Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Stephen Lawrence murder trial begins at Old Bailey

ViolentPanda said:
Which is probably why the original statement about being local was qualified.
Click to expand...
It was?

If you are from that area/estate then your being a Local often 'trumps' your skin colour/religion/sexuality/politics etc. 'He might be a nigger/taig/queer/commie... but he is OUR....'
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose 'often' is a qualification. I would dispute this statement and the truth of it.
 
yep the whole "i hate pakis but you're all right". i don't think it's true in every case though - anita desai wrote a very good book about her experiences growing up as an asian kid in such an environment and the fact that even though she was thought to be "all right" her experiences etc inevitably ended up pushing her apart from the people she was hanging around with. and the dilemmas that someone would face in such a situation - "you're all right, not like the others" are pretty similar to those of the anti-fash white kids tbh.
 
frogwoman said:
I suppose it could mean that a black person could have the support of their friends, family etc (although it wuld probably be very different if they were one of the only black families in the area). Not at all sure about the "local" stuff either tho liam given my own experiences and those of mates with homophobia etc, altho am sure that for some people it's the case.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at - and one of the "some ways" that Liam's post was pretty much correct, I'd say. i.e. how many black kids who experience(d) racism at school/the youth club/in their neighbourhood also go home to racist parents and wider family? White kids who come to the conclusion that racism is wrong may well have to deal with the fallout of how they reconcile that outlook with the views of some of their nearest and dearest. That isn't to say that racism is easier to deal with if you're black, of course, but then again, that wasn't what was said....

The homophobia thing is a bit different, though, I think - for one, there is at least the option of not coming out/pretending to conform. I do think that there's some element of truth in what Liam has said with this, though - not that someone who is gay will be entirely safe in an area because they are local, but that friends who are homophobic in general will sometimes effectively put that to one side because of the friendship - i.e. "don't like puffs but you're alright". Not saying that is great mind (and it's not the ideal reaction) but it isn't rejection, either, and certainly gives scope to work with. Was how it worked with a couple of gay blokes in my group of mates in our teens, anyway.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It was?

Well, I suppose 'often' is a qualification. I would dispute this statement and the truth of it.
Click to expand...

yes, that's right. The only qualification/contextualisation I offered was the word 'often'. All the bits in red below are my imagination. twat.


LiamO said:
In some ways (and please don't take this the wrong way) it was/is easier for non-whites than whites. And before people get their knickers in a twist I better expand on that.

1. If you are from that area/estate then your being a Local often 'trumps' your skin colour/religion/sexuality/politics etc. 'He might be a nigger/taig/queer/commie... but he is OUR....'

2. Black people are black. They don't have any choices to make about what 'side' they are on. Nor will their own side label them a 'traitor' the way an actively anti-racist white kid might be labelled by his peers. A special kind of contempt was reserved for traitors/Lundy's IME.

Do you opt for the safety of the tribe? Do you choose to opt out of the tribe mentality but say nothing aloud? Do you remove yourself physically from the area at the earliest opportunity and spend the rest of your days decrying the 'Chavs' who remain? Do you speak out? Do you do it privately or publicly? Do you physically lay your stall out? Do you worry about come-backs on your family for what you say or do?

I would say I have done all of the above at different times in my life.

Having said all that it is my experience that any genuine positive change must ultimately come from within the community/estate. Attempts to impose change by outsiders (whether by the OB, the Council or by those in the semi-State Race Industry) often prove less than helpful.

None of the above in any way diminishes the very real sense of fear and tension that was the daily experience of many non-white people. Nor is it intended to.
Click to expand...
 
treelover said:
Btw, what on earth has happened to the Indie web site? its all over the place...
Click to expand...

I know, it's odd, isn't it - it's a shame, because the redesign is otherwise quite appealing on the eye. I did get in touch with them about it a few weeks ago but haven't heard back since the initial contact.
 
past caring said:
What I was getting at - and one of the "some ways" that Liam's post was pretty much correct, I'd say. i.e. how many black kids who experience(d) racism at school/the youth club/in their neighbourhood also go home to racist parents and wider family? White kids who come to the conclusion that racism is wrong may well have to deal with the fallout of how they reconcile that outlook with the views of some of their nearest and dearest. That isn't to say that racism is easier to deal with if you're black, of course, but then again, that wasn't what was said....

