Almost 19 years have passed since Stephen Lawrence was murdered, a longer period of time than he had lived.

The passage of time, and, dare I say it, the prevailing ideology of these times have blunted the chronology of events. Important details are missing from the apparently universal joy with which the conviction of Dobson and Norris are greeted this morn by the media.

I do not argue with the conviction on the basis of the facts as presented to the jury. I do not seek to exonerate Dobson or Norris as thoroughly decent young men unfairly pilloried in the press.

I do, however, rail against the accepted ‘truths’ that are being peddled to the general public today.

Let us step back in time to the night of April 22^nd 1993. Let us imagine that immediately before the incident, one of the Dobson/Norris gang had shouted ‘What, what Taffy?’ or even ‘What, what Paddy?’, had that been a reasonable assumption to make of their racial origin, rather than ‘What, what Nigger?’ and ask ourselves whether we would have had the same media coverage?

I cannot forget the involvement of leading players in the politicly correct movement who latched onto this relatively ordinary ‘stabbing incident’ and turned it into a cause célèbre .

Herman Ouseley, then chairman of the Equality Commission was first on the scene, telephoning the Met Commissioner in the early hours of the 23^rd April to say that ‘it was imperative’ that this stabbing be investigated as a racist crime.

Why ‘imperative’ – it might indeed have been the outcome of the police investigation that there was no more to this incident than the colour of Stephen Lawrence’s skin, but that phone call, from you might say, an interested body, excluded any possibility that this might have been no more than the tragic outcome of the tribal nature of young men in a working class society – not that it was the colour of Stephen’s skin that had led to the stabbing, but that he was not of the same ‘tribe’.

A negative motive rather than a positive motive. That possibility doesn’t make Stephen’s death any more or less regrettable, it doesn’t exonerate Dobson or Norris; it is, however, a fact that we have been swept along on a tide of powerful opinion to ignore that possibility which has so changed our society.

We are told repeatedly that the Police response to this stabbing was ‘inept’ – and following the Macpherson report, that this was as a result of ‘institutionalised racism’. We are left with the impression that the police merely shrugged their shoulders and said ‘it’s only a black kid, ignore it’.

Yet if you read the Macpherson report, you will learn that,  as was normal procedure, the Territorial Support Group were touring the area in several vans with dogs searching for possible suspects even before the ambulance had left the scene. That the senior investigating officer, DS Crampton, worked on the case for 18 hours continuously, assembling a 25 strong team of officers, before returning home for a break.

They were not successful, undeniably, but that is hardly evidence that this was for ‘racist’ reasons.

David Norris and Neil Acourt were named by several anonymous and one identified caller as ‘possibly’ being involved. ‘Possibly’ isn’t evidence. ‘Possibly’ is merely one of a number of telephone calls, a common occurrence in gang areas, where well known names are ‘put in the frame’ as a result of grudges. No one, but no one,  came forward to say that they had actually seen the attack.

Should the police rush out and arrest people merely because someone has phoned the station and said ‘X’ might be involved? The fact that it was subsequently proved that at least one of those names was involved doesn’t argue the case that the only reason Norris and Dobson weren’t picked up and charged straight away was ‘racism’. It only argues the case that the police didn’t want to make a move before they had actual evidence.

Even as the police were reviewing their evidence, other powerful players were entering the scene – for their own reasons. 14 days after Stephen was stabbed, Nelson Mandela saw an opportunity to put apartheid back on the international stage. He invited the Lawrence’s to meet him in London, and shortly after gave a press conference:

I’m deeply touched by the brutality of this murder. It’s something we are all too used to in South Africa where black lives are cheap.’

The involvement of Mandela prompted Mrs Lawrence to ask why the British government had failed to express it’s sorrow at the death of her son. You can see the bandwagon gathering strength as you read these old newspaper reports. Without Mandela’s involvement, can you imagine that any other Mother of a stabbing victim would have been expressing outrage that the government had failed to take an interest in her loss?

By the 28^th April a mere six days after the murder, Imran Khan had been appointed as solicitor for the ‘victim’s family’ and was insisting that all police communication with the family went through him He was also accompanying them on a round of interviews with the press. Khan had qualified as a solicitor just eighteen months before this case was referred to him – it was to cement his reputation as a ‘leading human rights lawyer’. In 2000 Khan was quoted as saying, in respect of his penchant for taking on difficult cases often involving persons of colour in conflict with the police:

“This area is fashionable at the moment. We have got to make sure that it is not just a fad but that it continues.

Equally within a day of the murder, the Greenwich based Action Against Racial Attacks had taken up residence inside the Lawrence home and were controlling access to them. The Anti-Nazi league were present as was the Black Panther Group.

The day after Mandela’s press conference, 15 days after the stabbing, the Acourt brothers, Dobson and Norris were arrested. The police thought they did have enough evidence. The CPS disagreed. Note: the CPS. The ‘institutionally racist’ police had acted pretty promptly, however, the forensic evidence failed to back them up and the CPS refused to prosecute. Quite correctly in my view – if you don’t have the evidence to back up a prosecution, you don’t proceed.

Mrs Lawrence meanwhile, with the press at her feet, feted by world leaders, was now convinced that racism was the sole reason for her son’s death, indeed, had not the first police officers at the scene ‘not wanted to get their hands dirty with a black man’s blood’? Had they not? The first police officers at the scene was an off-duty officer. Out for the evening, with his wife, in their best clothes – no one even questioned whether they would have chosen to ‘dirty their hands’ with anyone else’s blood. They did administer first aid – it was not sufficient. Stephen’s friend dialled 999 at 10.43. The ambulance arrived at 10.54, eleven minutes later. In those 11 minutes, the insufficient efforts of an off-duty policeman who had chosen to get involved, to identify himself as a police officer, lay condemned as more evidence of racism. 17 minutes later, the full panoply of the NHS had also failed to save Stephen – they didn’t get labelled as racist. The press lapped it up. By the time evidence was given to Macpherson, this emerged from the mouth of Edmund Lawson QC as Stephen ‘being denied‘ first aid.

The police investigation continued – despite covert recordings of the Acourt gang in their home, issuing racist threats, demonstrating how one might stab a man, the CPS concluded that this was insufficient evidence to prosecute them for stabbing Stephen Lawrence. Rightly so.

Enter Michael Mansfield QC. Mansfield decided that those covert recordings plus what proved to be inadmissible evidence of the Acourt gang being identified by Stephen’s friend Duwayne Brooks might persuade a jury on the balance of probability not proven beyond doubt that being seen to express racist views and being identified by a young man who would almost certainly have known by sight these local gang leaders was sufficient to ignore the CPS advice and proceed with a private prosecution.

The case collapsed, and at the inquest held shortly afterwards, Mrs Lawrence was to claim that the Crown Court case had ‘been rigged’ – its purpose being to prove to the black community that their lives were worth nothing – “Our crime is living in a country where the justice system supports racist murders against innocent people”.

Mrs Lawrence complained to the Police Complaints Authority on 6 grounds. The off duty policeman had failed to administer sufficient first aid; the management of the murder scene; the police liaison service; the conduct of the murder investigation; the lack of commitment because it was a black youth who had been murdered, and possible corruption.

Kent police investigated on behalf of the PCA and did not find ‘any evidence to support allegations of racist conduct by police officers’. They did find evidence of incompetence in some areas of the management of the murder scene – but we are still a long way from finding any evidence of ‘institutional racism’, albeit that we have a lot of allegations being flung around.

Fast forward to 1997, and New Labour took over the government. The Macpherson Inquiry was set up ‘to investigate matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence, and find what lessons could be learned from the prosecution of racially motivated crimes’. No evidence had been produced to show that this was a racially motivated crime, but it was now cemented in the public eye as being so. The alleged perpetrators had been shown to be racist in their views, the Daily Mail had named them as murderers, how could there be any doubt that Stephen had been stabbed purely because of the colour of his skin? Given that the police had been found to have been incompetent in their investigation, how could there be any conclusion other than that this was because they were racist too? Mere incompetence was never going to be allowed as an answer.

Unfortunately, Macpherson found that the inquiry had ‘not heard any evidence of overt racism or discrimination’ unless you included the use of ‘inappropriate expressions such as ‘coloured or ‘negro’ – oh dear, three million quid, and we still haven’t found evidence of racism. Only one thing to do – change the definition.

