The Lawrence Job

Stephen Lawrence, a black was stabbed to death in Well Hall Road, Eltham on 22 April 1993. The other black ran faster.  It was a routine murder, quick, clean with no exacerbating circumstances. It would have been briefly reported and briskly forgotten if blacks had attacked an Englishman rather than vice versa but Englishmen were alleged to have done it and there was a major Propaganda campaign against them carried out by left wing media and other communist subversives with the BBC at the forefront. The Trotskyists claimed that the perpetrators were Racists, that they did not like foreigners. In fact the Trots are racists using Racism as a political weapon against England, against white people and the West generally.

Anthony Daniels, a Jew who calls himself Theodore Dalrymple explains rather better than me. For many years he wrote a column in The Spectator sneering at the English lower classes and praising ethnics. It was part of a campaign of hatred designed to break our pride in ourselves and our country. On this occasion he comes nearer to telling the truth.

Dalrymple cum Daniels does not make the point that this was reaction against the Treason and Racism of the ruling class controlled by Jews, the Puppet Masters importing millions of Third World aliens.

A further analysis comes from a blogger, Anna Raccoon. It reads as fair - see it at  An Assessment Of Racist Hate In The Establishment

The killing of another black, Damilola Taylor in Peckham was used in the same way until it became clear that he was killed by his own. The fact that he was in England to defraud the National Health Service was duly glossed over. This is a small part of a system of Cultural Genocide. MacPherson, the judge who did the inquiry was a commanding officer in the Special Air Service and the chief of his clan. He is none the less a moral coward who allowed himself to be intimidated by race hustlers or a fool. Alternatively he is both.

Before believing the sob story that Marxists are so eager to tell us about have a look at the far nastier murder of Kriss Donald carried out by five Pakistani racists on 15 March 2004. Another Racist murder was carried out by eleven Bengali thugs who killed Richard Everitt, an English lad on 13 August 1994. The Main Stream Media, especially the BBC shrugged them off. They are deeply, sincerely corrupt, just like the police, prosecutors & judge. Another, similar case involved Ross Parker.

Q The Inquiry’s Advisers to the Report - who were they?
A TOM COOK, ex West Yorkshire police chief; where police corruption is rife.
THE RIGHT REVEREND DR JOHN SENTAMU, black from Uganda, Archbishop of York
DR RICHARD STONE, Jew, vicechairhumanoid of the Runnymede Trust, on the Council and Board of Liberty.
The 'advisors' were there to make sure that MacPherson, a foreigner in his own right came up with the anti-English answer that was wanted.
PS Stone is a supporter of Unite Against Fascism, a standard left wing front organization that uses Lenin's Useful Idiots to subvert England. Cameron is a member too.

Another view is put by Frank Ellis, lately of the SAS. He studied totalitarianism, the Soviet sort. Doctor Ellis tells us that MacPherson is a dangerous bigot, a de facto Marxist or one of Lenin's Useful Idiots. See Macpherson Report & Anti-Racist Hysteria. Something more on his report is at MacPherson Recommendations.

Stephen Lawrence, Gary Dobson, David Norris and a political trial
A worthy summary of Malicious Prosecutions by Racist politicians and an Establishment full of hate for Englishmen but not blacks.


The Institution of “Institutional Racism”
Comes from Taki's Magazine; it tells us that MacPherson was a third rate twerp. Fair comment.


From A Modern Witch Trial by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal Spring 2009 -
Theodore Dalrymple
A Modern Witch Trial
Racism: the charge against which there is no defense
Guilty until proven guilty.
Howard Pyle, trial of two witches/The Art Archive/Culver Pictures

Guilty until proven guilty
Men may be created equal, but not all murders are equal. Some are quickly forgotten, except by those immediately affected by them, while others—by no means always political assassinations—have a lasting political impact. Among the politically significant kind was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young black man, in a London suburb on the evening of April 22, 1993. Five or six white youths set upon Lawrence and a friend, Duwayne Brooks. One of the attackers supposedly shouted, “What, what, nigger?” immediately before Lawrence was stabbed to death. Brooks managed to evade the attackers, who ran away.

Despite considerable circumstantial evidence against several suspects, the perpetrators escaped conviction. The police investigation into the murder was a model of incompetence of the kind that every Briton now expects of our boys in blue. Over the investigation there also hung a pall of suspected corruption, for one suspect was the son of a rich drug trafficker who, on a previous occasion when his son stood accused of a stabbing, had tried (unsuccessfully) to bribe and threaten the victim into altering his evidence.

But the Lawrence murder took on a wide social significance because of its racial overtones. The botched investigation became a cause célèbre—the presumption being that racism alone could explain the police’s failure to bring the perpetrators to justice—and the government launched an official inquiry to “identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.” There followed a festival of political and emotional correctness the likes of which have rarely been equaled. It would be impossible, at less than book length, to plumb the depths of intellectual confusion and moral cowardice to which the inquiry plunged. In 1999, it released a report of its findings that won almost universal praise despite its risible shortcomings.

This year, on the tenth anniversary of the report, the press and professional criminologists are celebrating it for, as one put it, bringing about a “paradigm shift” in the sensitivities of British police about “diversity”—police now think about race all the time, it seems. The report’s real effect, however, was to demoralize further an already demoralized police force, which, immediately after the report appeared, retreated from stopping or searching people behaving suspiciously and watched street robberies increase 50 percent.

Perhaps the fact that the inquiry was open to the public had something to do with the nature of the resulting report. The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation. Among the self-congratulatory sentences that opened the report (“We believe that our procedures did ensure fairness”; “The contributions of the Inquiry’s Advisers to the Report and to the conclusions to the Report . . . have been imaginative, radical and of incalculable worth”) was the following, a flash of lightning in the darkness: “We thank the officers from the Walworth Police Station, who in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances have helped to keep order when emotions ran high.” An incipient riot is not a situation in which the truth is likely to emerge or to be uppermost in people’s minds.