The homophobia thing is a bit different, though, I think - for one, there is at least the option of not coming out/pretending to conform. I do think that there's some element of truth in what Liam has said with this, though - not that someone who is gay will be entirely safe in an area because they are local, but that friends who are homophobic in general will sometimes effectively put that to one side because of the friendship - i.e. "don't like puffs but you're alright". Not saying that is great mind (and it's not the ideal reaction) but it isn't rejection, either, and certainly gives scope to work with. Was how it worked with a couple of gay blokes in my group of mates in our teens, anyway.
Click to expand...

Good post pc. Certainly I and some of my friends have experienced the latter whilst growing up - having friends/acquaintances whom would certainly be homophobic, yet because of 'growing up with them', those friends and I were regarded as somehow seperated/'different'. And tbh, it isn't always until you get older and more comfortable/confident with say your sexuality, that you sometimes actually call out their behaviour - because as I certainly found, it was better to be friends with them than make enemies.
 
past caring said:
What I was getting at - and one of the "some ways" that Liam's post was pretty much correct, I'd say. i.e. how many black kids who experience(d) racism at school/the youth club/in their neighbourhood also go home to racist parents and wider family? White kids who come to the conclusion that racism is wrong may well have to deal with the fallout of how they reconcile that outlook with the views of some of their nearest and dearest. That isn't to say that racism is easier to deal with if you're black, of course, but then again, that wasn't what was said....

The homophobia thing is a bit different, though, I think - for one, there is at least the option of not coming out/pretending to conform. I do think that there's some element of truth in what Liam has said with this, though - not that someone who is gay will be entirely safe in an area because they are local, but that friends who are homophobic in general will sometimes effectively put that to one side because of the friendship - i.e. "don't like puffs but you're alright". Not saying that is great mind (and it's not the ideal reaction) but it isn't rejection, either, and certainly gives scope to work with. Was how it worked with a couple of gay blokes in my group of mates in our teens, anyway.
Click to expand...

beautifully summised PC...

btw, does this mean that you, VP, 39th step, hammerntongues, froggy, stephj etc who all kind of understood what I was saying (whether or not they agree with me is by the by) are all as stupid as me then? Maybe lbj could give us some classes.

I would really like to stay and discuss this but unfortunately I have used up my allotted time having been suckered once more by a posh liberal into arguing about stuff I didn't say rather than what I did. I will learn one day.
 
frogwoman said:
yep the whole "i hate pakis but you're all right". i don't think it's true in every case though - anita desai wrote a very good book about her experiences growing up as an asian kid in such an environment and the fact that even though she was thought to be "all right" her experiences etc inevitably ended up pushing her apart from the people she was hanging around with. and the dilemmas that someone would face in such a situation - "you're all right, not like the others" are pretty similar to those of the anti-fash white kids tbh.
Click to expand...
Yep. On a personal level, this has a lot of truth to it. I don't think it applies much, if at all, beyond that, though, to people you don't know or who you may only know by sight.
 
hammerntongues said:
what doesn`t apply beyond that ?
Click to expand...
The idea that being local may trump other factors - the homophobia of a homophobe or the racism of a racist. In terms of homophobia, the most common reaction of young gay people is probably as has been described here, to hide it - and thinking back to homophobic people I've known in the past, I think ostracism from the group/ beating you up could well have been their most likely reaction to finding out that one of their friends was gay, tbh. In terms of racism, it's only among people you know that the 'I hate blacks but you're alright' attitude applies.
 
past caring said:
The homophobia thing is a bit different, though, I think - for one, there is at least the option of not coming out/pretending to conform. I do think that there's some element of truth in what Liam has said with this, though - not that someone who is gay will be entirely safe in an area because they are local, but that friends who are homophobic in general will sometimes effectively put that to one side because of the friendship - i.e. "don't like puffs but you're alright". Not saying that is great mind (and it's not the ideal reaction) but it isn't rejection, either, and certainly gives scope to work with. Was how it worked with a couple of gay blokes in my group of mates in our teens, anyway.
Click to expand...

I used to live in a multi-storey estate. In my block there was an older fella, openly gay, very camp and almost too stereotypically a hairdresser. He drunk not in the gay pubs in town but in the local-rather dodgy to many-boozer with the folk he's known for years. He was well known and well liked, he was 'our puff'. This kinda banter went on for years I found, my best mates dad would always refer to him as 'Colin the puff', again not ideal as pc said, but within the confines of a rather grim estate without judgement and without any hate. At no point in his life was he or has he ever been abused, attacked, ridiculed or threatened in that scheme. This is a city where gay/homophobic attacks were noted and often brutally murderous... It's not to say that life was/is ideal for Colin but the scheme was without doubt a place where he always felt welcome and absolutely safe irrespective of who he was. Now, I don't doubt some of Colins mates there would baulk at big gay pride demos in the area or open displays of gay men being affectionate but as my best mate told me after Colin was in the pub one night when the gay pride demo was all over the press/tv a mate in the pub wondered what the hell he was doing there when he could be out enjoying himself....
 