So they did. Racism could be ‘detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people’. I do urge you to actually read the Macpherson report – contrary to what you hear in the media, they found no evidence of racism, even though the at times kangaroo court nature of the proceedings required Metropolitan police officers to ‘confess’ their innermost thoughts – and those of other people they worked with. Racism was now something which ‘others’ could detect, it was in the eye of the beholder, even when you were acting out of thoughtlessness or incompetence.

As a result of the Macpherson inquiry, it became racist in and of itself to even question whether Stephen Lawrence’s murder was racist. The Acourt gang had been accused of the murders of white gang members before Laurence but this fact was largely hidden from the reading public.

Mrs Lawrence’s evidence to Macpherson is more than interesting. She started her evidence by saying that ‘I personally have never had any racism directed at me’. Yet she was quite, quite sure that Stephen’s murder was racist? On what evidence?

Since Macpherson, we have had 800 years of the double jeopardy ruling overturned to ensure that Dobson and Norris could be held to account yet again for the murder of Stephen, albeit that it wasn’t strictly overturned just for them – successfully so this time, with the aid of forensic DNA evidence that was not available at the time of the first trial. We now await their sentencing – which cannot be any harsher than it would have been at the time of the murder, so we are told. Yet aspects of their trial are undoubtedly harsher than they would have been – the double jeopardy ruling itself allowing them to go to trial, and they have been convicted on the basis of forensic evidence that would not have been possible in 1996.

That they are guilty, there is little doubt – yet I am left with uncomfortable feelings surrounding this case, which feels more like a political show trial than an unbiased search for justice. The phrases ‘institutional racism’ as ‘found by the Macpherson Inquiry’ are quoted time and again, there is apparently no doubt in anyone’s mind that this was a ‘racist crime’ as is every crime against a black person and is a direct legacy of Stephen Lawrence, yet I can find no evidence that this was ever investigated as anything other than a racist crime. I only see the early intervention by some significant players in the ‘race relations industry’.

In the past few days we have seen frequent interviews from the head of the ‘Black Police Officers Association’, we hear nothing from the ‘White Police Officers Association’. Oh, there isn’t one. Dr Richard Stone, advisor to the MacPherson Inquiry was so overcome with emotion at the news that Dobson and Norris ‘had been convicted of a racist crime’ that he sobbed his way through early interviews.

Were the police ‘institutionally racist’ in their ‘incompetent’ handling of the investigation into the murder of PC Blakelock? Of course not – the legacy of the Lawrence affair, the Macpherson Inquiry, and the various race relations activists is that racism is only practised by white police officers against black victims. Or in interviewing black suspects. But never in relation to failing to arrest and convict black suspects.

Dobson sentenced to 15 years and 2 months, David Norris 14 years and 3 months. The rest of us sentenced to a lifetime of skewed race relations.

Steve Marsh January 22, 2012 at 14:40

You are an ignorant and irresponsible moron. ‘Articles’ like this only
attract English Defence League / BNP idiots, so it’s no surprise that you have
gathered like-minded xenophobes and blatant racists to support your sick and
false arguments.

Your credentials, logic and evidence has zero credibility and simply relies
on the usual half-truths and lies that right wing extremists reply upon to
spread their race-hate. Shame on you and shame on the UK’s education system
that has allowed ignorant people like you to slip through the cracks.

PBA January 6, 2012 at 17:28

If you have a couple of hours, I recommend that you read the Norman Dennis
book, “Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics.” It goes through the
Macpherson inquiry and concludes that the outcome is all part of the Marxist
agenda. The book pdf is available on-line.

james January 5, 2012 at 20:21

i learnt in my english class at holly lodge that police are racist

Mjolinir January 5, 2012 at 10:42

Anna – Well written. I confess to placing evidence of this topic on
Inspector Gadget Blog.

Peter MacFarlane
January 5, 2012 at 10:06

“The rest of us sentenced to a lifetime of skewed race relations”

Not to mention that, because Plod screwed up the first time, we have also
lost one of the most fundamental protections against that state that our
Common Law enjoyed.

Sir Thomas More comes to mind yet again.

M Barnes January 5, 2012 at 09:54

Ah well, I thought this topic would die down today, but no. Ole big mouth
is back………… heeeeeeeeeeere’s Diane Abbott. I await with interest the direction
of the debate following on from dear Diane’s latest pronouncement and the
regulation damning of it by another politican coupled with the inevitable
‘call for her to resign’.

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 12:38

She really is the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t she?

Junican January 5, 2012 at 03:58

Can I say something completely off topic?

According to VGIF, a bunch of academics (presumably at the behest of ASH)
have demanded more money to combat smoking. But even their report states that
smoking has stabilised – that is, that all the horror stories promoted by ASH
have had no effect upon those of us who enjoy tobacco. Thus, any
more money spent upon ASH’s plans is a waste of money, because any further
diminution is likely to be minuscule.

I have been thinking about the ‘Hewitt’ situation in Blackpool and the
‘Hogan’ situation in Bolton. Both individuals were ‘sacrificial lambs’. Both
individuals made terrible errors. In the case of Hogan, I went to his pub and
observed the notice, ” …smoking is banned, but if you smoke it is at your own
risk” Erm….No. The law required that you should say no such thing as “…at your
own risk” By saying, “At your own risk”, Nick made the statement that smoking
in his pub was not his responsibility, which it was ‘by law’. Silly boy! He
would have been better off had he posted multiple notices saying, “SMOKING IS
STRICTLY FORBIDDEN!!” – and them put candle holders on the tables. One of the
horrors which I have observed in the recent past is publicans becoming
hysterical when a person lights a fag in the pub in normal hours, and yet
turning the place into a ‘smoky-drinky’ after time. I’m sorry….the persons
doing so are not necessarily the same persons!

Hogan was AN IDIOT!! We bailed him out of jail. He was stupid. He actually
made the situation worse, since he provided the ‘powers that be’ with an
example of ‘stupid smokers’.

But we were right to pay his fine, if only to show that we are not easily
oppressed. That is the most important thing, although not a lot of people know
that!

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 12:31

Junican… Clearly, you have been smoking something, to come up with a
point like this, on a completely different subject to the one at issue!!
What on earth??

Cascadian January 5, 2012 at 03:56

This report was meant to be attached to the above post :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16022192

However the populace may rest easy the investigating officer assures
you:

On Saturday Det Ch Insp John MacDonald said Mr O’Shea had been chased by
a group of black males.
Police at the scene of the murder Police
said they had an open mind about the motive

On Sunday he said: “We are keeping an open mind regarding the motive for
the attack, however, I wish to reinforce the family’s position that there is
nothing to suggest Danny’s murder is racially motivated.”

The police have an open mind, that kinda confirms a lot of my opinions
about them.

ivan January 5, 2012 at 09:35

The police actually have a mind – open or otherwise? I thought they just
ticked boxes now.

How soon will we start hearing the complaint ‘ yous targeting me cos I is
white’, because this is the direction this case has started – with the help
of the loony left.

Cascadian January 5, 2012 at 03:48

Nobody really expects that the politically correct police cough-
“service”-spit will be reverting to servicing all communities equally, nor
will the cough-”justice system”-spit revert to making findings with
impartiality, and heaven forbid that cough-”politicians and justice
activists”-spit, hock, spew will refrain from posturing to show how
multicultural communities work so well.

I therefore expect that the recent murder by knifing in Canning Town of
Danny O’Shea who was chased down the street by a group of black men, will
cause the “police” to completely revamp the way they operate, for activists
and politicians to stand up at the East End Olympics and denounce black
violence-yes you Mandela and Camoron. For the legal system to continue trying
every alleged stabbing by blacks until the “right” decision is finally
rendered.

I am watching and waiting.

Spiral
Architect January 5, 2012 at 04:21

BBC don’t even mention a description of the assailants……..

………not in the first report on 3 December

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16017046

……….nor after arrests on 15 December

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16193251

Pass the sick bag.

Cascadian
January 5, 2012 at 06:37

You noticed. I considered mentioning it but thought it redundant.

Spiral
Architect January 5, 2012 at
08:03

Effete metropolitan opinion-formers discarding their duty to be open
and impartial – never mind consistent – is most definitely not
redundant.

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 10:32

welcome to the on-line BBC. If the assailants are white it gets
mentioned. I am not sure if the problem is the on-line editors (the
headline editors are chronically bias) or general BBC guidelines. If they
are black or Muslim then more often than not they don’t. This gets
repeated dozens of times each year. Some of us play spot the I or the M
word when something happens involving a certain religion.

