(UK) Stephen Lawrence murder - Dobson & Norris Guilty

ejmaztec · 04-01-2012 11:58PM

sausagehead wrote: »

Miscarriages happen!
remember Birmingham six, Guildford four, most people thought they were guilty at the time! because the media told us so!

Batsy got banned for expressing his belief in this case and its the belief of a lot of people in England, i would believe someone from england who has a greater understanding of this stuff, than some paddy watching the bbc or sky.

I'm from England, and was brought up in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic community and wouldn't agree that a lot of people in England give two sh1ts about the murderers in this case.

There's a bunch of no-hopers in the UK who believe that immigrants are responsible for their problems, and these are the only people calling the end result of this case a miscarriage of justice. These people would still be no-hopers even if there were no immigrants, because they probably slid through the education system, missing most of it on the way.

sausagehead · 04-01-2012 11:59PM

Dudess wrote: »

Well if you think it's reasonable to just throw out a belief and not support it, you'd probably be better off not getting involved in an online discussion.
You don't have to understand British society to see the flaws in what he was babbling on about. You don't even need to be aged 13.
Gang culture/ethnic tension are serious problems in parts of Britain - doesn't lessen the stupidity of what was said here though.

His belief that they are innocent, could come from the evidence from the court case! they had alibis! and the flimsy DNA evidence. Does that have to be supported by a link or what!

Socialist_Pig · 05-01-2012 12:01AM

tnynll wrote: »

whats your point?? just because someone has low posts means they dont have a valid point ?? some people have lives and cant post every second of every day

a lot of banned troll's re-reg and this type of thread(along with ones on Israel) attract them like flies to lump of sh1t.

Having a low post count doesnt invalidate a lot of new comers posts,but if see a new boardsie posting racist cr@p they are nearly all re-reg'd trolls or fresh ones.

Before you ask I closed a 4yr old account the day I set this one up:pac:

El Weirdo · 05-01-2012 12:04AM

sausagehead wrote: »

His belief that they are innocent, could come from the evidence from the court case! they had alibis! and the flimsy DNA evidence. Does that have to be supported by a link or what!

I think you'll find Batsy was banned because he kept on banging on about Stephen Lawrence being in a gang without providing any evidence, other than the fact he was black, to back up his claims despite being asked on numerous occasions to do so.

His banning was bugger all to do with his belief that the two accused were innocent.

K-9 · 05-01-2012 12:09AM

tnynll wrote: »

whats your point?? just because someone has low posts means they dont have a valid point ?? some people have lives and cant post every second of every day

Ah yeah, as Socialist Pig says these threads attract them like a pig to shyte.

sausagehead · 05-01-2012 12:24AM

Batsy wrote: »

Only because the judge put pressure on them to find the two men guilty.

I prefer to believe the theory that Lawrence was part of one of London's many gangs and that he was murdered by a rival gang member

Theorys aren't facts. so there is no need to to back it with evidence!

Dudess · 05-01-2012 12:28AM

tnynll wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

Lot of re-regs and low post newcomers on threads like this, never changes.

whats your point?? just because someone has low posts means they dont have a valid point ?? some people have lives and cant post every second of every day

You know he means it's such a coincidence when a sh1t-stirrer is banned and a newly registered person or people post in support of the banned member.

Dudess · 05-01-2012 12:30AM

sausagehead wrote: »

Batsy wrote: »

Only because the judge put pressure on them to find the two men guilty.

I prefer to believe the theory that Lawrence was part of one of London's many gangs and that he was murdered by a rival gang member

Theorys aren't facts. so there is no need to to back it with evidence!

Yes there is - otherwise you could say anything about anything and the nutter ratio would go up. Not fair on those running the site. It's telling how he "prefers" to believe that theory - of course he does, because he hates blacks.

KINGVictor · 05-01-2012 12:32AM

sausagehead wrote: »

Theorys aren't facts. so there is no need to to back it with evidence!

Well I could theorise that you are a bloody racist, bigot and a very intolerable individual that should be kept in an asylum in the 21st century for the benefit of mankind but I cant back it up with evidence so my theory is BS.....

So is Batsys...you get me?

Dudess · 05-01-2012 12:37AM

The defence of those killers speaks to me as follows: "You can't even stab a black man to death these days without the PC brigade giving you grief" and not in a funny way... :-/

Father Damo · 05-01-2012 12:40AM

The whol;e thing seems tremendously dodgy. Overturning the double jeopardy law and then miracolously finding new evidence.....sounds awful fishy. This case has been following the Met around like a bad smell for years now, they were eager to get rid of it.

I also dont get how the police had come in for so much stick. The CPS were the ones who refused to persue it. ****, the police went to the effort of obtaining a court order to break into a suspects house and plant surveillance- that is effort Ive seldom seen with any other cases!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lawrence

At most there is one unproven claim of bribery. I think a bent cop would be prepared to take a bribe regardless of the victims race tbh.

Im not saying they werent involved- they probably were. However people, particularly in Ireland, should be wiser than to know someone isnt guilty just because the newspapers say they are.