Certainly I have known people in Bermondsey who hate everyone not from Bermondsey more than they do hate black people, commies, gays etc.
 
Guardian:

Breaking news:​
  • Attorney general to review whether sentences imposed on Stephen Lawrence's killers are too lenient. More details soon …
 
Gingerman said:
Wheres Norris Snr these days? still banged up? for someone who's cast a malignant shadow over the whole case I cant recall ever seen a pic of him anywhere.
Click to expand...
nope - penniless, on benefits and living in a bedsit in kent. When he got put away, the police and customs managed to relieve him of all his cash and his 600k home.
 
maomao said:
Guardian:

Breaking news:​
  • Attorney general to review whether sentences imposed on Stephen Lawrence's killers are too lenient. More details soon …
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the sentences were the maximum permitted by the sentencing guidelines...
 
DotCommunist said:
the attorney general reviewing the sentences on the complaint of one solitary member of the public? :hmm:
Click to expand...

A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said that sentences for certain crimes, including murder, could be reviewed if requested by members of the public.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/05/stephen-lawrence-murder-sentences-review

If you are concerned that a sentence may be unduly lenient, it's important that you tell the Attorney General's office quickly, so he and his advisers have time to consider it before the deadline. (The 28 day limit is calendar days not working days, so weekends and holidays do count!).

All cases are considered personally by the Attorney General or his deputy, the Solicitor General.

They personally look into all the facts and consider the concerns of the victim and family. They apply the law and guidelines which apply to the sentencing decision. Normally they also have advice from:
  • lawyers who appeared for the prosecution in the trial
  • a highly experienced independent barrister, who hasn't been involved so far
  • expert lawyers in his office.
"Unduly lenient" means more than just lenient

The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate".

In other words, the sentence must not just be lenient, but must be unduly lenient - not just low, but unreasonably low.
Click to expand...

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/ULS/Pages/default.aspx
 
8ball said:
I read somewhere that the sentences were the maximum permitted by the sentencing guidelines...
Click to expand...
not quite - they were, under the guidelines that pertained in 1993, not the ones that apply now. That's what a potential appeal is about now
 
Streathamite said:
not quite - they were, under the guidelines that pertained in 1993, not the ones that apply now. That's what a potential appeal is about now
Click to expand...

So was the case against these two started while the 1993 guidelines were in effect?

Not that I know whether it makes a difference - just that the stuff I read before would seem a bit disingenuous.
 
Wiki has an interesting article on this. In particular, the reasoning behind the sentencing.

The judge stated that the sentences reflected the fact that Dobson and Norris were juveniles at the time of the fatal stabbing, which took place before the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the starting point for the minimum term was therefore 12 years. The judge acknowledged this was "lower than some might expect".[12][15] A similar crime committed in 2011 by an adult would have justified a sentence with a starting point of 25 years for the minimum term.[46] Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, forbids retrospective increases in sentences. Thus a person may not be given a sentence more severe than that which could have been imposed at the time of the crime.[14]
Click to expand...
 
wasn't there a big fuss over michael howard attempting to retrospectively increase the sentences of jon venables and robert thompson?
there was concern (and rightly so) that a home secretary swayed by public opinion shouldn't be able to have an effect on notorious criminals' sentences.
 
Orang Utan said:
wasn't there a big fuss over michael howard attempting to retrospectively increase the sentences of jon venables and robert thompson?
there was concern (and rightly so) that a home secretary swayed by public opinion shouldn't be able to have an effect on notorious criminals' sentences.
Click to expand...
Yeah. tbh I think this challenge is a big mistake. They will rot for long enough inside. And if they continue to deny they did it, they'll be in there for a very long time anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
C
Protest outside Old Bailey in support of Constance Marten & Mark Gordon
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
369
Views
13K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
592
CNT36
C
singsongfun
Kevin Spacey trial underwhelming
2 3
Replies
82
Views
5K
Don Baumgarten
Don Baumgarten
A
125 firefighters fight Fire at Somerset House
Replies
8
Views
528
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
Back
Top Bottom