrence, some say we live is a much less violent society than years ago, if this is true isn't it now time that a final line was drawn under this historic case and closure put on the whole affair?
This one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time, after all they have already tried, found guilty and imprisoned two members of the gang that committed this act, that is much more than can be said for those more numerous gangs who are guilty of not only white murders but also black on black killings.
It is now twenty years since the brutal and savage murder of Stephen Lawrence, some say we live is a much less violent society than years ago, if this is true isn't it now time that a final line was drawn under this historic case and closure put on the whole affair?
This one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time, after all they have already tried, found guilty and imprisoned two members of the gang that committed this act, that is much more than can be said for those more numerous gangs who are guilty of not only white murders but also black on black killings.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So VHG, do you have any further comment on SP's reply to your response or was it just another bigoted 'hit and run'.
This recent post of yours has lots of pertinent and intelligent responses and you appear to be similarly incapable of dealing with them:
http://
This recent post of yours has lots of pertinent and intelligent responses and you appear to be similarly incapable of dealing with them:
http://
The reason “…the killers (at least, initially) walked free.””, sp, was because the Lawrence family initiated a private prosecution (against the advice of the DPP) when insufficient evidence existed. Only with the abolition of the “double jeopardy” rule was a second prosecution of the same suspects possible and there is little doubt in my mind that this case drove that change.
As for the McPherson report it contained some of the most preposterous findings and recommendations of any such report. In particular the definition of a racist incident as “…any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" is truly spellbinding.
Most serving police officers (not their career minded senior officers) working in multi-racial areas will tell you that the report hampered their work to the detriment of most of the law-abiding people they serve for years. Sorry to be “off message” but that’s my view as well.
Of course the murder was abhorrent (as all murders are) and of course the Lawrence family are unlikely ever to get over it. But for the rest of us it’s way past the time when a line should be drawn.
As for the McPherson report it contained some of the most preposterous findings and recommendations of any such report. In particular the definition of a racist incident as “…any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" is truly spellbinding.
Most serving police officers (not their career minded senior officers) working in multi-racial areas will tell you that the report hampered their work to the detriment of most of the law-abiding people they serve for years. Sorry to be “off message” but that’s my view as well.
Of course the murder was abhorrent (as all murders are) and of course the Lawrence family are unlikely ever to get over it. But for the rest of us it’s way past the time when a line should be drawn.
@NJ You are entitled to an opinion, but blaming the Lawrences for the killers of their son walking free is a bit rich. If we are going to apportion blame, we should be laying at the door of the investigative officers, who either because of incompetence or because they did not care did not investigate and arrest suspects that had been identified early on, thus giving those suspects ample opportunity to dispose of evidence that might otherwise have convicted them.
McPherson branded the Met institutionally racist, but the Scarman report in the 80s alluded to it too.There was plenty of evidence quite apart from Lawrences case that suggested this inherent racism within the Police Force- Stephen Lawrences murder was the catalyst.
McPhersons report defined institutional racism as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their culture, colour or ethnic origin", and his conclusion was perfectly apt for the Met. as typified by the way they let down the Lawrences. 20 years on, and the suspicion is that the organisation has not changed all that much.
McPhersons report, conclusions, and analysis was based upon first hand interviews, reports and evidence and so carries far more weight than your opinion, NJ.
The Lawrences are perfectly entitlec to continue to seek justice. In fact, I am somewhat surprised AoG does not admire their tenacity and steely resolve - surely worthy attributes of British character....
McPherson branded the Met institutionally racist, but the Scarman report in the 80s alluded to it too.There was plenty of evidence quite apart from Lawrences case that suggested this inherent racism within the Police Force- Stephen Lawrences murder was the catalyst.
McPhersons report defined institutional racism as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their culture, colour or ethnic origin", and his conclusion was perfectly apt for the Met. as typified by the way they let down the Lawrences. 20 years on, and the suspicion is that the organisation has not changed all that much.