The report’s contention was that the mishandled Lawrence case illustrated the “institutional racism” of the London police force. Poor Sir William tied himself in knots trying to explain the notion of institutional racism, relying in part on that great moral authority on race relations, Stokely Carmichael, the onetime “prime minister” of the Black Panthers. As Macpherson admitted, he could point to no actual instance of racist behavior by the officers involved in the case, though evidence of incompetence and delay was abundant. But if he had concluded from the lack of evidence of racist behavior that the police were not racist, he doubtless would have become an object of execration by all the people who think the right thoughts. Thus Macpherson’s redefinition of racism: “Failure to adjust policies and methods to meet the needs of policing a multi-racial society can occur simply because police officers may mistakenly believe that it is legitimate to be ‘colour-blind’ in both individual and team response to the management and investigation of racist crimes.”

On the very next page, however, Sir William quoted approvingly the assertion of an association of black police officers: “Institutional racism leads officers to act, albeit unconsciously, and for the most part unintentionally, and treat others differently because of their ethnicity or culture.” In other words, if you treat people the same, you are racist; but if you treat them differently, you are racist. It is clear that we are here in the realm not of the rule of law but of the Malleus Maleficarum, and that Macpherson is acting not as judge but as witchfinder-general.

The evidence of institutional racism that Macpherson uncovered would be laughable, had the liberal press not taken it so seriously. For example, when the police arrived at the murder scene, Brooks snarled: “Who called you fucking cunts anyway, pigs, I only called an ambulance.” That the police did not feel entirely reassured that Brooks was a respectable, upright citizen, and ignored the fact that he was also a victim of the attack, became for Macpherson a sign of their racist stereotyping, not a natural response to such vile abuse, which is not a normal way for the law-abiding to address the supposed guardians of the law—or, indeed, anyone else.

Further evidence, in Sir William’s view, was that some of the detectives refused to accept that the Lawrence murder was “wholly racist,” though none denied at least a racist element. Of course, since no one had actually been convicted of the murder, the murderer’s motive could not be known for certain. And even if the suspects—a violent group, certainly—were indeed the culprits, was racism the sole, or even primary, cause of their violence? One suspect—David Norris, the drug trafficker’s son—was almost certainly guilty of that earlier stabbing in which his father became illegally involved, as the report observed. But there the victim was white. Norris and two other suspects in the Lawrence murder had also been suspects in another assault, this one on two brothers, both white. In both instances, Norris got off because of incompetent prosecutions.

Macpherson did not draw the obvious inference, and if he did, the liberal intelligentsia would not have applauded.

Let us assume that Norris was indeed one of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers. If the prosecution of Norris’s earlier crimes had not been so incompetent, and if he had received an adequate sentence if found guilty (an unlikely outcome in contemporary Britain), then Lawrence would now be alive.

At one point, the inquiry listened to secretly recorded conversations among the Lawrence suspects. The conversations were racist in the crudest possible way, but they were not purely racist. Norris said, for example, “If I was going to kill myself, do you know what I’d do? I’d go and kill every black cunt, every Paki, every copper, every mug that I know.” The police in London are not predominantly minorities; it is also unlikely that “every mug” that Norris knew was a minority. Norris’s propensity to racism was probably caused by his propensity to violence, rather than the other way around.

So on every possible ground, the police who dismissed the idea that the murder was “wholly racist” were right, at least factually. Their error was political or even metaphysical—beyond the realm of mere empirical evidence. On Macpherson’s view, the police should act more as defenders of politically correct orthodoxy than as keepers of the peace and searchers after the truth.

Further confirmation of Sir William’s moral cowardice was his uncritical acceptance of everything that Stephen Lawrence’s mother said. Now, Mrs. Lawrence had lost her son to murder, and the police had failed to solve the far from insoluble crime; she was understandably distraught and angry. But that did not make her the arbiter of truth; common sense, indeed, should have suggested the contrary. One might have hoped that a judge would have shown some judgment.

At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote. A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when one Mr. Gompertz, the counsel for the police, was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely Mr. Gompertz desisted.” In short, only the accused could be questioned.

Mrs. Lawrence had already demonstrated that, no doubt in her distress, she was willing to go beyond the facts. In her statement to the coroner’s court, she said (and later repeated the assertion to Nelson Mandela when he visited London): “In my opinion what had happened was the way of the judicial system making a clear statement to the black community that their lives are worth nothing and the justice system will support any one, any white person who wishes to commit any crime or even murder against a black person, you will be protected, you will be supported by the British system.”

Even if we leave aside the question of why she bothered to participate in the system at all if it really was as she described it, she ought to have known that she was exaggerating. I quote from the report, which sought to show that Lawrence’s was not the only racist murder in the area:

In February 1991 a white man named Thornburrow murdered a young 15 year old black youth named Rolan Adams. . . . He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 11 July 1992 an Asian boy called Rohit Duggal was stabbed to death by a white youth named Peter Thompson. . . . Thompson was found guilty of the murder in February 1993.

Mrs. Lawrence should have known about these sentences. If she did not, she was ignorant; if she did, she was lying. But all that Macpherson said of her incendiary charge was that it showed the depth of her feeling—not that it was inaccurate and misleading. Her victimhood had to be immaculate.

Mrs. Lawrence further said that she felt condescended to by the police and ascribed this condescension to their racism. Macpherson showed—surprisingly, for a judge—no recognition of the obvious difficulties in accepting such feeling as evidence of anything. He did not even demand that her feelings have some objective correlative: if she felt condescended to because of racism, she was condescended to because of racism.

