ChatterBank2 mins ago
If This Had Been The Other Way Around, It
would have been on all the TV news channels, like the one that's been going on for years!?
Answers
I agree if it had been a gang of three white youths, and a black youth finishing up dead at the hands of one, it would have been treated much more serious, and if it wasn't there would most likely be some taking to the streets in violent protest. What is interesting in this case is the fact that the killer's parents, supported their son's alibi even though they knew...
08:12 Sat 19th Sep 2015
-- answer removed --
I agree if it had been a gang of three white youths, and a black youth finishing up dead at the hands of one, it would have been treated much more serious, and if it wasn't there would most likely be some taking to the streets in violent protest.
What is interesting in this case is the fact that the killer's parents, supported their son's alibi even though they knew it to be lies, why have they not been charged with perverting the course of justice?
What is interesting in this case is the fact that the killer's parents, supported their son's alibi even though they knew it to be lies, why have they not been charged with perverting the course of justice?
// Fortunately I can read 'upside down' pretty well! (Ex-teacher, if you strolled casually around the classroom you could keep tabs on what was being written)!//
never taught
BUT
very useful as a candidate in oral / viva voce exams
of which I did a lot
as you see what the examiner thinks of it so far .....
never taught
BUT
very useful as a candidate in oral / viva voce exams
of which I did a lot
as you see what the examiner thinks of it so far .....
Svejk - "Far be it from me to put words in NJ's mouth, andy. (would that be contempt of court?)
But I read his comment as meaning anybody can decide an incident to be racist."
That's an interesting interpretation, and one I had not considered.
If NJ comes back and confirms that I have misunderstood the meaning of his post, and I have fallen foul of the pitfalls of written communication - I stand ready to be corrected.
Food for thought - thank you.
But I read his comment as meaning anybody can decide an incident to be racist."
That's an interesting interpretation, and one I had not considered.
If NJ comes back and confirms that I have misunderstood the meaning of his post, and I have fallen foul of the pitfalls of written communication - I stand ready to be corrected.
Food for thought - thank you.
Killing is killing
What difference does it make whether they were black, white, mixed. purple or orange?
It shouldn't make any should it
http://
What difference does it make whether they were black, white, mixed. purple or orange?
It shouldn't make any should it
http://
I think the meaning of NJ's post is unambiguous.
However, these offences against both common sense and natural justice are "Recommendations 12, 13 and 14 (of 70) of the MacPherson report into the Met’s handling of the death of Stephen Lawrence:".
Are these entirely subjective judgments "enshrined in law" as Svejk suggests?
However, these offences against both common sense and natural justice are "Recommendations 12, 13 and 14 (of 70) of the MacPherson report into the Met’s handling of the death of Stephen Lawrence:".
Are these entirely subjective judgments "enshrined in law" as Svejk suggests?
Been prompted by Svejk to return to this to explain my earlier post.
Andy asked “by whom would it be decided to be a racist incident?”
The recommendations of the Macpherson report which I cited are quite clear. These recommendations have been accepted. Anybody can determine whether an incident is racist or not. It does not have to be so defined by the police or the participants. When “anybody” defines an incident as racist the police must accept this and deal with the matter accordingly. Andy suggests that he would not presume to do so. That was not my point. My point is that he could if he was so minded. I went on to explain that I found such a proposition ridiculous. I did when the report was first published and I still do now. Hope that helps iron out any confusion.
Andy asked “by whom would it be decided to be a racist incident?”
The recommendations of the Macpherson report which I cited are quite clear. These recommendations have been accepted. Anybody can determine whether an incident is racist or not. It does not have to be so defined by the police or the participants. When “anybody” defines an incident as racist the police must accept this and deal with the matter accordingly. Andy suggests that he would not presume to do so. That was not my point. My point is that he could if he was so minded. I went on to explain that I found such a proposition ridiculous. I did when the report was first published and I still do now. Hope that helps iron out any confusion.