Jonathan
January 6, 2012 at 18:42

You should know this, it’s called MONA – Men Of No Appearance.

Spiral Architect
January 5, 2012 at 00:44

Excellent piece – up there with your best work.

Everything written bears full examination.

Stephen Lawrence’s murderers were arrested in 15 days, excellent work in a
case where victim and assailant(s) were not known to each other. How on Earth
can the police be accused of bigotry and incompetence?

Of course, it is one thing to make the arrest, and another to procure
sufficient evidence for conviction, and it appears the police received
criticism for not preserving the integrity of the crime scene – always
extremely difficult when the crime scene is a public place.

All in all, there are three very depressing things about this case;

> firstly, the ease with which the Left were able to take over the whole
agenda, why did the management of the Met simply cave in and accept every
accusation and slight without challenge?……..ambitious senior officers

> secondly, the manner in which the MacPherson Report was accepted
wholesale. If I had been a Met copper I think i would’ve resigned or at least
asked for a transfer – what hope for frontline officers working for
unprincipled, deeply politicised arseholes like Iain Blair*?

> lastly, the tragedy is is that in seeking to promote their agenda for
ideological, mischievous or personal reasons the Left have achieved nothing
but the emasculation and demotivation of police officers – the very group
whose efforts are crucial in maintaining law and order in inner city areas.
Guess what happens when crime goes up? Yes, the self-same Leftist arseholes go
on to accuse the police of racism through ‘not caring’.

Policing in London, and the wider UK also, will take generations to
overcome the effects of the Lawrence murder and the MacPherson Report. I don’t
want to work there or live there.

* Ironically (and happily), Iain Blair – the Commissioner who acquiesced
all the way with MacPherson, including the tenet that racism was a subjective
matter i.e. if the ‘victim’ believed that he was subject to racist behaviour
then that was per se unequivocal proof of it – was hoist by his own
petard.

Blair was accused of racism in his dealings with Iranian-born Commander Ali
Dizaei, and all-round bad egg. So, by virtue of his own ‘principles’ and logic
Iain Blair is a racist.

Mr B Lightyear
January 5, 2012 at 08:29

“> lastly, the tragedy is is that in seeking to promote their agenda
for ideological, mischievous or personal reasons the Left have achieved
nothing but the emasculation and demotivation of police officers – the very
group whose efforts are crucial in maintaining law and order in inner city
areas. Guess what happens when crime goes up? Yes, the self-same Leftist
arseholes go on to accuse the police of racism through ‘not caring’.

Policing in London, and the wider UK also, will take generations to
overcome the effects of the Lawrence murder and the MacPherson Report. I
don’t want to work there or live there.”

Massively spot on

Mick Turatian
January 4, 2012 at 23:16

to give the poor family of the victim some measure of closure

I’m afraid I’m rather ambivalent about the poor family. Rather like the
McCanns, they have turned a family’s plight into something of a family
business. What might otherwise pass for “closure” would now be tantamount to a
renunciation of their raison d’être which is why we can expect to hear again
and again from the Lawrence parents and their very extended coterie.

sufficient to disturb the sleep patterns of the other guilty
individuals
Met Commissioner Hogan-Howe said something very similar on
the BBC today. GDR policing has arrived. We know were you live.

John Pickworth
January 5, 2012 at 02:18

Family business…

A nice turn of phrase but an accurate one. The appearance of Jesse
Jackson today tells us exactly where the Lawrence ‘brand’ is being
positioned. Its sickening!

Single Acts of Tyranny January 5, 2012 at 06:27

“sufficient to disturb the sleep patterns of the other guilty
individuals”

I noticed that one.

Innocent until proven guilty ~ pffft..

Fair trial ~ meh…

EnoughAlready
January 4, 2012 at 23:14

Ye Gods – thank the Lord for the Raccoon Arms injecting some facts into the
hysteria. I was beginning to drown in the wave of stupidity and self
flagellation sweeping the country.

“They were given every opportunity to explain themselves, but went ‘No
Comment’.” Crikey – get the rope over the yard-arm !! Actually I believe it’s
known as ‘doing a Binyam’.

“The police bungled the original investigation”. Newsflash – not the first
time this ever happened, and certainly not to be the last. Look at the screw
up case of Delroy Grant and the 17 pensioners he attacked. But of course
they’re only white pensioners and not friends of Nelson. And then there’s the
ultra-non-celebrity Charlene Downes case which deserves constant airing –
along with the audio tapes…

“The fight against racism has been a constant theme for my entire service
and it is greatly welcomed by the majority of officers.”. Yes, I’m sure
repeated mouthing of those words is an easier path to the giddy heights than
solving routine crimes.

“Perhaps some good has come from the death of that poor young man, if it
meant that the police had to look hard at themselves and make themselves
accountable to the public they serve.”

And there’s the problem in a nutshell. We don’t want you to be kowtowing to
the most vociferous minority group (I’ll translate that back to plod speak for
you -’making yourself accountable to the public you serve’) – we just want you
to uphold the law. Vigourously and without favour.

Emma January 4, 2012 at 23:02

You disgust me

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 00:05

Who? Anna, is she racist too? Are the 70 odd comments agreeing racist as
well?

Single Acts of Tyranny January 5, 2012 at 06:24

Please explain?

Alex January 5, 2012 at 07:18

She can’t explain – she probably didn’t even read the article
properly.

davidb January 4, 2012 at 22:42

I had composed a small comment after reading Old Holborn’s take on this
case. Basically I took issue with the Double Jeopardy protection of the legal
system being removed. I was arguing that the protection was fundamentally
there to protect citizens from being persecuted by the state. We have now
surrendered this little crucial protection because a few high profile cases
were botched by the state? In the end I deleted the comment and went off
elsewhere.

See I am policing myself nowadays. I really only post freely when alcohol
de-inhibits me.

I read an article about North Korea today. Everyone was out there tearing
at their hair and crying when their dear leader finally went to live with the
devil. In that place people police themselves.

We don’t know who will be running our country in the future. Judging by
recent EU appointments we may not even get to choose. Should we so lightly
surrender protections in our legal system I wonder?

God is great…

Frankie January 4, 2012 at 22:02

That the two defendants are guilty as charged is, of course, undeniable.
They are two evil racists who have got what was coming to them… eventually.
Anyone who has viewed their most recent police interviews would conclude that.
They were given every opportunity to explain themselves, but went ‘No
Comment’. In doing so they left themselves open to permitting a court to draw
an inference from their refusal or failure to answer reasonable questions put
to them in interview. It is simply not good enough to attempt to rubbish the
forensic evidence within the trial. Blood and fibres from the victim was on
them. How?? They lied about their association and were caught out. Norris lied
about going out that night and was caught out. They were involved in other
events of a similar nature. That they harboured violent racist feelings is
beyond doubt. One of them was convicted for racially abusing an off duty
police officer, with one of the three other potential future defendants. The
police bungled the original investigation. Not maliciously, but because some
of those involved were incompetent. Whatever else, the case was a watershed.
Perhaps some good has come from the death of that poor young man, if it meant
that the police had to look hard at themselves and make themselves accountable
to the public they serve. The fight against racism has been a constant theme
for my entire service and it is greatly welcomed by the majority of officers.
I don’t subscribe to the view that the loss of the protection of the double
jeopardy rule is a bad thing because the burden of proof that the police would
need to resurect a previously tried case is very high. Name me another case
where the defendant(s) have been tried again. I can only think of one – that
of Mario Celaire, so this will not open the floodgates. Justice demanded that
Dobson and Norris be tried again for this offence, because with the advance of
technology there was now evidence to show that they had a case to answer. I
think that this was the right thing to do. I think that the majority of right
thinking people would say the same. Finally, the Metropolitan Police got their
men, not all of them, but enough of them to give the poor family of the victim
some measure of closure, and sufficient to disturb the sleep patterns of the
other guilty individuals.

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 22:41

” It is simply not good enough to attempt to rubbish the forensic
evidence within the trial.”

Really? Oh, OK. We’ll send Barry George back to prison then, shall
we?

