Stephen Lawrence is back in the newspapers

Location
south pole
Country
Netherlands
Last edited:
I think I can guess the point you are making and (if correct) I agree with it.

A combination of lazy journalism and wokery.

Given there is such an emphasis on the attackers being white and the victim black, I would like to see the data on knife attacks by black perpetrators on white victims since Lawrence.
 
I think I can guess the point you are making and (if correct) I agree with it.

A combination of lazy journalism and wokery.

Given there is such an emphasis on the attackers being white and the victim black, I would like to see the data on knife attacks by black perpetrators on white victims since Lawrence.
How dare you!
 
I'm not taking any sides here, but I suspect that white on black attacks more often than not have a racist motive (as in the Lawrence case) while black on white attacks are related to robbery or gang activity.
 
I think I can guess the point you are making and (if correct) I agree with it.

A combination of lazy journalism and wokery.

Given there is such an emphasis on the attackers being white and the victim black, I would like to see the data on knife attacks by black perpetrators on white victims since Lawrence.
Mostly in London it's black on black and gang related.
 
I'm not taking any sides here, but I suspect that white on black attacks more often than not have a racist motive (as in the Lawrence case) while black on white attacks are related to robbery or gang activity.
How could you possibly know that?

Racism is universal. Street crime is disproportionately committed by Black people, but the choice of victim could be motivated by a number of factors, including so called racism.

Your assertion just perpetuates the myth that only White people are racist.

Absolute nonsense.
 
I'm not taking any sides here, but I suspect that white on black attacks more often than not have a racist motive (as in the Lawrence case) while black on white attacks are related to robbery or gang activity.
Same stabbing.

And this sets a hierarchy of motivation.

3. Robbery. Very bad.
2. Gangs. Very bad indeed.
1. Racism. The most very very bad imaginable.

I don't agree with that.
 
I'm not taking any sides here, but I suspect that white on black attacks more often than not have a racist motive (as in the Lawrence case) while black on white attacks are related to robbery or gang activity.

Possibly, it’s just refreshing when this subject can be discussed openly and sensibly without people getting offended, exposing various prejudices and making it a taboo subject to be discussed objectively.

As for Mr. Lawrence, the tragic murder of his son was 32 years ago. Since then there has been a public inquiry, the Macpherson report, the Ellison Review and an IOPC investigation. I’m not sure he’s ever going to be told what he wants to hear.
 
How many people have been killed since? Constantly trying to make this Rodney King or George Floyd is completely ridiculous because it isn't anything like that. What the actual f*** more do these people want? They've had everything - whilst everybody else (a few hundred families) have had nothing, more or less. A family member being killed is not an opportunity to have an endless inquiry. It's done and dusted and somebody needs to tell them so. It's really bad for them, I'm sure, but 32 years later is the end of it.
 
How could you possibly know that?

Racism is universal. Street crime is disproportionately committed by Black people, but the choice of victim could be motivated by a number of factors, including so called racism.

Your assertion just perpetuates the myth that only White people are racist.

Absolute nonsense.
Calm down. I didn't claim to know anything, just that I suspected what I said to be true. I may well be wrong. I don't know.

I suggest you look at Phil's Barber's post below, where he expresses his approval of the civilised nature of this discussion. Looks as if he hadn't noticed your intolerant closing words.
 
Calm down. I didn't claim to know anything, just that I suspected what I said to be true. I may well be wrong. I don't know.

I suggest you look at Phil's Barber's post below, where he expresses his approval of the civilised nature of this discussion. Looks as if he hadn't noticed your intolerant closing words.
Why?

Where is your evidence?

If you don't have any, then why say it?

Intolerant words?

You mean calling out unsubstantiated bullshit?
 
Possibly, it’s just refreshing when this subject can be discussed openly and sensibly without people getting offended, exposing various prejudices and making it a taboo subject to be discussed objectively.

As for Mr. Lawrence, the tragic murder of his son was 32 years ago. Since then there has been a public inquiry, the Macpherson report, the Ellison Review and an IOPC investigation. I’m not sure he’s ever going to be told what he wants to hear.
It is well documented that the biggest supporters of stop and search are black mothers in inner city areas. They can't control their kids and don't want them dead. Lack of fathers at home a major factor
 
I think I can guess the point you are making and (if correct) I agree with it.

A combination of lazy journalism and wokery.

Given there is such an emphasis on the attackers being white and the victim black, I would like to see the data on knife attacks by black perpetrators on white victims since Lawrence.


 
Possibly, it’s just refreshing when this subject can be discussed openly and sensibly without people getting offended, exposing various prejudices and making it a taboo subject to be discussed objectively.

As for Mr. Lawrence, the tragic murder of his son was 32 years ago. Since then there has been a public inquiry, the Macpherson report, the Ellison Review and an IOPC investigation. I’m not sure he’s ever going to be told what he wants to hear.
Probably never been told what he needs to hear either !
 

The killers seem to be a particularly unsavoury crew ? and the article above mentions "Clifford was once a drugs baron worth millions and had a string of corrupt Metropolitan Police officers in his back pocket."
 
Last edited:
They are wronguns, no doubts
 
Possibly, it’s just refreshing when this subject can be discussed openly and sensibly without people getting offended, exposing various prejudices and making it a taboo subject to be discussed objectively.

As for Mr. Lawrence, the tragic murder of his son was 32 years ago. Since then there has been a public inquiry, the Macpherson report, the Ellison Review and an IOPC investigation. I’m not sure he’s ever going to be told what he wants to hear.
It's a tricky one. Norris trying to get out on licence very soon. Apparently (and I don't know this as fact) the other three suspects are very well connected via their parents. Over time, this influence may have diminished, but also may still exist.
Lawrence's father is calling for Norris to name the people with him during the attack to be part of his release conditions.
There are two issues here:
1. I'm not sure if putting such a condition on Norris' release (naming the other attackers) would set a precedent, which could be appealed. I don't think it formed part of his initial sentencing, so not sure if it could be retrospectively applied. And even if he named them, there would still be a load of work to do , bringing it to initiate a prosecution, on someone's say-so probably wouldn't be enough to bring them to trial anyway.
2. Norris safety would be put at risk (potentially) on his release if he named the people who attacked SL. I doubt Norris would want to live in fear of reprisals, whether he's released or stays in jail.
 

The killers seem to be a particularly unsavoury crew ? and the article above mentions "Clifford was once a drugs baron worth millions and had a string of corrupt Metropolitan Police officers in his back pocket."
I always felt that the failure to investigate Lawrence's murder in the first place was more about police corruption than racism and incompetence. I'm not saying there isn't either of these in the Police force, just that it stinks that the perps were connected to a gangland leader and the police didn't seem interested.
 
Norris claiming he'd be very much at risk implicating others.
People who knew the Acourt's when they were identified early as suspects , said they didn't think the prosecution would ever make anything stick on them. They were too well connected. I think that's why Norris is keeping quiet.
 
I always felt that the failure to investigate Lawrence's murder in the first place was more about police corruption than racism and incompetence. I'm not saying there isn't either of these in the Police force, just that it stinks that the perps were connected to a gangland leader and the police didn't seem interested.
I think that sums it up best.

Just a black kid and no pressure.

And then there was.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top