McPhersons report, conclusions, and analysis was based upon first hand interviews, reports and evidence and so carries far more weight than your opinion, NJ.
The Lawrences are perfectly entitlec to continue to seek justice. In fact, I am somewhat surprised AoG does not admire their tenacity and steely resolve - surely worthy attributes of British character....
The first acquittal most certainly was the fault of the Lawrence family, LG. It may well be that an investigation lacking diligence was the reason for the original prosecution's failure, but fail it did and the family were warned that this was the likely outcome but they still went ahead. If the CPS had proceeded in such circumstances they would most certainly have shouldered the blame.
My opinion is shared by a large number of people and if you think the Met has not changed in 20 years (whether for the better is debateable) just ask any serving officer (junior or senior). Still, I'm glad that, for a change, it is viewed only as stupid and not bigoted or racist.
My opinion is shared by a large number of people and if you think the Met has not changed in 20 years (whether for the better is debateable) just ask any serving officer (junior or senior). Still, I'm glad that, for a change, it is viewed only as stupid and not bigoted or racist.
I agree that racist incidents shouldn't just be defined in terms of the complainer, and was surprised to find that you were right, NJ, about that being the new definition of "racist incident".
The CPS goes on to say that that not all racist incidents will be classed as racist offences. The test for prosecution includes whether there is reason to believe that "the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination...", so that you still need intent for incidents to be taken to court. Thank goodness, because otherwise things would get silly.
The CPS goes on to say that that not all racist incidents will be classed as racist offences. The test for prosecution includes whether there is reason to believe that "the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination...", so that you still need intent for incidents to be taken to court. Thank goodness, because otherwise things would get silly.
Yes, the Scarman report was pretty damning on institutionalised racism. That was a good many years ago now. Surely, NJ, anyone who had professional dealings with the Met, whether prosecuting or defending, would not have been in the slightest bit surprised at that time. The Lawrence case was twenty years ago. Things should have improved since, and surely have. But racism is less apparent in other areas too. It's far less apparent in football, for example.
But where would we be without the abolition of the double jeopardy rule ?
But where would we be without the abolition of the double jeopardy rule ?
@ NJ You can continue to attempt to blame the Lawrences if you wish- I certainly disagree with your analysis, and I doubt many neutral observers would concur with it either.
Any change that removes or reduces the institutional racism that was endemic within the Met is surely to be welcomed - how could there be any debate over that? - but there is precious little evidence that they are walking the walk rather than just talking the talk.
Any change that removes or reduces the institutional racism that was endemic within the Met is surely to be welcomed - how could there be any debate over that? - but there is precious little evidence that they are walking the walk rather than just talking the talk.
Yes quite so, OL. It is the CPS, jim, that goes on to say "...that that not all racist incidents will be classed as racist offences." etc., not McPherson. He stopped at the end of the sentence I provided.
Nobody (not even me, believe it or not) wants a racist police force (sorry, "service"). But the McPherson report did not remove racist elements from the police. All it did was to make senior officers and those on the ground reluctant to take appropriate action fearful that they may be termed racist.
Where would we be without "double jeopardy"? Where we ought to be, Fred -where the prosecuting authority gets one crack to succeed based upon the evidence it has at the time and where once acquitted a suspect does not have to spend the rest of his life waiting for a knock on the door.
Nobody (not even me, believe it or not) wants a racist police force (sorry, "service"). But the McPherson report did not remove racist elements from the police. All it did was to make senior officers and those on the ground reluctant to take appropriate action fearful that they may be termed racist.
Where would we be without "double jeopardy"? Where we ought to be, Fred -where the prosecuting authority gets one crack to succeed based upon the evidence it has at the time and where once acquitted a suspect does not have to spend the rest of his life waiting for a knock on the door.
Yes, NJ, so when a man acquitted, cheerfully, and truthfully, boasts that he's got away with it, it's good thing if he's not prosecuted again is it? Or when, years later, other credible evidence, perhaps from DNA testing not available at the time of the first trial, emerges to show that a man is a murderer, he should not be tried again and convicted?
