Stephen Lawrence

I would vehemently deny that I share any emotions with the murderers of Stephen Lawrence. There was no evidence against Chris Jeffries - there is ample evidence against this pair (and they would have been convicted very quickly had it not been for corruption).

jingl I'm not into weird sociologists' theories either

FlicketyB I agree with everything you'e said there. Whenever I see those scenes on tv where people suspected of notorious crimes (sometimes children) are being brought out of prison in a van and a crowd surges forward spitting and screaming and banging, I don't know who I feel more despairing about, those inside the van or outside.

Carol, "We live in a society where respectful behaviour should be modelled, otherwise abusive and aggressive language is perpetuated."

Who are we supposed to show this respectful behaviour to? The thugs in the dock?

Jingle for me it's a question of self-respect. How I behave reflects back on how I feel about myself. Why should I be dragged down to the level of the thug in the dock (though strictly speaking if they haven't yet been found guilty we probably shouldn't call them thugs).

Sorry I meant Jingl

Petallus has said what I would say.

Oh FGS! Everyone knows they are guilty. At the time it happened, I, like many others, hated them. I still hate them. If that reflects badly on me, so be it.

I agree with you jingl. We have watched these men boasting about their offences over the years and they have thought themselves immune. Other offenders have been so disgusted by their behaviour that they have informed on them to the authorities time and again. Justice has to be seen to be done before they are finally convicted, and I believe that the good majority should maintain their standards and show that we do not sink to their level. All of us who do our bit to eradicate racism will breathe a sigh of relief when the trial is finished, I hope, but we know there are still others who have not been brought to trial.

Watching tonight's news, I am horribly afraid they may get away with it on a technicality..... I still remember them swaggering around after a previous court case. Innocent until -proven- guilty fine but their very demeanor, spitting and snarling shows they have no respect for the law or those who attempt to uphold it.
Not very well put..... but, after all this time, I still feel angry!

I've retired now, but when I worked as a probation officer, there were several notorious cases being tried that professionals had lots of anecdotal evidence about, and we all knew about the guilt of these perpetrators who had murdered, attacked and abused. For us, the courts, police, lawyers etc. it was harrowing to watch the wheels of justice turning slowly, and there has been many a time when I have cried all the way home, after hearing the day's evidence and the defence attempts to get these criminals off, especially when the victims' families were going through such torment. However, not one of those cases, fortunately, received a not guilty verdict. I stick to these memories and trust that the killers of Stephen Lawrence will be convicted.

Phrases like 'b------s and racist scum' are expressing exactly the same emotions as the men now accused of Stephen Lawrence's murder and while it was later shown that there was no evidence against Chris Jeffries, the police would not have arrested him if they had not thought the evidence was there. Some of the evidence was false, provided by the person now convicted of the murder, but this is information after the event. When Chris Jeffries was arrested, the press and many ordinary people like us immediately assumed he was guilty and his character was destroyed in the media, in homes and in pubs.

Everything that has been published in the papers over the years has pointed to the men in the dock as the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, just as with Chris Jeffries, but until they are convicted the basis of our legal system is that they are innocent until proved guilty.

Hopefully, the different sources of evidence that have been offered to the police over the course of many years will prove to differ from that offered publicly in the heat of those few days after the focus on the Joanna Yeats murder. We have to trust in the criminal justice system. The landlord did not posture in front of others, nor did he seek to ridicule the police about their inadequacy - he kept his integrity and allowed the law to deal with the matter. The tabloids haven't set out to assassinate the character of these defendents - they have done that for themselves. They are lucky to have been free for so many years. It is such a shame that the law has not been able to pin them down when they have played cat and mouse with the authorities all this time. It is they who have made the claims about their guilt, which others have relayed to the police. My thoughts are for the Lawrence family, who are so near to getting justice for their son. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but no-one will celebrate the acquittal of these particular men, who have bragged about this murder and continued to make racist statements that are captured on video.

jingl have read this post again, and I'm with you on your use of the word b---s You used it on Gransnet , and that's like talking to friends, your not shouting it in the street. Anyway whatever you call them, I think finally they are going to get their just desserts.

"some of the evidence was false".

Are you saying that some of it was true Flicketyb?!

No, they are not innocent until proven guilty - they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is a legal point.
And anyone who believes the police never arrest somone without evidence has obviously never followed the many miscarriage of justice cases.
The Rowan Atkinson sketch about the racist policeman (remember - 'You arrested him for being in possession of thick lips'?) was uncomfortably close to the truth for the thousands of young black and Asian men who have been repeatedly stopped and searched.
The father of one of the original five suspects was a well-known gangster and I believed he shared his 'lodge' with a senior policeman.

I don't stand outside courts shouting but I reserve the right to my opinion that these are racist scum and I very much resent being told that I have brought myself down to their level.

I agree Greatnan

If people make racist remarks, they are racist scum. That's not falling to their level. That's just describing them for what they are.

I come down with the voice of moderation in language here. Not all people who make racist remarks, or who have racist attitudes are "scum". Some of them are ignorant, frightened or have low intelligence.
What about an elderly woman with little education or experience of the world, who, over the years, has more and more neighbours who belong to a different ethnic group. They are reticent about mixing with white people and stick to their own community, so she doesn't get to know them. She goes to the doctor and can't understand a word of what he/she says. She gets in a taxi and the driver doesn't understand her and vice versa and drives her off in the wrong direction. (These scenarios are played out across many cities in UK)
I can understand if that such a person might express racist attitudes. But she is not scum.
Even the most violent BNP thug - if we cannot recognise their humanity and their rights, we diminish our own.

I agree wholeheartedly, jess, about the little old lady types. At least, I have some sympathy for their plight. But the thugs this thread is about are despicable people by their own showing. Racist scum is just another way of saying despicable people a bit more forcefully. It's not really immoderate when you consider what is being described. It would be immoderate about the little old lady, though even she has no real excuse to be racist.

Because there aren't any excuses to be racist.

Worried about culture clashes, maybe, but not racist.

I was referring to the murderers of Stephen Lawrence only, not everybody who makes racist remarks. Most of them need re-educating. I feel just the same about people who are bigoted against homosexuals or make sexist remarks (other than in jest, which we all recognise).
The irony is that on other forums I have been accused of being 'a Guardianista, a Trot, a tree-hugger, a wishy-washy liberal and a do-gooder (not sure why that is an insult!.
I am opposed to the death penalty, corporal punishment or draconian prison regimes, believing that deprivation of liberty is enough, but in this case it would please me to hear that the perpetrators of this heinous crime against a perfectly respectable young man are going to suffer for their actions.

The original investigation was totally incompetent and the Met was judged to be institutionally racist. I hope it has changed, although the involvement of so many top policemen in the NOW scandal suggests that corruption is still not unknown ( I choose my words carefully, as I expect to hear the 'one rotten apple in the barrel defence).

I did an online BBC survey this morning about anger, disgust, punishment, etc. the "only significant thing" about my results was that I generally have "a low level of anger". I do not have a low level of anger against racist scumbags. And racism in the Met Police is absolutely appalling and makes me ashamed.

It is quite possible to have correct information that could be evidence that an innocent person was involved in a crime. For example, as we know, there was no sign of forced entry into Joanna Yeates flat. The landlord would have had key to the flat and therefore COULD have let himself in. He didnt but that does not invalidate the information. Thats why police investigating crimes bring people in for questioning - and then release them.

Quite. It was some of the media publicity about Jo Yeates's landlord that was disgusting, not the fact that the police questioned him.