Among the report’s many pernicious recommendations was the following: “The definition of a racist incident should be any incident which is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person.” Nothing could be better designed to destroy the possibility of easy—dare I say normal—relations among people of different races. For the notion that racism is so pervasive and institutionalized that it is everywhere, even where it appears not to be, induces in the susceptible a paranoid state of mind, which then finds racism in every possible situation, in every remark, in every suggestion, in every gesture and expression. It is a charge against which there is no defense.

Two incidents in my clinical experience illustrate this nonfalsifiability. In the first, the lawyers for a black defendant asked me to appraise his fitness to plead. The defendant faced charges of assaulting another black man, out of the blue, with an iron bar. The man was obviously paranoid, his speech rambling and incoherent; his lawyers could obtain no sensible instructions from him. I argued that he was unfit to plead. Whereupon the man’s sister denounced me as a racist: I had reached my conclusions, she charged, only because her brother was black. Her 15-year-old daughter started to describe to me her frequent difficulties in understanding her uncle, only to be told to shut up by her mother. The lawyers had been unable to obtain instructions from the defendant only because they were white, the sister persisted. Give her brother black lawyers, and he would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, if I had said that he was fit to plead, she could have claimed with equal justice (which is none) that I came to that conclusion only because he was black.

The second case, far more serious, ended in a man’s death; the blame was partly mine. A black man in his mid-twenties arrived at our hospital with severely cut wrists. He was nearly exsanguinated and needed a large blood transfusion; his tendons also needed an operation to repair. By all accounts, he had been a perfectly normal man, happily employed, a few weeks before, but suddenly he had stopped eating and become a recluse, barricading himself in his house until police and family broke in to reach him. His suicide attempt was not one of those frivolous gestures with which our hospitals are all too familiar. If ever a man meant to kill himself, this man did.

His mother was by his bedside. I told her that her son should remain in the hospital for treatment (you’d hardly have to be a doctor to realize this). At first she was perfectly agreeable; but then a friend of the young man, himself young and black, arrived and instantly accused me of racism for my supposed desire to lock the patient up. I tried to reason with this friend, but he became agitated and aggressive, even menacing. Whether from conviction or because she, too, felt intimidated, the mother then sided with the friend and started to say that I was racist in wishing to detain her son.

I could have insisted on the powers granted to me by law—asking a court to have social services replace the mother as the patient’s nearest relative for the legal purpose of keeping him in treatment. But I did not fancy the process: the young friend had threatened to bring reinforcements, and a riot might have ensued in the hospital. Instead, I agreed to the demand that I let the patient go home. The two said that they would look after him, and I made them sign a paper (of no legal worth) acknowledging that I had warned them of the possible consequences.

This piece of paper they screwed up into a ball and threw away immediately outside the ward, where I found it later. I had made copies, and it was one of these that I sent to the coroner when, six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust. The notion of ubiquitous, institutionalized racism resulted in his death; and I resolved that it would never intimidate me again.

When I think of Macpherson’s feeble mental pirouettes, I turn for relief to an official 1854 report into some abuses committed in Birmingham Borough Prison, where I myself worked a century and a half later. Every day, as I entered, I passed an oak notice board, on which one could read, displayed in gold lettering, the names of past governors of the prison. The second on the list was Lieutenant William Austin of the Royal Navy, whose cruelties—among those of other prison officials, including its doctor—a commission of inquiry had investigated.

To read the commission’s report after Macpherson’s is to enter a different world, one in which words mean what they appear to mean, the integrity of the commissioners is self-evident, facts count more than feelings, and conclusions follow from the evidence. In fact, to read the commission’s report after Macpherson’s is to experience a powerful sense of moral and intellectual progress—at least among the writers of official reports—but in the wrong temporal direction, alas. The prose of the commissioners, one of them a doctor, is clear, vigorous, and without the evasions and contradictions of Macpherson’s writing. They write like men who know they are doing a good job well.

The event that brought the abuses to light was the suicide of a 15-year-old inmate named Edward Andrews, who had stolen four pounds of beef and been sentenced to three months’ hard labor in the prison. The suicide revealed a pattern of abuse. The commission discovered that the prison imposed an entirely illegal system of “hard labour” that forced prisoners to turn a crank 10,000 times a day—2,000 before breakfast, 4,000 before lunch, and 4,000 before dinner. If a prisoner did not complete each stage, he lost the subsequent meal. If he did not complete the 10,000 by the end of the day, he was put on bread and water. The weight on the crank was adjusted, supposedly to meet each prisoner’s physical capabilities.

The commissioners inspected the crank machines and described them with great clarity:

Although in pressing the handle downwards the prisoner has only the five pounds to bear down, yet in lifting it up, when nearest his body, he has to exert a force equal to at least three times that weight; and according to the same evidence, the labour would be of a nature most severe and exhausting; insomuch as, taking into account the speed with which it must be performed in order to accomplish the number of revolutions required for a day’s work, 10,000 namely, or nearly 30 revolutions a minute, we were assured that, in order to accomplish such a task, a boy would necessarily exert a force equal to one-fourth of the ordinary work of a draught horse; the average estimate of the work of a boy, in ordinary labour out of a prison, being about one-tenth of the same.

Young Andrews, unable to complete the work, was not only put on bread and water but also, on Lieutenant Austin’s characteristically harsh order, dressed in the “punishment jacket.” This consisted of an ordinary straitjacket, combined—again illegally—with a leather collar fixed around the prisoner’s neck and attached to the wall. “Very speedily after [the jackets’] introduction into the prison,” the commissioners explained, “they appear to have been converted into ordinary implements of punishment for non-performance of prison labour or breaches of prison discipline (frequently of a very trivial nature).”

