egafd.com

And not once has anyone said anything about police corruption

It truly is because I iz black innit.

Next time I hear a youth say that i will say ab-so-fucking-lutely dude because if you get killed by a bunch of racist thugs and the police cover it up its because people on the BGAFD (with the exception of a few civic minded folk) ignore that glaring fact

Its only taken Doreen Lawrence 20+ years to get this far and even then the police still lie until they were exposed by one of their own on Channel 4 for the smear campaign against the Lawrence family

Whats killing this forum?

Stupidity and ignorance by the looks of things

Good call, Jack.

Meanwhile the corrupt copper who was in cahoots with the Norris clan is having a nice life running a bar on Minorca. He also probably enjoys a good whine about how unfair it is that the Lawrence case is still in the headlines.

Fuck off with your 'rest in peace'. Trying to use that phrase like you give a fuck about Lawrence's memory. If you're going to be a troll and a dick then at least have the balls to say what you really mean.

I'd bet my fucking house that if a white girl had been beheaded by a load of Muslims 20 years ago with the obvious culprits getting off, and the police lying and smearing the girl's family to shut them up, you're attitude would be a little different. You'd be going on about how the police are going easy on ethnic minorities for fear of being labelled racist and how the media don't want to know 'cos it's PC gone mad'.

And if the above did happen you'd be right. I'd be right with you - but it hasn't, so you're wrong. Wrong to have this attitude. Not that being wrong will bother you. You're used to it, I'm sure. All water off a duck's back, right?

You trolling shithouse.

"forgive my ignorance."

No. If you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, best to keep your gob shut.

"In saying that, before this latest saga the whole thing played on a bit!!. Again, I say it would not have been the case if the rolls were reversed."

The reasons for the Lawrence case to remain in the public arena are:

1. The initial murder inquiry In 93 was botched by the police. There was judged to be insufficient evidence to prosecute.
2. A private prosecution took place in 94.
3. An inquest into the death in 97 with the jury returning a verdict after 30 minutes' deliberation of unlawful killing "in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths"
4. A strenuous press campaign for many years including the Daily Mail re. getting convictions of those identified as suspects in 93. Hardly a left wing paper.
5. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 which allowed suspects in murders etc. to be tried for a second time.
6. The arrest and trial of Dobson and Norris in 2011-12 which led to their conviction.
7. The stories that have come to light of undercover officers (2013-14) in a number of different cases e.g. animal aid protestors etc. and the role of the MET in trying to smear the Lawrence family at the same time as they were cocking up the investigation

" I say it would not have been the case if the rolls were reversed"

This is gobshite. For reference see the scenario re. the Hillsborough disaster (1989) (overwhelmingly white victims), death of Keith Blakelock (1985).

David:

The private prosecution should have never taken place. It was doomed to fail at the time, and meant the law had to be changed, exposing all of us to double jeopardy as a result.

You start rabbiting on about what you perceive no doubt about black people getting special advantageous treatment e.g.

"The mother being a peer is a fucking joke also".

read about Helen Newlove.

"The private prosecution should have never taken place. It was doomed to fail at the time,"

Well if you had a son that had been slaughtered in a racist attack and no criminal charges had been brought due to a mixture of police incompetence and alleged corruption, I guess you would be keen on bringing a civil case. In the same way, Ian Tomlinson's family brought a civil action.

" and meant the law had to be changed, exposing all of us to double jeopardy as a result."

This is a very weird way of describing it. First although there were recommendations about introducing changes re. double jeopardy arising from the Lawrence inquiry, this was just one case amongst many where criminal lawyers raised concerns about the law. Secondly it was absolutely not the case, that the police had evidence to bring the case at the time that double jeopardy was changed. It was 6 years after the law was changed before Norris and Dobson were put on trial and others who had previously been acquitted for other crimes were put on trial and convicted well before Norris and Dobson.

As for "exposing all of us to double jeopardy" I don't know about you, Robches but I have never been acquitted for murder, manslaughter, rape or kidnapping so I feel that I am not "exposed to double jeopardy".