Frankie January 4, 2012 at 23:52

Oh Julia, you are SUCH a ‘know it all’ cynic…! Did you actually follow
ANY of the evidence presented during the Lawrence case? LGC Forensics took
the precaution to guard against accusations of this nature by trying to
replicate contamination by incorrect storage… AND FAILED!! Put yourself in
the position of the Defendants in this case for a moment. During interview
they were given many many opportunities to explain the presence of the
victim’s blood on their clothing and they did not attempt to do so. One of
the interviewing officers asked Norris to give him another plausible
explanation for the presence of fibres from the victim on his clothing,
even asking Norris to suggest to him another line of enquiry that he could
investigate and thereby exonerate Norris, but the answer was the same… ‘No
Comment’. I’m sorry, but in the circumstances, and particularly if you
were innocent of the crime, surely you would do your level best to offer
some reasonable explanation of the facts (by suggesting, for example, that
the evidence had become contaminated). These Defendants had 18 YEARS to
come up with a plausible explanation, but did not have one. Why?? BECAUSE
THEY WERE GUILTY AND THEY KNEW IT!! Norris tried to muddy the waters and
got his Mum to lie for him in court – she suddenly remembered that he had
been in all evening, even when it was proved he was not and he lied about
not knowing Dobson. There is no way in hell that these two are innocent of
this crime. It is about time they did the time.

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 00:02

“These Defendants had 18 YEARS to come up with a plausible
explanation, but did not have one. Why?? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUILTY AND
THEY KNEW IT!!

Surely it would imply MORE that they were innocent so didn’t NEED to
think up a plausible explanation. Is “beyond reasonable doubt” actually
real or is that only in the USA or Hollywood?

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 00:18

IF… you were in the position of Dobson and Norris and had done
nothing wrong WOULD YOU rely on the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ balance
of proof test or WOULD YOU give a reasonable account of yourself…
knowing that if found guilty of the crime you would be sentenced to
many years in prison. Of course you would speak up. It would be
madness not to. Too late, the defendants elected to take the witness
stand in their own defence, where they managed to make themselves look
even more guilty. I think the jury were entitled to ask the question
‘Why didn’t they give an account of themselves when they were
interviewed and confronted with the evidence?’ Anyone who gives a ‘No
Comment’ interview, then takes the witness stand in their own defence
must realise that it opens them up to the possibility that the court
may infer that they had something to hide when asked to account for
themselves. The defence merely had to inject an element of doubt, in
order to deliver a not guilty verdict, but were unable to do so. Their
account just did not wash with the jury. Both defendants were told in
advance of the case against them. They knew the quality of the
prosecution case, but were arrogant enough to believe that they would
be acquitted, despite clearly being racists, with a history of violent
behaviour, who could not account for their whereabouts at the time of
the murder, and who had blood and fibres from the victim on their
clothing. One of them roped in their Mum to lie for them. They lied
about their association with each other. No, I am convinced that they
are guilty as charged.

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 05:17

Span Ows, you’re watching a modern version of the old witch trials.
They didn’t drown when thrown in to the river, ergo they must be
witches, innit?

Single Acts of Tyranny January 5, 2012 at 06:22

“They were given every opportunity to explain themselves, but went ‘No
Comment’.”

I will never ‘explain myself’ to you, the cops or anyone else, draw
whatever inferences you like from that and then go to hell.

Mr B
Lightyear January 5, 2012 at 08:17

“draw whatever inferences you like from that and then go to hell.”

Ok, then you go to prison…… as these guys did.

The chap’s got a valid and accurate point.

A jury is more than entitled to ask themselves the question “Why did
these guys not put up this defence when asked about it in interview?”

especially when they have already been cautioned, or ‘warned’, that ‘it
may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, something
which you later rely on in court’.

Single Acts of Tyranny January 6, 2012 at 05:23

“Ok, then you go to prison…… as these guys did”

And thus the crux of the matter. Formerly, you were required to prove
me guilty, now I am required to prove myself innocent. A radical shift
in the relationship between citizen and state or even accuser and
accused. Formerly free, now a serf required to prove fealty.

Jail me if you will, but I won’t wear my chains voluntarily as you
seem to have. As Von Goethe said

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe
they are free.”

My concern isn’t for these two charmers, it’s for you and I.

JuliaM January 6, 2012 at 05:39

“A radical shift in the relationship between citizen and state
…”

And – purely coincidentally, I’m sure – bringing us further into
line with Continental ‘justice’. How fortuitous!

Mr B
Lightyear January 7, 2012 at
00:02

“And thus the crux of the matter. Formerly, you were required to
prove me guilty, now I am required to prove myself innocent.”

No youre not, dont be silly.

However it is wholly reasonable to expect a jury to ask “Why did
this person not say this at the time?” when that person suddenly
mentions a defence.

Especially as mentioning that defence and it checking out could
stop things progressing as far as court in the first place.

ThePresentOccupier January 12, 2012 at 08:30

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding about “explaining oneself” going
on, from what I’ve read. The opportunity to “explain” during an
interrogation – sorry, interview – is not there to give the accused a
chance to show they are innocent, it is solely there to give more
justification to charging them. The goal of the exercise is to show that
there is reason to charge, not to assess truth. Tick in the box, up the
score for the assessment and move on.

CheesePlant
January 5, 2012 at 09:21

Does this not give a little doubt of the evidence?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8920623/Stephen-Lawrences-jacket-was-kept-in-same-bag-as-suspects-clothes.html

Inferring guilt? I despair…

Old Slaughter
January 4, 2012 at 21:36

“Should the police rush out and arrest people merely because someone has
phoned the station and said ‘X’ might be involved?”

No Anna, but when about 30 do and one name pops up over 20 times you get
round there damned fast before the evidence is burned.

How many other groups of 5 notoriously violent, racist knife wielders were
there within a couple of streets. Oh, who happened to run back in the
direction of where they lived.

If SL was not black the police would not have been obsessing on what his
mate had to do with it and why he was carrying gloves.

Dennis January 4, 2012 at 23:21

There’s your libertarian blogger of the year vote ruined!

Henry January 4,
2012 at 21:33

Difficult to say anything about rational about this case that anyone will
listen to. Look at the ridiculous behaviour of the Daily Mail. The BBC are as
“impartial” as ever – telling us what to think about this. All the papers ooze
self-righteousness

And, of course, politicians using it to do a little better in the polls.
It’s revolting. And the people of the UK? They’re doing no better, going all
solemn about this, not thinking for themselves, not for one second. Angry
righteousness is much more fun than being a grown-up, responsible citizen it
seems

Old Slaughter
January 4, 2012 at 21:32

If they had yelled ‘oi paddy’ they would probably have been pursued
properly and vigorously.

iain January 4, 2012 at 21:27

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

how the illuminati agenda erase and amend history

white victims erased frrom racist crimes

John Pickworth
January 4, 2012 at 21:27

Well wrote Anna.

It has troubled me for some time that victim and perpetrator’s race is now
apparently a more important factor than the actual deliberate ending of
someone’s life. Its unnatural and unjust.

No one comes out of this saga looking good, least of all the unfortunate
young man who lost his life all those years ago. Today and perhaps forever
labelled merely “The murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence”.

How sad!

Mick Turatian
January 4, 2012 at 19:36

Well thank goodness for the Raccoon Arms.

Rather like when Diana died and the whole country was apparently plunged
into mourning, except me, I felt rather isolated in finding this trial
disturbing and the triumphalist reaction to the verdict wrong and
oppressive.

Institutional racism is a meaningless notion. And to beat the Met around
the ears for years with a criticism that they couldn’t do anything useful to
correct because it doesn’t mean anything, leads inexorably to the ghastliness
peddled by Ian Blair on the Today prog as Stabledoor pointed out above.

You’d think that Blair might have noticed that the old trout atop the Old
Bailey was wearing a blindfold before expressing gratitude that the cops are
no longer colour blind.

And while I’m at it and warming to my theme, how on earth can oversight of
the Lawrence investigation have fallen to that dreadful, inarticulate and
stupid woman, Troilus Twat, whose grotesque mismanagement cost de Menezes his
life and who should be hiding under a stone somewhere in her shame?