The commissioners describe how the “punishment jacket” worked: “the prisoner being first muffled in the strait jacket, having his arms tied together on his breast, the leather stock fastened tightly round his neck, and being, moreover (where the punishment was inflicted by day), in almost every case strapped to the wall of his cell, in a standing position, by means of strong leather straps passed round the upper parts of the arms, and fastened to staples or hooks in the wall, so tightly as to draw back the arms into and keep them in a constrained and necessarily painful position, at the same time compressing them.” After watching a willing volunteer strapped into the jacket, the commissioners realized that “it was obvious that such a mode of restraint must necessarily, if continued for several hours, be productive of great pain—in truth, that it must be an engine of positive torture.” Their conclusion: “With respect, then, to the case of Edward Andrews, we are of opinion that, by the order and with the knowledge of the governor, he was punished illegally and cruelly, and was driven thereby to the commission of suicide.”

The conclusion reflected a proper and transparently honest sifting of the evidence. The Macpherson report did not. Since 1854, prison conditions have improved. Since 1999, race relations have not.

Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His new book is Not with a Bang but a Whimper.


Boris Johnson Claims That Bill MacPherson Is Not A Fool Or A Rogue
Believe him if you want. I do not.


Damilola Taylor
Taylor was also a black killed in England. The media were on to this one like flies to the proverbial in the hope that Englishmen could be accused. It was blacks so they all went quiet.


Max Clifford & Lawrence
Unpaid work and death threats
Clifford sometimes works for no payment. A contestant on the BBC gameshow The Weakest Link who was a prostitute turned to Clifford for help with tabloid harassment: he did not charge her because he claimed he felt sorry for her. He also worked without fee for Martyn and Kay Tott, who tried to get £3m from Camelot on the winning lottery ticket they bought and mislaid.

On the other hand, he has received death threats demanding that he sever links with the five men who were suspected of the killing of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. Clifford says he has never represented them, but had merely put them in touch with ITV interviewer Martin Bashir. He also received death threats when he represented O.J. Simpson during his trial
The left has plenty of Useful Idiots who are vicious as well as self righteous.


 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
She added, "All in all there is no evidence of any of Stephen Lawrence's blood on any of the items of the suspects' clothing examined, but this is not a powerful point for the defence." That is perfectly true, but the absence of blood meant that there was no scientific evidence to put before a court of connection between the suspects and Stephen Lawrence in this respect.
No scientific evidence and not much circumstantial evidence means they should have beaten the rap. They did first time round.


Stephen Lawrence Killing And Malicious Prosecution [ 19 July 2010 ]
Stephen Lawrence suspects 'to face murder charges in months' At least two members of the race-hate gang originally accused of killing Stephen Lawrence could soon be charged with the 1993 murder. Following a sensational DNA breakthrough in the case  -  revealed by the Daily Mail  -  senior officers are now 'very hopeful' that they will be able to press criminal charges. Further forensic tests, carried out earlier this year, have strengthened the belief that there is sufficient evidence to mount a successful prosecution...........

Under new 'double jeopardy' laws introduced in 2005, suspects acquitted of murder can now be retried if there is 'new and compelling evidence', raising the prospect that Dobson, now 35, Neil Acourt, 35, and Knight, 33 could go on trial again at the Old Bailey..............

The 800-year-old 'double jeopardy' rule prevented anyone from being tried twice for the same crime.
The point of the double jeopardy rule is to prevent malicious prosecution by the state. This is malicious prosecution by racist criminals and their Useful Idiots


Stephen Lawrence Job, Double Jeopardy And Malicious Prosecution [ 20 May 2011 ]
I logged on to Twitter today to find it abuzz with celebration. Gary Dobson, who several years back was found not guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence, is to be put on trial for a second time – alongside another suspect who has not yet been  tried.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence,  still stands out as a symbol, not only of the reality of racial violence , but also the Met’s casual disregard for the welfare of black youth. So it is understandable that the news of a second trial has provoked such celebration. Yet we should nonetheless ask questions about  the decision to put Gary Dobson through a second trial, after his original acquittal.

Up until 2003 this trial would have been an impossibility. The ancient laws on Double Jeopardy prevented individuals being tried twice for the same crime.  It represented a crucial check against judicial persecution, and against authorities determined to “roll again” in the hope of a more politically expedient verdict.  It was the New Labour government – with its shabby, utilitarian attitude towards longstanding legal and civil rights -  that scrapped the principle. For Blair and for Brown, rights and liberties which inconvenienced the Fight Against Crime needed to be slashed or circumvented. And so we got ASBO’s which allowed ad hoc punishments for non crimes, we got the Vetting and Barring Scheme, and 30 day detention.

If there were ever a case to which the double jeopardy principle was relevant, it is this one. The check on perpetual prosecution matters most where there is great extra-judicial pressure to secure a conviction. And that, for better or worse, is the Stephen Lawrence case all over. Many rightly see the mess made of the original investigation as a burning injustice. And, perhaps more importantly, the criminal justice system, which failed Stephen Lawrence so badly the first time around, sees an opportunity to redeem itself, and reassert its legitimacy.

Aside from all other things, it is worth thinking about the function of trials, for the accused as well as all others. It is often said that criminal trials bring closure to the victim. Yet the conclusion of a trial should also bring some closure to the accused, many of whom will be innocent, some of whom will have been living for months or years under the threat of a lengthy prison sentence. If the state, with all of the resources it has at its disposal cannot prove somebody’s guilt, it is not unreasonable to expect that they ought to be able to get on with the rest of their lives without the sword of Damocles wedged in their ceiling.

Some guilty men will go free. But then they always have. For that is the price that we have always chosen to pay for living in a free society.
A Jew(?) writes honestly about malice.