If further evidence e.g. forensics emerges related to acquittals for serious crimes, personally I am delighted if murderers and rapists get charged and put away as a result of "new and compelling evidence".

I think I'm right in saying that there was no allegation of racism levelled at the Police who initially investigated the Lawrence murder. The charge of 'institutionalised racism' which Macpherson said in his inquiry report a few years later referred to the 'canteen culture' as he called it, which meant there was often backchat in the canteen, the common room and in the locker rooms about new black and Asian officers who had joined, from some white officers. This was manna from heaven for the media, especially the TV media who wouldn't leave it alone. To misrepresent this like they did, for years, implying that there was racism in the original investigation and the Police couldn't be bothered to properly investigate because the victim was black was, as far as I recall, inaccurate. The Police may have cocked the thing up but they probably cock up 25-50% of things they investigate. Their hands are often tied aswell though, even when they know someone is guilty as hell.

I know of someone who was violently mugged once, this is genuinely true, and the Police nicked the guy who had done it. They was no question about it, he was arrested a few minutes later at the top of the road where the mugging had happened, it was late at night and he was the only person on that road. He fitted the exact description the victim had given, from how he was dressed to his build and everything, he was carrying a knife with fresh blood on it, there was blood on his clothes that hadn't dried yet and he was holding the exact amount of cash on him the victim said had been stolen. He lied his arse of in the Police station, saying he had cut himself earlier at home and that's how he had blood on him (a laughable attempt to get released). The Police charged him but had to release him because the CPS said they wanted to wait for the blood results to come back from the lab to formally establish it was him. The Police were unable to arrange for him to be held on remand, this really angered the Police and the victim and it put lots of innocent people in danger because this maniac would now be back on the streets to possibly do it again.

When asked by the victim whether they had nicked the right person the Police said "oh yes, it's definitely him". The victim had to give some blood and the lab compared his blood with the blood that was all over the mugger, it was then formally established that it WAS this nutter who'd done it, the Police knew that already but the idiotic CPS gave the benefit of the doubt to the person arrested - thus putting the public in danger by putting him back on the streets. The CPS then wrote an apologetic letter to the Police.

I mention all this to point out that often when the Police KNOW someone is as guilty as hell their hands are still often tied. The 'lack of evidence' thing regarding the Lawrence suspects in the immediate period after the murder may not have meant the Police didn't care, nor may it have meant they were useless, but may have meant they had little power to set the wheels in motion to jail the killers because of this stupid 'lets give the benefit of the doubt to the suspects and let their legal team walk all over us' ethos that exists within our criminal justice system.

Jeez David, who shit in your handbag?. !rant!

Calm down dear.

"I mention all this to point out that often when the Police KNOW someone is as guilty as hell their hands are still often tied. The 'lack of evidence' thing regarding the Lawrence suspects in the immediate period after the murder may not have meant the Police didn't care, nor may it have meant they were useless, but may have meant they had little power to set the wheels in motion to jail the killers because of this stupid 'lets give the benefit of the doubt to the suspects and let their legal team walk all over us' ethos that exists within our criminal justice system."

Max, this is factually incorrect and nonsense.

This from Wikipedia
"On 31 July 1997, the Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered a public inquiry, to be conducted by Sir William Macpherson and officially titled "The Inquiry Into The Matters Arising From The Death of Stephen Lawrence". Its report, produced in February 1999, estimated that it had taken "more than 100,000 pages of reports, statements, and other written or printed documents" and concluded that the original Metropolitan Police Service investigation had been incompetent and that officers had committed fundamental errors, including: failing to give first aid when they reached the scene; failing to follow obvious leads during their investigation; and failing to arrest suspects. The report found that there had been a failure of leadership by senior MPS officers and that recommendations of the 1981 Scarman Report, compiled following race-related riots in Brixton and Toxteth, had been ignored.

Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden said during the inquiry that mistakes had been made in the murder investigation, including his own ignorance that he could have arrested the suspects four days after the killing simply on reasonable suspicion, a basic point of criminal law.