Alex January 4, 2012 at 19:52

I guarantee you that Acting Deputy Commissioner Dick will be the Met’s
first female Commissioner – freemasonry no longer gives you a leg up in the
old bill, but being a Common Purpose graduate does.

iain January 4, 2012 at 21:06

the british judiciary died a death today
dc dick a stoul in the 7/7
false flag event and cde menzies gladio killing is deep in the mire in
this appauling set up by the establishment
and the black community has
been sold hook line and sinker down the river
andthe lawrence family
has had there souls ripped out but cant see it i presume bring this
illuminati agenda down

Rog January 4, 2012 at 19:17

I will never forget the night a Chief Superintendent (now Chief Constable)
was bollocking hard working, over stretched, tired and hungry coppers for
stopping only black suspects in a predominately black area for a recent
serious crime committed by a black male.
He actually wanted totally
innocent people who could not under any circumstances be involved, to be
stopped and searched, as long as they were not black.
Well it worked. He
got his promotion. In case you haven’t noticed the result of the crime is
irrelevant.

jaded January 4, 2012 at 18:38

This is a difficult subject and no side comes out of it completely
satisfied.
One point I noticed at the time of the secret taping of the
suspect’s conversations was that at no time did any of them mention the
murder.Whether guilty or not it was the major life-changing event of their
lives,surely they would have mentioned it when together in a house? Very
strange.I can’t believe that they are clever enough to make a pact for years
never to speak of it again between them.It seems to me that all five did not
deliver the fatal blow and the one that did would get abuse from the
others.

Alex January 4, 2012 at 19:49

The recordings show that they did mention it and said something along the
lines of “whoever actually did it must be laughing their heads off every
day” – apparently this proves that they must have known they were being
bugged.

Were that the case, it makes you wonder why they came out with any of the
“evidence” that was submitted during the trial.

Mr A January 4, 2012 at 20:24

Ah, the “only a witch would say they aren’t a witch” argument.

How far our Justice system has come….

Span
Ows January 4, 2012 at 23:54

Equally uncomfortable about all this and very impressed with most of
the comments (gladyolis the sole black mark…oops) but have to laugh at
this comment!

“Ah, the “only a witch would say they aren’t a witch”
argument.
How far our Justice system has come….

LOL!

JimS January 4, 2012 at 18:16

The European Arrest Warrant, naming A. Raccoon for daring to raise these
issues, is probably winging its way to Paris as we write…

Anna
Raccoon January 4, 2012 at 18:24

I’ve been wearing my tin hat all day, just as a precaution you
understand.

Shijuro January 4,
2012 at 17:57

Very interesting… JuliaM has posted a link to this article on my blog at
shijuronotgeorgedixon.wordpress.com …

I remember how I felt at being called an ‘institutional racist’ on the 1st
of many diversity courses following the murder.

My mate felt even worse-mind you his wife is afro-caribbean…

The thing that sticks in my mind about this is the smooth and easy way the
law and Police procedure was changed by the people in power…purely for
selfless reasons…ahem..

Able January 4, 2012 at 17:37

I thought my opinion of the British ‘justice’ system could not sink any
lower – how wrong I was!

Do I believe these, obviously odious, men were guilty? Probably. Do I
believe it has been proved? Not in any shape or form.

There is insufficient evidence, as was proved at the original trial, and
the only supposedly ‘new’ evidence was the extremely suspect DNA evidence.

My concern is that a ‘fair’ trial was all but impossible. What member of a
court or jury was not already saturated with biased and not necessarily even
vaguely informed, but definitely shrill, extreme and opinionated, press
coverage over the years. Then of course, what member of the court or jury
would dare not convict? Would you, knowing that you would face accusations of
racism (and probable attack) for the rest of your life if you did find they
were innocent, or that there was reasonable doubt? I suspect that had a
significant effect on the outcome of this trial.

The fact that the ‘double jeopardy’ clause has been overturned specifically
for this case (witness the back-dating), as well as the admission of covert
video with no direct relevance to the case (yes they used ‘racist’ and violent
language, I wonder if a covert video of the conversations in the Lawrence home
would show the same thing) beggars belief and simply reinforces my opinion
that justice no longer exists in this country unless you belong to one of the
ideologically favoured groups.

I wonder at what point this madness will stop. As a British, white, male,
heterosexual, able bodied, nominally christian person I am already
automatically assumed to be a closet violent rapist/pedophile/homophobe. Am I
now to be a racist too – if I don’t give first aid, or if I do and don’t
succeed? If someone anonymously accuses me of a crime? Will I be covertly
filmed and my very occasional swearing and dislike of the black sweets in a
pack of sports mixtures have me vilified and railroaded in court? Extreme
examples? Yes, but only in the matter of degree, not in principle.

So today, I feel, we finally bear witness to the death of the justice
system in this country. It has long been known to be biased, corrupt and
incompetent, this however seems to be the first of the final steps. God help
us all!

CheesePlant
January 5, 2012 at 09:08

My thoughts exactly.

Mjolinir January 5, 2012 at 10:25

@Able – \\ what member of the court or jury would dare not convict? Would
you, knowing that you would face accusations of racism (and probable attack)
for the rest of your life if you did find they were innocent, or that there
was reasonable doubt? I suspect that had a significant effect on the outcome
of this trial.\\

Agree – just think of some recent ‘comments ‘ about defence Lawyers.

sg January 7, 2012 at 19:49

I have to be thankful that I was not on jury duty for that particular
trial. The pressures on the jury to get the ‘right’ result must have been
enormous, even if they were never actually stated as such.

The jury may well have got the correct result, but it can’t help the
process of deliberation to have such a weight of expectation and recent
history on it.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 4, 2012 at 16:49

I want double jeopardy restored, not for the convicted to be released but
to protect me from the state trying time and time again until it gets the
“right” result.

I want to be ensured a fair trial. If some clowns trying to sell newspapers
and seem right-on label me publicly as guilty ahead of any trial, then there
can be no fair trial.

And I want to know that if I recognise the reality of who is committing
various types of crime, am I a racist? This is perhaps the most insane thing
of all. If you judge someone purely on the basis of race, then clearly you are
stupid and bigoted. But if you refuse to recognise certain ethnic groupings in
various crimes then you are cowardly, stupid and bigoted.

ivan January 4, 2012 at 20:15

You miss the point. The removal of double jeopardy is done so that there
is an excuse to keep on re-trying people until the ‘correct’ result is
obtained.

If anyone thinks this removal of double jeopardy will be kept just for
murder then they are living in la la land – think EU referenda.

All this case has done is to prove the removal of our Magna Carta
safeguards to help bring in the Marxist state controls much beloved by the
EU fanatics.

Single Acts of Tyranny January 4, 2012 at 20:42

“You miss the point.” No, that was exactly the point I was trying to
make, albeit ineptly, apparently.

Bryan
Bestwick January 4, 2012 at 15:59

Aweful! Can’t wait to meet you!

Too Quiet Man

CheesePlant January 4, 2012 at 15:50

A friend of mine was stabbed after asking somebody to turn some music down.
My friend, a hard working father, never been in trouble, died when the
murderer returned with a knife and sunk it into him. The murderer, already
well known to the police, got a manslaughter charge and a FIVE year sentence.
He was out on a tag after 18 months.
The parents of my friend were and
still are devastated, they just look so sad and empty now. They couldn’t cry
‘racist’ though and had to accept the paltry sentence. To me murder is murder
no matter what the reason, after all, it is hate of one form or another. It
pisses me off constantly hearing about Lawrence, even now 19 years after the
event, when I know from experience that others don’t get the attention or
justice that he got.
I’ve no idea about how the parents of my friend feel
about it but they and other victims’ relatives must feel a bit put out by this
show trial and the vast sums of money that have been spent on ‘inquiries’ and
‘reports’.
Money that would be much better spent locking all murderers up
for life.

Mr A January 4, 2012 at 15:45

Excellent post – I very much agree.

Having just read the Daily Mail’s readers’ comments (and others) on this, I
can’t help but feel that this was a politically-motivated show trial, and
nothing else. While the two men involved were clearly nasty pieces of work,
they weren’t on trial for that – they were on trial for murder. The “new
evidence” that apparently made it worth overturning 800 years of double
jeopardy for, turned out to be microscopic blood spatters, invisible to the
naked eye and strands of hair. We have expert witnesses admitting that cross
contamination was possible and others stating that the bags containing the
items had been opened and were, at times, unsealed. On top of that we have the
fact that stabbing someone in a streetfight is apparently only going to result
in such tiny amounts of blood spatter – which is more likely? Contamination
(which was proven to be possible) or the multiple stabbing of someone? Then
that is it. No new evidence – everything else was either originally considered
insufficient or was discounted in the original trial.

Throw in 18 years of media campaigns, documentaries etc and we have a
situation where any jury is almost incapable of being impartial – just look at
the comments on most of the stories that have appeared today. “Now let’s get
the other three!” “Hang the other three high!” “I hope they turn grass on the
other three.” Now I might be naive, but considering the other three haven’t
been taken to court, EVEN with all the political pressure to do so, then there
must be zero evidence against them. Yet a sizeable chunk, possibly even a
majority, is ready to see them sent down (or even hung) “just because”….. Now,
if they feel like that about the other three, who is to say they didn’t feel
the same way about these two? Did they really get an impartial jury?