Another Malicious Prosecution In Stephen Lawrence Case [ 14 November 2011 ]
The parents of Stephen Lawrence have arrived at the Old Bailey as the trial began of two men accused of his murder. Doreen and Neville Lawrence came to court to see the start of the trial of Gary Dobson, 36, and David Norris, 35, both of south London. Dobson and Norris deny murdering 18-year-old Stephen who was stabbed to death by a gang of white youths in Eltham, south-east London, in April 1993.
 Lawrence was killed by white men in Eltham, at a bus stop in Well Hall Road. They did not get the other black because he ran faster. The word there at the time was that the perpetrators had previous and that  Lawrence did too. The authorities have kept their mouths firmly shut regarding his track record. In fact they claim that he is a minor saint because, and only because he is black. The BBC led the chorus of hate directed at the alleged perps, closely followed by the Guardian. The law of England was changed precisely so they could have a second attempt at putting them in prison. This is the third and  Malicious prosecution. The grounds for this one are that there is "new" and "compelling" evidence. Any one believes that to be true should have a word with a good psychiatrist.

The point of the Double Jeopardy law is that it prevents further prosecutions. Once a man has a not guilty verdict he walks free whether he did it or not. Malicious prosecution like this is an abuse of government power driven by hate. This a case of Misconduct In Public Office, Malfeasance in office, Selective Prosecution, Vexatious litigation but not perhaps Perverting the course of justice.
PS A Modern Witch Trial by Theodore Dalrymple is good commentary on a bad case.
PPS One standard defence that is used when police are trying to lie their way out of trouble is that the jurors have been misled by the publicity. It works for them. It will be treated with contemptuous indifference this time.


The Stephen Lawrence Retrial - The Spectator's Comments Are Censored @ A vindictive charade [ 17 November 2011 ]

The law has been changed with malice aforethought. The jury has been packed. This is not Double Jeopardy, this is Triple Jeopardy. They hate the Englishman alleged to have killed a black because and only because he was black. This is gross Racism. It is anti-English Racism but none the less illegal for that. You don't have to believe that  Cameron is complicit but he is not objecting. He supports UAF [ Unite Against Fascism ], a Marxist front operation. Blair wanted the law changed to exercise his malice. The judge has ordered the jury not to read The Spectator's article so doubtless he has been told to convict. But read an earlier Spectator article next.


Second Lawrence Trial Driven By Official Hatred [ 17 November 2011 ]
According to paragraph 4.3 [ 4.6.3 in fact - Ed. ] of the Home Secretary's White Paper Justice for All [ Except Englishmen of course - Editor ], entitled 'Double Jeopardy', the Stephen Lawrence report is cited as a sole and sufficient reason for the change........

The implication of the White Paper could not be clearer. We are going to revisit that dark, dank road in Eltham [ There is nothing dark or damp about Well Hall Road - Editor ] where Stephen Lawrence was stabbed twice by a group of five or six white youths on 22 April 1993, and had two axillary arteries severed. We are going to hunt down the youths, a couple of whom have just been imprisoned for another racist offence, and we are going to make them pay....

No one has come forward with new evidence, and it is hard to see how any more could credibly be produced, so long after the event.
Any claim that this breach of the law on Double Jeopardy is justified due to "new" and "compelling" evidence is blatantly untrue. It happened with the collusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Court of Appeal.
PS In the Daily Mail's version there  are fibres which match. They might be compelling evidence but they are certainly not new. The forensic mob are incompetent or cheating.


An Assessment Of Racist Hate In The Establishment [  5 January 2012 ]
Anna Racoon writes fairly. She does not say that MacPherson, the judge who did the inquiry was a fool or a moral coward who allowed himself to be intimidated by race hustlers. I do. So in essence does Theodore Dalrymple in A Modern Witch Trial
Almost 19 years have passed since Stephen Lawrence was murdered, a longer period of time than he had lived. The passage of time, and, dare I say it, the prevailing ideology of these times have blunted the chronology of events. Important details are missing from the apparently universal joy with which the conviction of Dobson and Norris are greeted this morn by the media........

I cannot forget the involvement of leading players in the politically correct movement who latched onto this relatively ordinary ‘stabbing incident’ and turned it into a cause célèbre.

Herman Ouseley [ Ouseley is a black in the race relations racket which is why he a baron - Editor ], then chairman of the Equality Commission was first on the scene, telephoning the Met Commissioner in the early hours of the 23rd April to say that ‘it was imperative’ that this stabbing be investigated as a racist crime......

Even as the police were reviewing their evidence, other powerful players were entering the scene – for their own reasons. 14 days after Stephen was stabbed, Nelson Mandela [ a communist  front man,, responsible for far more deaths than Norris - Editor ] saw an opportunity to put apartheid back on the international stage. He invited the Lawrence’s to meet him in London, and shortly after gave a press conference:.......

Dobson sentenced to 15 years and 2 months, David Norris 14 years and 3 months. The rest of us sentenced to a lifetime of skewed race relations.
Her Majesty's Government has swallowed the propaganda it was fed by racists who hate England, at university, in the Main Stream Media and quite possibly with their mothers' milk. Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition is corrupted as well.
PS You might like to compare this Malicious prosecution with the eagerness of a Labour regime to apologise to Tzipi Livni, an Israeli war criminal because a warrant for her arrest was issued at the behest of her victims.


Metropolitan Police Gave Stephen Lawrence Family £320,000 Tax Free Pay Off [ 28 January 2012 ]
October 2000: Lawrences accept £320,000 compensation from police.
Did they have to sue for it? Not a chance. Do honest Englishmen get heavy weight bungs like this if their sons are murdered by blacks? Not a chance. This is Racism but anti-English racism. Was it all over the Main Stream Media? No! They are just as Racist as the Met.