You speak as though there are no constraints on double jeopardy. There are, to stop malicious prosecutions or other prosecutions not in the public interest.
You speak as though there are no constraints on double jeopardy. There are, to stop malicious prosecutions or other prosecutions not in the public interest.
@mikey
"Newjudge...I am on record on AB today not to respond to stupidity, only bigotry and racism, so I am going have o ignore your last remarks.
I knew it was going to be hard, this ignoring bit !"
I really must protest at your decision to ignore NJ's earlier post because it is 'stupid.'
I seldom agree with NJ, but he is easily one of the most (if not the most) articulate and intelligent people on this site. Ignore him at your peril.
"Newjudge...I am on record on AB today not to respond to stupidity, only bigotry and racism, so I am going have o ignore your last remarks.
I knew it was going to be hard, this ignoring bit !"
I really must protest at your decision to ignore NJ's earlier post because it is 'stupid.'
I seldom agree with NJ, but he is easily one of the most (if not the most) articulate and intelligent people on this site. Ignore him at your peril.
No it most certainly is not a good thing Fred. Nor is the sight of criminals walking free on "technicalities". But I'd rather that than a justice system which is manipulated to suit the circumstances of an individual failed prosecution (which was certainly the case here). I agree that second prosecutions cannot be inititiated without significant hurdles being overcome, but that does not alter my view.
I would rather a judicial system that is responsive to changes in technology, evidence and evidence- gathering than keep an 800 year old system just for the hell of it.
When double jeopardy was ushered out, it was made quite clear that there has to be new evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial in order to even consider a new prosecution, That change, especially in the context of very recent advances like DNA profiling, was absolutely necessary.
Nor do I believe you can substantiate your assertion that double jeopardy was removed as a protection solely because of the Lawrence case - once again you seem to be back to blaming the family of the murdered victim for the failed prosecution, rather than the original police investigation....
When double jeopardy was ushered out, it was made quite clear that there has to be new evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial in order to even consider a new prosecution, That change, especially in the context of very recent advances like DNA profiling, was absolutely necessary.
Nor do I believe you can substantiate your assertion that double jeopardy was removed as a protection solely because of the Lawrence case - once again you seem to be back to blaming the family of the murdered victim for the failed prosecution, rather than the original police investigation....
I've read a few of NJ's post in my time and find that sometimes I disagree and sometimes I agree with what he has to say. But it's never possible to accuse him of being stupid - he's clearly researched his position well and is definitely far better informed about many of these issues than I ever will be. Definitely have to agree with Kromo -- he's worth listening to.
The Lawrence case was before my time so I'm not aware of the technicalities of the case. My position is probably in between NJ's and LG's -- there are times when it's important to be able to re-prosecute someone based on new evidence and that should be possible, but equally the justice system has to assume that all are innocent, so double jeopardy shouldn't just be applied willy-nilly.
The Lawrence case was before my time so I'm not aware of the technicalities of the case. My position is probably in between NJ's and LG's -- there are times when it's important to be able to re-prosecute someone based on new evidence and that should be possible, but equally the justice system has to assume that all are innocent, so double jeopardy shouldn't just be applied willy-nilly.
As long as we have teenage gangs roaming the streets, "brought up" (or rather neglected) by racist parents, there will continue to be race crimes. The problem needs to be sorted at grass roots level. If respect to others is shown in the home children grow up without a notion racism . I also think that British parents should bring up their children to appreciate the benefits they have, such as free education, health care and library services. The reason immigrants want to come here is because we benefit from these systems. I would be interested to see the statistics as to what proportion of street gangs are born in this country. I think the answer might surprise some people.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
You've Gotta Admire The Creativity Of...
News11 mins ago
Who Swaps Their Winter Duvet For A...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
ChatterBank38 mins ago