ChatterBank3 mins ago
Stephen Lawrence Murder 20 Years On.
113 Answers
http://
It is now twenty years since the brutal and savage murder of Stephen Lawrence, some say we live is a much less violent society than years ago, if this is true isn't it now time that a final line was drawn under this historic case and closure put on the whole affair?
This one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time, after all they have already tried, found guilty and imprisoned two members of the gang that committed this act, that is much more than can be said for those more numerous gangs who are guilty of not only white murders but also black on black killings.
It is now twenty years since the brutal and savage murder of Stephen Lawrence, some say we live is a much less violent society than years ago, if this is true isn't it now time that a final line was drawn under this historic case and closure put on the whole affair?
This one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time, after all they have already tried, found guilty and imprisoned two members of the gang that committed this act, that is much more than can be said for those more numerous gangs who are guilty of not only white murders but also black on black killings.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ummmm
/// AOG seems to be going of his way to not understand the points being made. A child would understand it once it had been explained this many
times!! ///
Perhaps in the circles you and sp move around in people might not take offence, but it would certainly appear rude within my circles.
You see sp1814 is crafty missing out the provision of truth, which I provided and he didn't.
/// AOG seems to be going of his way to not understand the points being made. A child would understand it once it had been explained this many
times!! ///
Perhaps in the circles you and sp move around in people might not take offence, but it would certainly appear rude within my circles.
You see sp1814 is crafty missing out the provision of truth, which I provided and he didn't.
Sorry to wake you up, mikey, but I need to clarify this point with sp.
“But they walked free from from the first trial, which was prior to their private prosecution! “
They did not have a “first trial“, sp. As you said in your information, charges were dropped. If they had, under the law prevailing at that time the private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family would not have been permitted. It is that trial (brought contrary to the advice of the DPP) from which they walked free. It was that failed trial which necessitated the “double jeopardy” law being changed and I still maintain that it would not have been changed had the failed prosecution not been brought.
“But they walked free from from the first trial, which was prior to their private prosecution! “
They did not have a “first trial“, sp. As you said in your information, charges were dropped. If they had, under the law prevailing at that time the private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family would not have been permitted. It is that trial (brought contrary to the advice of the DPP) from which they walked free. It was that failed trial which necessitated the “double jeopardy” law being changed and I still maintain that it would not have been changed had the failed prosecution not been brought.
@NJ The people responsible for the failed first prosecution were those cops who made such a balls up of the initial investigation, failing to arrest suspects on reasonable suspicion etc.
I can fully understand why the Lawrences may have felt badly let down by the judicial system and elect to go for a private prosecution, even against advice.
The dropping of the double jeopardy defence was long overdue. The Lawrences have not been the only ones who have seen a conviction of a murderer in consequence - so did the mother of Julie Hogg, murdered by Billy Dunlop who had escaped facing trial for 17 years.
http://
You can maintain all you like - but you would be wrong.
I can fully understand why the Lawrences may have felt badly let down by the judicial system and elect to go for a private prosecution, even against advice.
The dropping of the double jeopardy defence was long overdue. The Lawrences have not been the only ones who have seen a conviction of a murderer in consequence - so did the mother of Julie Hogg, murdered by Billy Dunlop who had escaped facing trial for 17 years.
http://
You can maintain all you like - but you would be wrong.
I don't know why the DPP did not block the Lawrence's prosecution, Fred. It has always puzzled me.
The issue of changing the double jeopardy rule per se is not the issue, LG. The issue is that I do not believe that laws should be changed to accommodate one specific case and whilst there have been a (very) few other prosecutions which have taken advantage of the change it was most certainly introduced to accomodate the Lawrence matter. And that would not have been necessary had the Lawrence family heeded the advice they were given. So I may be "wrong" (though I would prefer to be seen as just of a differing opinion) but that's my view.
The issue of changing the double jeopardy rule per se is not the issue, LG. The issue is that I do not believe that laws should be changed to accommodate one specific case and whilst there have been a (very) few other prosecutions which have taken advantage of the change it was most certainly introduced to accomodate the Lawrence matter. And that would not have been necessary had the Lawrence family heeded the advice they were given. So I may be "wrong" (though I would prefer to be seen as just of a differing opinion) but that's my view.
@NJ It did not benefit just one case.It is always, thankfully, going to be a small number of cases - and there may well be cases in the future.
You persist with this notion that the laws of the land were changed to the detriment of all, simply to accomodate those naughty Lawrences who would not heed the DPP, rather than apportion the blame for the whole sorry mess to the right people- those on the initial police investigation who botched it so badly, either through indifference or sheer ineptitude, that these killers walked free for years, and some are still walking free to this day.
20 years must be a very long time to see justice unanswered walking the streets.I admire the Lawrences for their resolve and persistence. And there should be no statute of limitations on capital crimes - unsolved crimes should remain open, until new evidence is brought to the court- and now, thankfully, we have a system where such new evidence can be used.Thats a good thing.
You persist with this notion that the laws of the land were changed to the detriment of all, simply to accomodate those naughty Lawrences who would not heed the DPP, rather than apportion the blame for the whole sorry mess to the right people- those on the initial police investigation who botched it so badly, either through indifference or sheer ineptitude, that these killers walked free for years, and some are still walking free to this day.
20 years must be a very long time to see justice unanswered walking the streets.I admire the Lawrences for their resolve and persistence. And there should be no statute of limitations on capital crimes - unsolved crimes should remain open, until new evidence is brought to the court- and now, thankfully, we have a system where such new evidence can be used.Thats a good thing.
-- answer removed --
Mikey, yet again you resort childish comments and name calling because some have given answers that you do not agree with. How about you providing evidence of what you claim before making juvenile comments, questioning their suitability for certain employment or simply name calling.
For starters, how about answering my original question asking you to provide evidence in the MacPherson report, to back up your statement, "that it was the fact that the murder wasn't investigated properly by the Police, for reasons of racism", or are you again just going to answer when challenged that you have nothing further to add to this debate.
For starters, how about answering my original question asking you to provide evidence in the MacPherson report, to back up your statement, "that it was the fact that the murder wasn't investigated properly by the Police, for reasons of racism", or are you again just going to answer when challenged that you have nothing further to add to this debate.