Foul Mouthed Black In Stephen Lawrence Case Gets £100 Thousand Tax Free Bung [ 28 January 2012 ]
In 2006, the Metropolitan Police paid Duwayne Brooks  compensation of £100,000 for his [ alleged ] mistreatment following Stephen’s murder. This included false accusations, including one of stealing a can of drink at an identification parade. There is no report of any officer being reprimanded.
The Wiki would have us believe that Brooks is some kind of saint because he is black. He is a foul mouthed oaf who said to the police:- “Who called you  fucking cunts anyway, pigs, I only called an ambulance.” Charm was not his priority. Did they arrest the little swine? No! They bunged him £100,000. They are Racists.


Racists Fail In Further Hate Campaign Against Two Englishmen [ 2 February 2012 ]
Appeal to increase sentences of Stephen Lawrence's killers fails as Attorney General rules jail terms were not 'unduly lenient'
The sentences handed out to the two race-hate thugs for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence will not be referred by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal for a decision on whether they are ‘unduly lenient’. The decision not to refer the jail terms imposed on Gary Dobson and David Norris was made by Dominic Grieve, the country's top law officer.
The Guardian is full of hate against working class Englishman, just like the BBC and other communist subversives. In fact the whole of the Establishment has been corrupted by the followers of Antonio Gramsci, the leading theoretician of the communist party in Italy. Flooding England with Third World parasites is main stream policy for Her Majesty's Government & Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition. Who tried this particular bit of nastiness? The  Mail is not telling us but then the truth comes far behind the agenda.


Stephen Lawrence Brother Alleges Police Racism [ 9 January 2013 ]
Stephen Lawrence's teacher brother to sue police for discrimination over claims he gets pulled over without proper justification 'all the time'.............. Sources said Mr. Lawrence, 35, was left furious and deeply sceptical about the reasons police gave for wanting to question him.

The father of one has instructed lawyers to lodge a formal complaint with Scotland Yard. This will include a detailed log he has kept of all the times he has been stopped.

The move will send shock waves through the Metropolitan Police force, which in 1999 was accused of being institutionally racist by the inquiry into Stephen’s murder............

He and Doreen, who was then his wife, received £320,000 compensation from the Met for its botched handling of their son’s murder........ Recent research showed that black people are six times more likely to be stopped by police than white people.
Lawrence got a £320,000 bung from the filth. The other one, Brooks, a foul mouthed oik got a £100 Thousand pay off. They are tax free which makes a big difference in this wicked world. Now another is chancing his arm. They are like flies on the proverbial. Stopping blacks is wrong? Letting blacks get away with crime is wrong? See the next too. Yes, of course Pakistanis are criminals too.
PS The Daily Mail is a Propaganda machine marketing anti-English Racism to honest working people


Brooks Says Don't Waste Money Hounding The Alleged Perps [ 21 April 2013 ]
Has he got bored with corrupt, Racist politicians pandering to him, inciting Black Rage? Will we ever know? Will the hate machine, the Main Stream Media tell us? No.


Racist Media Generating More Anti-White Propaganda Using Lawrence Case [ 7 March 2014 ]

This photo has been cut to hide the nature of the attackers, which is to say black. Notice that the filth are standing back, letting the negroes get away with exercising their right to Hatred, to be Racist. The Main Stream Media are Propaganda machines. The party line is that The Establishment was Perverting The Course Of Justice for the benefit of patriotic Englishmen; the precise reverse of the truth. Of course there was a bent copper involved. Is there any other sort? The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry used MacPherson, a judge who was a senior man in the SAS and the chief of his clan. He is none the less a moral coward who allowed himself to be intimidated by race hustlers or a fool. Alternatively he is both.

Stephen Lawrence Case - An Assessment Of Racist Hate In The Establishment

Anna Racoon writes fairly. She does not say that MacPherson, the judge who did the inquiry was a fool or a moral coward who allowed himself to be intimidated by race hustlers. I do. So does Theodore Dalrymple in A Modern Witch Trial

Is this Justice for Stephen Lawrence? - Anna Raccoon 
Anna Racoon writes fairly.
Almost 19 years have passed since Stephen Lawrence was murdered, a longer period of time than he had lived.

The passage of time, and, dare I say it, the prevailing ideology of these times have blunted the chronology of events. Important details are missing from the apparently universal joy with which the conviction of Dobson and Norris are greeted this morn by the media.

I do not argue with the conviction on the basis of the facts as presented to the jury. I do not seek to exonerate Dobson or Norris as thoroughly decent young men unfairly pilloried in the press.

I do, however, rail against the accepted ‘truths’ that are being peddled to the general public today.

Let us step back in time to the night of April 22nd 1993. Let us imagine that immediately before the incident, one of the Dobson/Norris gang had shouted ‘What, what Taffy?’ or even ‘What, what Paddy?’, had that been a reasonable assumption to make of their racial origin, rather than ‘What, what Nigger?’ and ask ourselves whether we would have had the same media coverage?

I cannot forget the involvement of leading players in the politically correct movement who latched onto this relatively ordinary ‘stabbing incident’ and turned it into a cause célèbre.

Herman Ouseley [ Ouseley is a black in the race relations racket which is why he a baron - Editor ], then chairman of the Equality Commission was first on the scene, telephoning the Met Commissioner in the early hours of the 23rd April to say that ‘it was imperative’ that this stabbing be investigated as a racist crime.

Why ‘imperative’ – it might indeed have been the outcome of the police investigation that there was no more to this incident than the colour of Stephen Lawrence’s skin, but that phone call, from you might say, an interested body, excluded any possibility that this might have been no more than the tragic outcome of the tribal nature of young men in a working class society – not that it was the colour of Stephen’s skin that had led to the stabbing, but that he was not of the same ‘tribe’.