Clearly, the two convicted men are scumbags – they have links with drug
gangs and are obviously nasty pieces of work. But has British Justice really
proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that they murdered Stephen Lawrence? No, I
think not. And this trial, as well as the subsequent triumphalism and the loss
of Double Jeopardy etc, does worry me a great deal.

I’m also concerned that any future appeal could, as the evidence is so
flimsy, be successful. While that may be good news for justice (possibly),
what will it do to Politically Correct race relations when these two are
released in two years’ time? The whole thing is very, very shoddy and
potentially dangerous, in my eyes.

Châtelaine January 4, 2012 at 15:13

Thank you, Anna. The article is impressive, as are the comments. Not having
been familiar with the details of this case, I had gathered a completely
different view based on the news articles of the past few days …

Mjolinir January 5, 2012 at 10:21

@Chatelaine \\I had gathered a completely different view based on the
news articles of the past few days …\\

Does anyone REALLY think that was unintentional?

Smoking
Hot January 4, 2012 at 15:12

l’m sure the Woolwich Boys etc of SE19 will be ecstatic at this result of
white racists being held accountable for their actions. l’m sure they’ll
continue to implement this justice on all ‘white racists’ in SE19 with the
full backing of the Met and other PC groups (all of which are affiliated to
the Royal National Institute of the Blind/Royal National Institute of the
Deaf)

Pericles January 4, 2012 at 15:05

Thank you, Anna, for a sober summary of matters inevitable largely
forgotten over the many years since Stephen’s murder.

As to the principle of double jeopardy, itself a sometimes dubious one,
even before the change of the law in 2003 an obiter dictum in
Connelly [1964] A.C. – relating to “special circumstances” – might
have justified a retrial :  it would have depended on whether
special circumstances could be held to include the emergence of new evidence,
such as the scientific evidence adduced in the instant case.

You’re absolutely right about the tone of coverage by the media generally
and the effect on the rôle of ‘racialism’ in modern British life and public
administration.

ΠΞ

Spiral
Architect January 5, 2012 at 01:00

Proves just how execrable New Labour were/are………they simply couldn’t
tolerate the Common Law…….they had to legislate, they had to be in control,
they had to ‘shape the agenda’.

New Labour has f*****d Britain in so many ways it makes my blood
boil.

Woman on
a Raft January 5, 2012 at 14:01

Much as I dislike NL it has to be pointed out that the problem of
special pleading pre-dates them and begins with the concept that the law
can be disapplied for certain religions to avoid indirect discrimination.
This began with the trivial example of those not willing to comply with
the Transport Act, leading to the Motor-Cycle Crash-Helmets (Religious
Exemption) Act 1976.

Apart from showing that there is something stupid about trying to
distinguish between the beliefs of Sikhs or Hell’s Angels (either they are
both religions or neither are, either this is a universal compulsion, or
it is a matter of personal choice) this has led to perverse decisions.

The following Conservative government, which had a good long run, did
nothing to correct this, either by recognizing the freedom of all
individuals to choose their headgear or to apply the crash hat law
universally.

In 2009 a Sikh police officer was given compensation for being told to
take part in riot training which entailed wearing the correct gear.

The tribunal rejected 13 of his 15 allegations. But the panel found
he suffered a single case of indirect racial and religious discrimination,
after he was included on a group email on February 8 2008, telling
officers riot training was mandatory and he would therefore have to remove
his turban.

NL has been awful, but it has not been alone.

right_writes January 4, 2012 at 14:40

A very good report Ms. Raccoon… You don’t see this sort of thing in the
so-called newspapers these days… One never did on the BBC! They just seem to
take the feed from whoever supplies it, and as long as it fits with the
current establishment fad or narrative, it gets spouted verbatim.

I coverered the ‘double jeopardy’ and the ‘racist’ red herring aspect
earlier this morning myself:

http://blogitics.org/2012/01/04/lawrence-and-double-jeopardy/

What I find really worrying about this trend is that guilty or not, there
are people in England, who may or may not have committed a crime, who are
going to be hounded through the rest of their lives.

Apparently the harrassing of such people is of no consequence, when there
are bandwagons to be ridden and newspapers to be sold.

talwin January 4, 2012 at 14:17

Think of a job. Any job.

There will be things in it that will, where they are possible and do-able,
be seen and generally accepted, both within and without, as being the acme or
pinnacle, or most important, if achieved. Achievement might result in one or
more of, say, deep personal satisfaction, a pat on the back, approbation,
prestige, status, publicity, reward, promotion; many things are possible in
varying degrees and relatively speaking. Maybe this pinnacle will not be
achieved by an individual throughout the whole of their employment.

Then think of the police as a job.

I suspect that for an operational police officer, or team, or supervisory
officer, the arrest of, or significant contribution to the arrest of, someone
involved in a murder would fall easily into this category.

That a mistake might be made, or some inefficiency revealed when the
post-hoc magnifying glass is applied, in this case to the early stages of an
investigation, cannot be doubted. That police officers would eschew the
satisfaction of attaining the possible zenith of their career because of the
race of a victim is, to my mind much less certain, if not preposterous.

Richard B January
4, 2012 at 14:08

Thank for articulating the unease I feel today about this trial and its
outcome. Will be posting a link on mine as I think it deserves a wider
audience.

For me, the turning point of the case was the release of those video clips
of the accused in their own homes (is that even legal?) saying
appalling racist things and behaving like deranged lunatics. Despite the fact
that these were private utterances on private property and directly harmed
no-one, the men were guilty from that moment on. All that remained was the
trial.

If you are a racist, and your racism harms people, then you deserve to be
punished for that. But it seems to me that these men were primarily convicted
(certainly in the public mind) for simply having racist views. Not the same
thing at all.

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 14:30

One has to wonder why, if the ‘new’ evidence really was so strong, they
needed those clips, given none of them was a confession to that
particular crime?

Old legal aphorism: “”If you have the facts on your side, pound the
facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither
on your side, pound the table.””

Brian January 4,
2012 at 14:04

Excellent post!

Engineer January 4, 2012 at 14:01

I don’t claim any particular position or strong view on all this, except
that I feel a vague sense of unease about it all.

There have been many people of Chinese descent living in the UK for many
years, but you barely hear a peep about them in the media. Bout the only one I
can recall is the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking tragedy some years ago. They
can’t all be totally law-abiding, or totally unaffected by crime or injustice,
surely? Why is it that another ‘community’ of particular geographical origin
gets so much attention, and why, specifically, in two or three large
cities?

Ex Community Service
Supervisor January 4, 2012 at 16:14

Came across an interesting guardian article some months ago, Engineer.
Seems some academic was trying to prove something about poor educational
achievement with the statistics about children who get free school meals
because of ‘poverty’ whatever that is. It would appear that there is one
ethnic group of children on free school dinners that outperforms all others,
British Chinese.
In my old job it was a given that the criminal justice
system was racist, and always had been, then someone discovered the
correlation between single parent upbringing and lawbreaking. Set that
against the relationship behaviour of west indian immigrants, long before
the similar breakdown in english families and the statistics become
instantly comprehensible. Cue wind and tumbleweed blowing by as the Marxists
in the Probation Hierarchy try to rationalise that one!

Maturecheese
January 4, 2012 at 16:46

You could also say that a certain religious section of society get far
more attention than their small population (allegedly) deserve.

GildasTheMonk
January 4, 2012 at 13:17

The Raccoon blog is cooking on gas at the moment!

Caedmon’s
Cat January 4, 2012 at 13:17

The trial and sentences passed on these two is a tardy triumph for justice
– and that’s all. There’s no such thing as a racist murder per se. The term
‘racist’ is an artificial construct which has – like ‘sexist’, ‘ageist’,
‘homophobia’ etc. – been carefully designed by the ruling elite to stimulate
divisiveness between classes of people for their own political ends. It’s
suggestive of the Hegelian dialectical principle, where an objective is
achieved by creating the problem which precipitates – and hence justifies –
the desired solution. Divide groups of people by accentuating the differences
between them.
Murder is murder – irrespective of the colour, religion,
culture or class of the victim, or the ignorant and prejudiced rationale
behind the perpetrators.