El Weirdo · 05-01-2012 12:47AM

Father Damo wrote: »

I also dont get how the police had come in for so much stick. The CPS were the ones who refused to persue it. ****, the police went to the effort of obtaining a court order to break into a suspects house and plant surveillance- that is effort Ive seldom seen with any other cases!

Well for one, the police took nearly two weeks to arrest any of the suspects despite them being named in tip-offs over 25 times in the 48hrs after the murder. Plenty of time for vital evidence to be disposed of.

Father Damo · 05-01-2012 12:54AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

Well for one, the police took nearly two weeks to arrest any of the suspects despite them being named in tip-offs over 25 times in the 48hrs after the murder. Plenty of time for vital evidence to be disposed of.

20 minutes is plenty of time to dispose of evidence. Truth is probably every young scobie in the area had his name mentioned at one point. Police cant go barging down doors in dawn raids because someone left some written messages in a bloody post box. You do realise that in order to obtain an arrest and search warrant the police have to present a judge with some sort of reasonable suspicion? Names on anonymous notes and the suspect having a rep as being a bit of a knacker? Please.

Chuck Stone · 05-01-2012 12:59AM

brummytom wrote: »

Reading your posts, I couldn't be any less proud to be British.

I wouldn't worry too much about people who'd be dopey enough to think that Batsy was in any way representative of the vast majority of decent British folk.

bwatson wrote: »

So it is racist now to say that black people are by far the most intollerant section of British society that I have come across?

Maybe not racist - just pointless.

sausagehead wrote: »

Batsy got banned for expressing his belief in this case and its the belief of a lot of people in England

People believe in fairies, ghosts and all sorts of rubbish too but that doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.

El Weirdo · 05-01-2012 12:59AM

Father Damo wrote: »

20 minutes is plenty of time to dispose of evidence. Truth is probably every young scobie in the area had his name mentioned at one point. Police cant go barging down doors in dawn raids because someone left some written messages in a bloody post box. You do realise that in order to obtain an arrest and search warrant the police have to present a judge with some sort of reasonable suspicion? Names on anonymous notes and the suspect having a rep as being a bit of a knacker? Please.

I wasn't on about the message in the post box. I was on about phone tip-offs.

Also:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The policeman heading the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation has said he failed to realise he could make early arrests of the suspects because he did not understand a basic tenet of criminal law.

Det Supt Brian Weeden led the investigation into the racist murder of the black A-level student for 18 months - starting three days after the killing.

Stephen died after being stabbed at Eltham in south London in 1993. Mr Weeden told the inquiry into the murder and police investigation that he did not realise he could arrest the key suspects as soon as he had "reasonable grounds for belief".
Instead, he insisted on waiting for firm evidence of guilt.
Despite having headed heading a number of previous murder inquiries, Mr Weeden said he had only recently realised, after receiving legal advice, that that was the normal requirement for an arrest.

Michael Mansfield QC, for the Lawrence family, asked him: "Do you find that it is rather disturbing that it has taken you all this time to recognise a basic tenet of criminal law?" Mr Weeden, now retired, responded: "I think it is regrettable."

He said the evidence of a key witness would have provided him with enough proof to make arrests being made within hours. Stephen's father Neville, who is attending the inquiry, was angry and incredulous that Mr Weeden has misunderstood the law.

"I am sick and disgusted to hear a senior police officer of 30 years experience admit that he did not know the police powers to arrest," he said outside the hearing.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] "First of all they say it was a lack of information. Now they are saying they didn't know the law. What next?"[/FONT]

Latchy · 05-01-2012 01:17AM

This case has been one rollercoaster of a ride which has finally brought justice to the family because of their determination to get it .When you hear of the poloice inspector who arrived on the case only to head off down to local pub to ' gather information ' it does tell you where the law and police reaction was at the time .

Father Damo · 05-01-2012 02:07AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

I wasn't on about the message in the post box. I was on about phone tip-offs.

Also:

All that says to me is that the officer was incompetent, not racist.

Again, its probably better that these two are off the streets but putting people away on flimsy evidence after a trial by media sets an awfully dangerous precedent. There were people calling for Joe Reilly to be hung after he appeared on the Late Late for "looking" guilty- a disturbing amount of the public dont seem to get the idea of trials, proof and evidence. And in this trial there was no concrete witness statements and some rather questionable DNA evidence. I wouldnt be surprised if this is thrown out on appeal.

El Weirdo · 05-01-2012 02:14AM

Father Damo wrote: »

All that says to me is that the officer was incompetent, not racist.

You asked why the police came in for so much stick and I gave you an example. I didn't mention police racism.

Logical Fallacy · 05-01-2012 02:41AM

Batsy wrote: »

Of course, the left wing ruling elite of Britain prefer to make us believe that because the victim was black then his killer (or killers) were obviously a group of thuggish, racist white men.

Given when the crime was committed, i just copped on that you are calling John Major left wing.

lol

El Weirdo · 05-01-2012 02:51AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Given when the crime was committed, i just copped on that you are calling John Major left wing.

lol

Don't forget the extreme left-wing publication that outed the gang as murderers.

bruschi · 05-01-2012 10:05AM

Father Damo wrote: »

All that says to me is that the officer was incompetent, not racist.