A negative motive rather than a positive motive. That possibility doesn’t make Stephen’s death any more or less regrettable, it doesn’t exonerate Dobson or Norris; it is, however, a fact that we have been swept along on a tide of powerful opinion to ignore that possibility which has so changed our society.

We are told repeatedly that the Police response to this stabbing was ‘inept’ – and following the MacPherson report, that this was as a result of ‘institutionalised racism’. We are left with the impression that the police merely shrugged their shoulders and said ‘it’s only a black kid, ignore it’.

Yet if you read the MacPherson report, you will learn that,  as was normal procedure, the Territorial Support Group were touring the area in several vans with dogs searching for possible suspects even before the ambulance had left the scene. That the senior investigating officer, DS Crampton, worked on the case for 18 hours continuously, assembling a 25 strong team of officers, before returning home for a break.

They were not successful, undeniably, but that is hardly evidence that this was for ‘racist’ reasons.

David Norris and Neil Acourt were named by several anonymous and one identified caller as ‘possibly’ being involved. ‘Possibly’ isn’t evidence. ‘Possibly’ is merely one of a number of telephone calls, a common occurrence in gang areas, where well known names are ‘put in the frame’ as a result of grudges. No one, but no one,  came forward to say that they had actually seen the attack.

Should the police rush out and arrest people merely because someone has phoned the station and said ‘X’ might be involved? The fact that it was subsequently proved that at least one of those names was involved doesn’t argue the case that the only reason Norris and Dobson weren’t picked up and charged straight away was ‘racism’. It only argues the case that the police didn’t want to make a move before they had actual evidence.

Even as the police were reviewing their evidence, other powerful players were entering the scene – for their own reasons. 14 days after Stephen was stabbed, Nelson Mandela [ a communist  front man used by Jews, responsible for far more deaths than Norris - Editor ] saw an opportunity to put Apartheid back on the international stage. He invited the Lawrences to meet him in London, and shortly after gave a press conference:

I’m deeply touched by the brutality of this murder. It’s something we are all too used to in South Africa where black lives are cheap.’

The involvement of Mandela prompted Mrs. Lawrence to ask why the British government had failed to express it’s sorrow at the death of her son. You can see the bandwagon gathering strength as you read these old newspaper reports. Without Mandela’s involvement, can you imagine that any other Mother of a stabbing victim would have been expressing outrage that the government had failed to take an interest in her loss?

By the 28th April a mere six days after the murder, Imran Khan had been appointed as solicitor for the ‘victim’s family’ and was insisting that all police communication with the family went through him He was also accompanying them on a round of interviews with the press. Khan had qualified as a solicitor just eighteen months before this case was referred to him – it was to cement his reputation as a ‘leading human rights lawyer’. In 2000 Khan was quoted as saying, in respect of his penchant for taking on difficult cases often involving persons of colour in conflict with the police:

“This area is fashionable at the moment. We have got to make sure that it is not just a fad but that it continues.

Equally within a day of the murder, the Greenwich based Action Against Racial Attacks had taken up residence inside the Lawrence home and were controlling access to them. The Anti-Nazi League were present as was the Black Panther Group.

The day after Mandela’s press conference, 15 days after the stabbing, the Acourt brothers, Dobson and Norris were arrested. The police thought they did have enough evidence. The CPS disagreed. Note: the CPS. The ‘institutionally racist’ police had acted pretty promptly, however, the forensic evidence failed to back them up and the CPS refused to prosecute. Quite correctly in my view – if you don’t have the evidence to back up a prosecution, you don’t proceed.

Mrs. Lawrence meanwhile, with the press at her feet, feted by world leaders, was now convinced that racism was the sole reason for her son’s death, indeed, had not the first police officers at the scene ‘not wanted to get their hands dirty with a black man’s blood’? Had they not? The first police officers at the scene was an off-duty officer. Out for the evening, with his wife, in their best clothes – no one even questioned whether they would have chosen to ‘dirty their hands’ with anyone else’s blood. They did administer first aid – it was not sufficient. Stephen’s friend dialled 999 at 10.43. The ambulance arrived at 10.54, eleven minutes later. In those 11 minutes, the insufficient efforts of an off-duty policeman who had chosen to get involved, to identify himself as a police officer, lay condemned as more evidence of racism. 17 minutes later, the full panoply of the NHS had also failed to save Stephen – they didn’t get labelled as racist. The press lapped it up. By the time evidence was given to MacPherson, this emerged from the mouth of Edmund Lawson QC as Stephen ‘being denied‘ first aid.

The police investigation continued – despite covert recordings of the Acourt gang in their home, issuing racist threats, demonstrating how one might stab a man, the CPS concluded that this was insufficient evidence to prosecute them for stabbing Stephen Lawrence. Rightly so.

Enter Michael Mansfield QC. Mansfield decided that those covert recordings plus what proved to be inadmissible evidence of the Acourt gang being identified by Stephen’s friend Duwayne Brooks might persuade a jury on the balance of probability not proven beyond doubt that being seen to express racist views and being identified by a young man who would almost certainly have known by sight these local gang leaders was sufficient to ignore the CPS advice and proceed with a private prosecution.

The case collapsed, and at the inquest held shortly afterwards, Mrs. Lawrence was to claim that the Crown Court case had ‘been rigged’ – its purpose being to prove to the black community that their lives were worth nothing – “Our crime is living in a country where the justice system supports racist murders against innocent people”.

Mrs. Lawrence complained to the Police Complaints Authority on 6 grounds. The off duty policeman had failed to administer sufficient first aid; the management of the murder scene; the police liaison service; the conduct of the murder investigation; the lack of commitment because it was a black youth who had been murdered, and possible corruption.