M Barnes January 4, 2012 at 13:28

Well said that moggy – not sure about Hegelian Dialectical principles
(crikey !) but agree with last sentence.

Anna
Raccoon January 4, 2012 at
13:34

“not sure about Hegelian Dialectical principles ”

They certainly impressed me!

Caedmon’s Cat January 4, 2012 at 13:54

In a nutshell: thesis vs antithesis=synthesis – or: problem –
reaction – solution. Classical marxist practice. The oldest trick in the
book…

M Barnes
January 4, 2012 at 14:08

Oh well that’s perfectly clear now ;D Thanks for that. ROFL

Brian January 4,
2012 at 14:02

This chap Hegel seems to be a bit of a troublemaker. Do you have his full
name and current address? I’m sure the Police could arrest him under Section
5. If he’s IC1 so much the better for the crime detection stats.

Caedmon’s
Cat January 4, 2012 at 14:09

I don’t know his precise address – but I know it’s his permanent abode,
and it’s very hot and unpleasant there…

gladiolys January 4, 2012 at 21:01

You’re so wrong. Is it ok to believe it’s fine to murder or beat or kick
shit out of people cos they’re only homos, niggers, pakis, muslims? If you
would have been left alone without those contributory identities, of course
the murder is made worse. It becomes the reason for the attack. Nothing
Hegelian about it. Just nasty bitter prejudice and thinking someone is an
easier and more legitimate victim because they are different to you. Keep
drinking the sour cream.

catobitesback
January 4, 2012 at 22:39

gladiolys…sorry old buddy. It’s you who are overtly racist.

gladiolys
January 4, 2012 at 22:43

OK… I need you to explain to me what leads you to that conclusion. I
see all identities as equally valid (yes, there are those I’d rather not
have to deal with – such as paedophile, for example), but I witness
every day people making decisions on how they deal with others based on
the colour of their skin, their culture, their sexuality. I acknowledge
it, oppose it and yet I am racist? Please, and this is not a wind up, I
don’t get your thinking.

Robert the
Biker January 5, 2012 at 13:29

You seem to have missed a group there, or do you believe it’s ok to
kick the shit out of people because they are whiteys.

Johnnydub
January 4, 2012 at 23:17

But Glad.. what you’re saying is that racist murders are worse
than:

I murdered you because you were weaker than me
I murdered you
because you we’re older than me
I murdered you because you were drunker
than me
I murdered you because I was angrier than you
I murdered you
because I just didn’t give a shit…

Why is it that campaigners for “equality” seem to actuality want
favouritism

M Barnes January 4, 2012 at 13:13

An interesting blog and a reminder of the times this happened in. Am not
sure I agree with the conclusion that race relations were skewed by this case.
I think relations were already skewed and that by focussing your conclusion
through the lens of the Lawrence case you are rather loading the dice. There
may be unfair elements to the public perception of that case now – but that
doesn’t mean the results weren’t positive in some areas or that everything was
hunkydory beforehand.
You make good points about the Lawrence case
specifically. I think the Lawrences took every opportunity to bring public
pressure to bear to bring their son’s murderers to justice. Can’t say I blame
them, I would do the same. I also come from an area like Eltham was (is?)
where everyone knows ‘who did it’ but no-one says to the police either because
they are afraid or because they don’t think anything will happen. In the
latter case, people sometimes decide to administer their own form of justice –
a ‘bit of a kicking’ maybe. So I can undestand the immediate assumption made
by the Lawrences that they weren’t going to get any justice unless they made a
fuss. Their and others assumption that the police were racist and that’s why
there were no convictions may have been wrong or overstated but they DID
believe it and that’s the point. Whether its true or not is almost irrelevant
– the belief needs to be addressed.
There were a series of riots in the
80′s between black citizens and the police – usually characterised (as were
the recent ones) by wild rumours of terrible things done by the police to a
black person readily believed by a community that distrusted and felt
separated from the Police. Economic factors played their part – people of
whatever colour are more likely to pick a fight when they are poor with no
perceived prospects of changing that status. I would say race relations were
rubbish before 1993 and that the police hadn’t really grasped the nettle.
Racists – really just a specific sub-species of bigots – exist in society and
always will to some degree. The issue for the police is that they are in a
unique position to excercise power over groups they don’t like and they have
at various points in history : the Irish, travellers, blacks, gays, women. So
bigotry in the Police is a bigger issue than with bakers and
candlestick-makers. The police need the public to solve crimes. That means the
public need to think going to the police is a good idea. In 1993 did black
communities in poor areas of London think that? Don’t think they did. So it
follows that the Police needed to address that problem. That’s a postive
outcome.

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 13:43

“So I can undestand the immediate assumption made by the Lawrences
that they weren’t going to get any justice unless they made a fuss. Their
and others assumption that the police were racist and that’s why there were
no convictions may have been wrong or overstated but they DID believe it and
that’s the point. Whether its true or not is almost irrelevant – the belief
needs to be addressed.”

So, now that we’ve overturned a century-old legal safeguard, all to
address a belief that may not have even be well-founded, tell me
this: was it worth it?

Because I’m afraid I’d have to say: ‘No. No, it wasn’t’.

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 13:45

And furthermore: “In 1993 did black communities in poor areas of
London think that? Don’t think they did. So it follows that the Police
needed to address that problem. “

Interesting. It’s not a two-way street, then? I mean, it’s the police
that have ‘a problem of perception’, and not the ‘community’?

M Barnes
January 4, 2012 at 14:03

Legal safeguards are not written in stone. They can and should be
subject to review as science and society develop. Given that scientific
methodology has advanced in leaps and bounds, most famously around DNA,
but also around other chemical tests and recovery of evidence, I would
suggest the ending of double jeopardy in all cases is a reasonable change.
There are high bars to jump before an acquitted person can be put on trial
again.
I am sorry if you gained the impression I thought it was a
one-way street. I don’t. We can, however, only control ourselves and our
interaction with the world. Since I was talking about the Police response
to Lawrence and McPherson, I stated that the Police needed to change their
approach to certain communities. For clarity, I also think those same
communities should seek (and I think did so in many cases) to engage with
the Police. The police, being the ones in authority, have a responsibility
to check their behaviour and approach. We pay taxes to ensure they fight
crime, they cannot do that effectively if the behaviour of too many of
their officers means they lose the confidence of the public.
I would
remind you that the Police have had to adapt and change their approach to
many communities over the years in order to succeed in fighting and
preventing crime. I use ‘communities’ in the widest sense of the word. For
example they have successfully changed their approach to women (domestic
violence) and children (child abuse). In fact the courts also changed
their approach to children giving evidence in a court of law – a perfect
example of how ‘legal safeguards’ change.

Mr B
Lightyear January 4, 2012 at
16:43

“We pay taxes to ensure they fight crime, they cannot do that
effectively if the behaviour of too many of their officers means they
lose the confidence of the public”

I think you’ll find that the Police cannot effectively fight crime
due to the behaviour of certain sections of society demanding that their
hands are tied to satisfy vociferous minority interest groups.

Of course there is no place for racism, but to have groups demanding
special treatment at the detriment of society as a whole (especially
with regards to stop and search) will only serve to make the overall
effectiveness of policing worse.

JuliaM January 4, 2012 at 17:44

Quite! I see stop & search was yet again waved as a grievance
by all those hastening to explain on Sky News why this verdict didn’t
mean the police were no longer institutionally racist.

Yet it seems the main cause of death of young murdered black men in
the capital is…other young black men! So, yes, they will feature most
prominently in the figures, won’t they? It’s only common sense. Or
should be.

When you hear hoofbeats, you’re supposed to stop and search zebras,
I guess.

Mr B
Lightyear January 4, 2012 at
18:38

“When you hear hoofbeats, you’re supposed to stop and search
zebras, I guess.”

Well as long as you search equal amounts of black and white
zebras…… oh hang on….

gladiolys
January 4, 2012 at 20:57

You can say all those things because you’re white and will always be
seen to be on the right side of the law; the safety of the majority, the
comfort of anonymity and the voice of complete and utter ignorance of what
it is like not to be you.

Mr B
Lightyear January 4, 2012 at
21:02

“You can say all those things because you’re white and will always be
seen to be on the right side of the law”

What a very racist thing to say

Surely the convictions of Dobson and Norris show this not to be
true!

gladiolys
January 4, 2012 at 21:35

Yes. Have a police officer adjudicate in a dispute between a white
person and a non-white person. Watch the box ticking, listen to the
emollient voices and then watch what action is taken. Pointing out
that white people still have it easier when it comes to the law is not
being racist. It’s being honest.