Again, its probably better that these two are off the streets but putting people away on flimsy evidence after a trial by media sets an awfully dangerous precedent. There were people calling for Joe Reilly to be hung after he appeared on the Late Late for "looking" guilty- a disturbing amount of the public dont seem to get the idea of trials, proof and evidence. And in this trial there was no concrete witness statements and some rather questionable DNA evidence. I wouldnt be surprised if this is thrown out on appeal.

I dont understand this. You point out the case of Joe O Reilly, who is now imprisoned after being found guilty, with unquestinoable evidence.

There also was concrete witness evidence, Stephen Lawrences friend who witnessed the attacked picked out the accused in a police line up.

Why do you consider the DNA evidence questionable? Do you not think, in the 20 years or so since the murder that scientific advances can actually improve, thereby increasing the foundation on which this evidence is presented? Tests were carried out a number of times, to increase the probablility. They did tests with dried blood to see if cross contamination could be the cause, and it was found negative. Do you really think a defence would not be able to argue against this if it is as flimsy as some seem to think?

Its odd that you seem to question everyone who thinks they are guilty and saying 'its a trial by media' when its clear you dont know much about it yourself.

StephenHendry · 05-01-2012 03:17PM

very good film about stephen lawrence on itv 3 last night. the surveillance video of the main suspects certainly tells you a lot about them,

previous user · 05-01-2012 11:49PM

I'm shocked that one of them went to college and was spouting rascist opinions and was part of the attack on the victim.

Father Damo · 06-01-2012 04:16AM

bruschi wrote: »

There also was concrete witness evidence, Stephen Lawrences friend who witnessed the attacked picked out the accused in a police line up.

Lawrences parents regarded him as a shady character before all this. Hardly a star witness.

Why do you consider the DNA evidence questionable? Do you not think, in the 20 years or so since the murder that scientific advances can actually improve, thereby increasing the foundation on which this evidence is presented? Tests were carried out a number of times, to increase the probablility. They did tests with dried blood to see if cross contamination could be the cause, and it was found negative. Do you really think a defence would not be able to argue against this if it is as flimsy as some seem to think?

Its odd that you seem to question everyone who thinks they are guilty and saying 'its a trial by media' when its clear you dont know much about it yourself.

Absoloute arse.

Again. Yes. They probably did it. Yes. If they did they deserve to be jailed. But jailing people on flimsy or fabricated evidence for political and social clout from the establishment is a dangerous precedent that the Irish know only too well about.

Father Damo · 06-01-2012 04:17AM

previous user wrote: »

I'm shocked that one of them went to college and was spouting rascist opinions and was part of the attack on the victim.

What?

When I was 18 in college a lecturer offered to hold an hour after class as free near on one on one grinds. None of the lads took it up as he mentioned having met his "partner" at a college social- though he didnt act gay the use of partner vs girlfriend had the lads on the sus. This isnt the 60s- college attracts the same level of neanderthal as any other field these days.

JupiterKid · 06-01-2012 06:11AM

Father Damo wrote: »

What?

When I was 18 in college a lecturer offered to hold an hour after class as free near on one on one grinds. None of the lads took it up as he mentioned having met his "partner" at a college social- though he didnt act gay the use of partner vs girlfriend had the lads on the sus. This isnt the 60s- college attracts the same level of neanderthal as any other field these days.

Please tell me what "acting gay" is exactly?

tigger123 · 06-01-2012 09:15AM

Father Damo wrote: »

What?

When I was 18 in college a lecturer offered to hold an hour after class as free near on one on one grinds. None of the lads took it up as he mentioned having met his "partner" at a college social- though he didnt act gay the use of partner vs girlfriend had the lads on the sus. This isnt the 60s- college attracts the same level of neanderthal as any other field these days.

"put the lads on the sus"? What does any of that mean?!

efb · 06-01-2012 09:20AM

Father Damo wrote: »

What?

When I was 18 in college a lecturer offered to hold an hour after class as free near on one on one grinds. None of the lads took it up as he mentioned having met his "partner" at a college social- though he didnt act gay the use of partner vs girlfriend had the lads on the sus. This isnt the 60s- college attracts the same level of neanderthal as any other field these days.

Wha'

El Weirdo · 06-01-2012 10:39AM

Father Damo wrote: »

Lawrences parents regarded him as a shady character before all this. Hardly a star witness.

Duwayne Brooks?

What the fuck difference does what Lawrence's parents thought of him make?

bruschi · 06-01-2012 10:44AM

Father Damo wrote: »

Lawrences parents regarded him as a shady character before all this. Hardly a star witness.

Absoloute arse.

Again. Yes. They probably did it. Yes. If they did they deserve to be jailed. But jailing people on flimsy or fabricated evidence for political and social clout from the establishment is a dangerous precedent that the Irish know only too well about.

arse? why because you say so. You should be a solicitor so with those kind of great rebuttals. It was forensic evidence rpesented in court. if it was flimsy it would have been thrown out. why do you say its 'arse'?

(UK) Stephen Lawrence murder - Dobson & Norris Guilty

Comments