Kent police investigated on behalf of the PCA and did not find ‘any evidence to support allegations of racist conduct by police officers’. They did find evidence of incompetence in some areas of the management of the murder scene – but we are still a long way from finding any evidence of ‘institutional racism’, albeit that we have a lot of allegations being flung around.

Fast forward to 1997, and New Labour took over the government. The MacPherson Inquiry was set up ‘to investigate matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence, and find what lessons could be learned from the prosecution of racially motivated crimes’. No evidence had been produced to show that this was a racially motivated crime, but it was now cemented in the public eye as being so. The alleged perpetrators had been shown to be racist in their views, the Daily Mail had named them as murderers, how could there be any doubt that Stephen had been stabbed purely because of the colour of his skin? Given that the police had been found to have been incompetent in their investigation, how could there be any conclusion other than that this was because they were racist too? Mere incompetence was never going to be allowed as an answer.

Unfortunately, MacPherson found that the inquiry had ‘not heard any evidence of overt racism or discrimination’ unless you included the use of ‘inappropriate expressions such as ‘coloured or ‘negro’ – oh dear, three million quid, and we still haven’t found evidence of racism. Only one thing to do – change the definition.

So they did. Racism could be ‘detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people’. I do urge you to actually read the MacPherson report – contrary to what you hear in the media, they found no evidence of racism, even though the at times kangaroo court nature of the proceedings required Metropolitan police officers to ‘confess’ their innermost thoughts – and those of other people they worked with. Racism was now something which ‘others’ could detect, it was in the eye of the beholder, even when you were acting out of thoughtlessness or incompetence.

As a result of the MacPherson inquiry, it became racist in and of itself to even question whether Stephen Lawrence’s murder was racist. The Acourt gang had been accused of the murders of white gang members before Laurence but this fact was largely hidden from the reading public.

Mrs. Lawrence’s evidence to MacPherson is more than interesting. She started her evidence by saying that ‘I personally have never had any racism directed at me’. Yet she was quite, quite sure that Stephen’s murder was racist? On what evidence?

Since MacPherson, we have had 800 years of the double jeopardy ruling overturned to ensure that Dobson and Norris could be held to account yet again for the murder of Stephen, albeit that it wasn’t strictly overturned just for them – successfully so this time, with the aid of forensic DNA evidence that was not available at the time of the first trial. We now await their sentencing – which cannot be any harsher than it would have been at the time of the murder, so we are told. Yet aspects of their trial are undoubtedly harsher than they would have been – the double jeopardy ruling itself allowing them to go to trial, and they have been convicted on the basis of forensic evidence that would not have been possible in 1996.

That they are guilty, there is little doubt – yet I am left with uncomfortable feelings surrounding this case, which feels more like a political show trial than an unbiased search for justice. The phrases ‘institutional racism’ as ‘found by the MacPherson Inquiry’ are quoted time and again, there is apparently no doubt in anyone’s mind that this was a ‘racist crime’ as is every crime against a black person and is a direct legacy of Stephen Lawrence, yet I can find no evidence that this was ever investigated as anything other than a racist crime. I only see the early intervention by some significant players in the ‘race relations industry’.

In the past few days we have seen frequent interviews from the head of the ‘Black Police Association’ [ Ali Dizaei(?) - an Iranian crook who got off with four years - Editor ], we hear nothing from the ‘White Police Officers Association’. Oh, there isn’t one. Dr Richard Stone, advisor to the MacPherson Inquiry was so overcome with emotion at the news that Dobson and Norris ‘had been convicted of a racist crime’ that he sobbed his way through early interviews.

Were the police ‘institutionally racist’ in their ‘incompetent’ handling of the investigation into the murder of PC Blakelock? Of course not – the legacy of the Lawrence affair, the MacPherson Inquiry, and the various race relations activists is that racism is only practised by white police officers against black victims. Or in interviewing black suspects. But never in relation to failing to arrest and convict black suspects.

Dobson sentenced to 15 years and 2 months, David Norris 14 years and 3 months. The rest of us sentenced to a lifetime of skewed race relations.
We are being subjected to race hatred by Her Majesty's Government


The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
She added, "All in all there is no evidence of any of Stephen Lawrence's blood on any of the items of the suspects' clothing examined, but this is not a powerful point for the defence." That is perfectly true, but the absence of blood meant that there was no scientific evidence to put before a court of connection between the suspects and Stephen Lawrence in this respect.
No scientific evidence and not much circumstantial evidence means they should have beaten the rap. They did first time round.


Peter Hitchens Tells Us That The Law Should Not Be Perverted Out Of Malice
And quotes Saint Thomas More to the effect that the law protects us all.



Bent Police In Lawrence Case Being Leaned On [ 17 October 2015 ]
A new investigation has been launched into allegations police corruption protected the murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence.......... The National Crime Agency probe comes more than two decades after the 18-year-old was stabbed to death by a racist gang.

Any findings will be reported back to the police watchdog, and could result in criminal proceedings. The investigation has been active for more than six months, but only came to light today.
The Met is bent; that is reality. The police are sturdy liars who know all about Resistance to Interrogation so they shouldn't  really have a problem. It is just an excuse to lean the Englishmen accused of killing Lawrence because he was a black alien. Compare this thoroughly nasty bit of anti-English Racism with the enthusiastic indifference of the South Yorkshire Police, Main Stream Media & Her Majesty's Government to crime committed by the Pakistani Perverts who Raped 1,400 English girls in Rotherham alone. One man in the Yorkshire force was 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe who refuses to investigate racism when greasy little Pakistani chancers like 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham are at it.


LCJ Allows Double Jeopardy Breach
This judgment is long winded as these things are. It is bad law made to mount a Malicious Prosecution.


Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

Updated on 22/06/2017 19:09