Mr B
Lightyear January 5, 2012 at
08:08

“Pointing out that white people still have it easier when it comes
to the law is not being racist. It’s being honest.”

This proves you have very little experience in these situations. It
also hints at how you perceive racism where there is none and are
actively looking to see what you want to see when a non-white person
interacts with a white police officer.

Police officers do not generally ‘adjudicate’, certainly not on
grounds of race.
Most situations are dealt with on the basis of law
and therefore out of the control of the individual officer.

Wigner’s
Friend January 5, 2012 at 09:42

Gladiolys – You are Diane Abbott and I claim my £5.

gladiolys
January 5, 2012 at 09:59

Wigner’s Friend: I wish I had her entertainment value.

Wigner’s
Friend January 5, 2012 at 13:44

Gladiolys: Ah, but are you as hypocritical?

JuliaM January 4, 2012 at 22:37

How do you know we are white? We’re just pixels…

gladiolys
January 4, 2012 at 22:40

Even pixels have pigment….

bruce
January 5, 2012 at 12:56

But isn’t Julia a tiger, with stripes?

Woman on a
Raft January 4, 2012 at 13:10

Exceptionally clear and informative, thank you very much.

Sue January 4,
2012 at 13:08

Pity the “racist crimes” are not applied when “white bitches” are attacked
by Somali Muslim girls excused “because they were unaccustomed to alcohol”.

A murder is a murder and the crime is heinous enough without adding stupid
labels like “racist crime” to them.

Caedmon’s
Cat January 4, 2012 at 13:26

Correct. The race relations industry is not a two-way street – and was
never meant to be. It’s all part of the cultural marxist agenda that has
been stewing its foul brew in the country for decades.

GildasTheMonk
January 4, 2012 at 16:48

Both correct

Richard January 4, 2012 at 17:22

Sue, suggest you check before posting.

http://fullfact.org/factcheck/Muslim_women_spared_jail_for_attack_because_not_used_to_drinking-3179

Brian January
4, 2012 at 17:31

Precisely how much force is unreasonable when one man is defending his
girlfriend against four aggressive women? Perhaps the boyfriend should
have sat out the attack to give the lawyers an easier job at the
subsequent murder trial.

JuliaM January 4, 2012 at 17:40

I’d rather like to know that too, and I see nothing in Richard’s link
that invalidates anything Sue said…

Woman
on a Raft January 4, 2012 at
22:16

Tangentially….it appears the clever-clogs solicitor may have done a
great deal of damage to his clients with the alcohol plea in
mitigation. (Whereas I think it is an aggravating factor, go
figure.)

Commenters claiming to be from the Somali community took a very dim
view of their behaviour – particularly of women drinking alcohol – and
now the danger is argued to be group reprisals, either by their own
clan or others.

Mr B
Lightyear January 4, 2012 at 21:09

Why should “Unreasonable force” on the part of the boyfriend be used as
mitigation in the prosecution of the 4 women involved?

It had no relevance in their intention or actions in attacking the girl
and calling her a “White slag”, the only thing it should be used as is
evidence in any prosecution of the boyfriend.

I doubt that 4 white women kicking and beating black woman, whilst
calling her a “Black slag” would avoid gaol simply because the black
woman’s boyfriend used unreasonable force.

It could, after all, spark some riots or ‘extreme shopping’

JuliaM January 4,
2012 at 13:08

“…but that phone call, from you might say, an interested body, excluded
any possibility that this might have been no more than the tragic outcome of
the tribal nature of young men in a working class society – not that it was
the colour of Stephen’s skin that had led to the stabbing, but that he was not
of the same ‘tribe’.”

What I want to know is this about the night of the Lawrence murder is this:
Who was this woman?

“In February 1999, officers who were investigating the handling of the
initial inquiry revealed that a woman had telephoned detectives three times
within the first few days after the killing.[13]

In 2004, the police stated: “The witness who appeared on the right of the
scene and walked into Rochester Way with Stephen and Duwayne behind is very
important to us. We know who this witness is, she knows who she is, we know
what she knows. She has never made a statement. This witness may have
been the catalyst for the attack.”…”

Did this ever come out at the current trial? I don’t recall it…

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 13:40

Messed up link, sorry!

It’s here.

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 14:30

And it’s now vanished! Excised from Wiki! How strange…

Span
Ows January 9, 2012 at 13:46

That is a MAJOR wiki edit!

Span
Ows January 9, 2012 at 13:56

…apparently it was unsourced, I suspect the editor saw your post!
Edit history has hundreds of edits last week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence&offset=20120105224812&action=history

JuliaM January 4,
2012 at 12:57

Excellent article! Bravo!

Stabledoor January 4, 2012 at 12:56

You’ve expressed very well the vague reasons for the disquiet that I have
always felt over this case. This morning on the Today program, former Met
Police Commisioner Iain Blair seemed very proud of the fact that the police
had moved on from the “colour blind policing” of the past as a result of this
case – seems to epitomise all that is wrong with the current police force,
sorry service

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 13:00

No, no, no! Put that all out of your head!

I’ve just watched Sky news at the sentencing, asking anyone and everyone
if this means the police have cleared themselves of the stigma of
institutional racism.

The answer? No. Because stop & search still predominantly targets
young black men, and anti-terrorism stops predominantly target Muslims.

/doublefacepalm

Stabledoor
January 4, 2012 at 13:30

They are clearly not meeting their quotas for nuns and little old
ladies for stop and search. How disappointing – I thought we’d made some
progress in the past 18 years… we clearly need another enquiry

dermo January 5, 2012 at 21:29

I’m told that most constabularies in Britain are now up to the
minimum required quota regarding stop and search of Moldovan transexual
quadraplegics.

Lerxst January 4, 2012 at 20:48

Clearly they’re struggling to meet their caucasion quota after being
told to stop targeting trainspotters…

dermo January 5, 2012 at 21:27

In reply to JuliaM,

“Because stop & search still predominantly targets young black men,
and anti-terrorism stops predominantly target Muslims.”

Yeah and mousetraps still predominantly get loaded with cheese as bait
as it’s mice that they’re likely to catch….terrible world isn’t it. YOU
ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO TELL PLOD HOW TO DO HIS JOB. Ask the black victims of
black on black stabbings in London, Bristol or Nottingham what they think
of your fluffy lefty view of racial profiling of potential criminals or
stop and search based on race. Let me know how that little chat turns out
will you?

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 22:20

Errrr….

Dermo, those aren’t my words. I’m paraphrasing the useful
idiots. You do realise that?

You do also realise what ‘/doublefacepalm’ signifies, don’t you?

dermo
January 9, 2012 at 20:59

Sorry JuliaM, for some reason I didn’t see the “doublefacepalm” at
the end of your post………methinks my vision may be failing me.
Yikes!

GildasTheMonk
January 4, 2012 at 12:55

Most interesting

Corner January 4, 2012 at 12:51

A good article. Something I remember hearing at the time of the first trial
was that the officer in charge of the investigation was also looking after 10
other murder inquirys with a total budget of £100k. I question how many other
street murders were unsolved in that year. I worked for Devon and Cornwall
Police at the time of the Macpherson report and remember getting a call from
the publishers of the report which was sent to all departments asking us to
send it back as the inquiry team had left the names and addresses of key
witnesses in the report. The inquiry team then sought to blame the Police for
this oversight as it was the police that had given them the details…
I also
remember being asked to send out a memo to all staff reminding them of our
commitment to fighting racist crime and to support its victims when a bomb
planted by white supremacist David Copeland exploded at a Brixton market. When
another bomb attack killed 3 people at a gay pub in Soho 13 days later, no
memo was sent reminding us of our commitment to support to the gay community.
We seem to be getting into a position where the only crimes taken seriously
are those that are high profile or that involve minoroties. I don’t remember a
case of a Ch Supt being sent abroad to visit the family of other murder
victims and an immediate reward being offered as has happeded in the Bidve
case. Let me be clear: Racist crime is abhorrent, but all crimes deserve the
same level of investigation and victim support. To do otherwise will not help
our society become a better place to live.

JuliaM January
4, 2012 at 13:01

“We seem to be getting into a position where the only crimes taken
seriously are those that are high profile or that involve
minoroties.”

You forgot ‘those that involve minorities as the victims‘…

Just ask Rhea Page!