Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Stephen Lawrence murder trial begins at Old Bailey

Would have missed this Indie article if Dave Cinzano hadn't posted the link earlier up.

It's pretty fucking sickening that members/associates of the Acourt gang got away with all kinds of this sort of shit around that time and later :mad:

For what small amount it's worth from me on Eltham. My friends (when new as a couple) lived in some housing asociation flats near the town centre about 10 to 15 years or so years ago and I visited them there at least 4 or 5 times. He was Glaswegian, she Australian, and both found the atmosphere round some places in the town pretty unpleasant and unwelcoming to anyone 'different' or outsider (eg a bit alternative minded/looking, like them, and they were white). Although I only went to pubs there twice with them myself (can't remember which ones sorry), I can't say I saw or heard about much myself, in or out of the pubs, that contradicted their view. And they picked the less bad ones they said ...

I know more than enough personally about pubs across South London to know which ones I don't want to go in, simply from the atmosphere in the street outside. Scarcely welcoming in SE9 I thought ....

And I've drank in shedloads of pubs across Walworth, Rotherhithe, Bermondsey etc South London etc, with S London footy fans and all sorts (I was OK to most because I was 'only' Oxford! :D ), and I wasn't always all that fussy either sometimes, just avoided the very worst ones.

I wish I could bloody well remember their names, but there were at least two pubs I was warned -- not just by my mates there, others too -- to avoid in Eltham, that looked to me (back then) from the outside at least, as bad or worse as any place I'd avoided elsewhere. Very much not about the beer this!
(at least not only ;) ).

I get more than a bit frustrated by the hint/suggestion that not liking the more thuggish/intimidating pubs, and not liking places (or parts of places) because of that, is somehow demonising or being prejudiced against everyone in that area, all members of the working classes there, etc.

FWIW as well, my friend did a lot of research into the local history of the area (going right back I mean) when he lived there and what he was able to tell me was pretty damned fascinating. So I do know that there's much more about Eltham than the Acourts' circle and like people, I also take the point that plenty of locals reported against people associated with them around that time.

But also at that time, they got away with shitloads of shit it seems, partly I suppose because of intimidation. And obviously Police corruption and incompetence combined.
 
I'm not sure I'd agree they couldn't receive a fair trial because of the amount of publicity by the way. Yes it was a disgusting crime but the question is whether or not they did it which seems to me to be a wholely different question.

The Daily Mail article is different, though, but is also a difficult one. How do you balance the chance of prejudicing the trial against a protest against the police just letting racist offenders go free.

I read the Daily Star in a coffee shop today, as you do. This article didn't surprise me particularly, but it illustrates the point I'm making.

"
THREE prime suspects linked to the Stephen Lawrence murder case drive flash cars, wear designer clothes and enjoy mega-benders in pubs without appearing to have a single job between them.

Luke Knight and brothers Neil and Jamie Acourt were not on trial with Gary Dobson and David Norris, but their names repeatedly cropped up in court.

while Dobson and Norris begin long sentences for the racist murder, the other three suspects enjoy a fun-filled and comfortable playboy lifestyle."

It's in the same vein as many previous, across the news spectrum, directed at the two convicted as well as these three. It's in keeping with views expressed in this thread and in casual conversation. Everybody knows they're guilty, it's simply a police failure, or corruption, that they're not banged up. That isn't a fair basis for the detached decision making that juries are supposed to do.
 
Would have missed this Indie article if Dave Cinzano hadn't posted the link earlier up.
One of the blokes who wrote that is Satish Sekar who has worked doggedly on miscarriages of justice cases as an investigative journalist over many years. I haven't seen him for a really long time, but if he's got his teeth into this he will ferret out information with incredible tenacity. Great bloke, Satish.
 
He's been involved in loads more than the Cardiff Three though. He's got more than a passing interest in forensic entomology. The background work he's done for people campaigning for justice is pretty impressive. I think he's published books too.
 
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.
No but that was when the crime was perpetrated
 
He's been involved in loads more than the Cardiff Three though. He's got more than a passing interest in forensic entomology. The background work he's done for people campaigning for justice is pretty impressive. I think he's published books too.
He is a "top geezer".
 
So, without wanting to start a new thread : Does anyone have any kind of low down on what Mr Knight and The Acourt brothers are up to right now?
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
So, without wanting to start a new thread : Does anyone have any kind of low down on what Mr Knight and The Acourt brothers are up to right now?

I was in a cafe the other day and read a tabloid while waiting for rolls. They had detailed write ups on all of them.
 
Re that Daily Mail article :

yeah. that's a better one.

Got to have some respect for the DM for being so thoroughly investigative on that one. Stephen Wright (presumably he did all the research?) has managed to find out a lot! :eek:

I read the Daily Mirror one too -- as tabloid 'exposes' go, I have to admit to finding them both well worth a read ... :oops:
 
Got to have some respect for the DM for being so thoroughly investigative on that one. Stephen Wright (presumably he did all the research?) has managed to find out a lot! :eek:

The Daily Mail has been consistant on the Lawrence case from the beginning, I think (though might be imagining having read about it somewhere) that it's because Dacre knows Neville Lawrence, and knows they're a good family.
 
The Daily Mail has been consistant on the Lawrence case from the beginning, I think (though might be imagining having read about it somewhere) that it's because Dacre knows Neville Lawrence, and knows they're a good family.

Yes, I've been aware (and surprised) about that for years. I normally can't stand the DM on any level, but on this ....
 
Just goes to show that they CAN do a decent job when they try to, which makes their usual shite even worse because it's clearly intentional.
 
I can't get one thing out of my mind.
BBC reporter was asking in Eltham and I can not block out the image of the old bloke with only two bottom teeth saying they didn't do it and using the n-word :(
 
That was Peckham, and I thought that vox pop was pretty unconscionable work by the BBC.

If you'd asked that bloke if he thought an alien invasion from Alpha Centura was likely he'd probably have said yes.
 
That was Peckham, and I thought that vox pop was pretty unconscionable work by the BBC.

If you'd asked that bloke if he thought an alien invasion from Alpha Centura was likely he'd probably have said yes.

But the image of him and he meant what he said.
Peckham much the same then?
Was the pub that the beeb were thrown out of in Eltham?
 
I think it's probably a good day for that old boy when he gets his shoes on the right way around. Very poor of the BBC.
 
Back
Top Bottom