(UK) Stephen Lawrence murder - Dobson & Norris Guilty

bwatson

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Arianna_26 made a valid point and posed a question towards you, which you are refusing to answer

I am not refusing to answer anything.

The question posed by the poster was something I had neither questioned nor disputed.

A Dub in Glasgo

They are certainly crawling from under the rocks today

bwatson

tigger123 wrote: »

You said this was down to your "experience", "and the experience of others", I think people just want to know what you meant by this.

I study in London, I have lived in term time for the past year and a half in an area where tensions between races, youths, gangs, nationalities and so on often come to the fore. Therefore I, and many people I know who also live in very "multicultural" and student areas, would be able to give our opinions on such issues.

Not that you were actually interested in any way, you just do not agree with my opinion, do not agree with me, would not care for my view and simply want to be able to make a post along the lines of:

"thought not...no answer!".

I have, however given an answer as to how I can make such a statement.

Ellis Dee

Marissa Rotten Curler wrote: »

Well the Lawrence family have their pound of flesh, I hope they're happy and leave it be now.

I have never gained the impression that the Lawrence family wanted flesh, or blood or anything other than to see the cowardly racist vermin who murdered their son in cold blood brought to justice and imprisoned.:rolleyes:

That has now happened to two of the thugs, but - as the trial judge said and the dogs in the street know - three and possibly four of the murderous swine are still at large.:)

I'd be surprised if the Lawrence family were happy to leave that situation be. Would you be if it was your son who had been murdered purely because of his skin colour?

Queen-Mise

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Here is the (in)famous Daily Mail front page from 1997

The middle guy in that picture looks REALLY like a younger Keanu Reeves.


I was living in England when this happened, it was vicious killing. It was so frustrating at the time everyone knew it was them that had killed Stephen Lawrence but not enough to get them convicted. Am delighted that they have eventually been brought to justice. They were nasty b*stards. It's good that modern science has been able to convict them.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is true about the detective taking the bribe during the case. The drug-dealing father (not sure which one) of them must be a right nasty piece of work if he could influence the witnesses so much.

Dudess

bwatson wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Well you WOULD be of the opinion that they shouldn't be convicted - simply because he was black. I'm absolutely certain that's why, going by your vile previous posts.

The average Irish person will be far more sympathetic towards black people because there are far fewer, far smaller black communities in the Republic at the moment. Generally, blacks are by far the most viciously racist section of British society, not just to whites, but mainly to whites.

Of course racism exists in all peoples in Britain, but most will not accept that it is anyone but the native whites who are the perpetrators of such crimes.

How is that relevant to what I said? Batsy is a racist to the point of sticking up for those thugs. The fact there are racist blacks in Britain doesn't make that any less reprehensible. People who pretend there's a lack of recognition of racism by non whites are always bigots too, longing for justification of dislike of non whites.
To use your argument, bet if he was white and the thugs black, you'd be calling for the latters' heads.

Ellis Dee

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

As a matter of interest how come the members of this gang Stephen Lawrence was in never retalliated?

I have been following media coverage of this murder since it happened and do not recall ever having read that Mr. Lawrence was involved with gangs. I feel you should either furnish proof in support of your implicit assertion or withdraw it.:rolleyes:

Those scumbags deprived him of his promising life; you should not deprive him of his good character.:mad:

Dudess

bwatson wrote: »

Arianna_26 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the only reason any Irish people have sympathy for an innocent man like Stephen Lawrence is because we don't have to deal with black communities here? Wow.

wow? Sorry, I feel unable to further communicate with a person who uses the phrase "wow" in a post. You were obviously not suddenly overwhelmed with shock as you were able to type a perfectly coherant reply. Your dramatics are embarrassing. You can now consider yourself on my ignore list.

Her point was spot-on - just because you can't respond, no need for the pathetic latching on to "wow". The fact you have her on ignore now over something so trivial and because you can't defend yourself... is very telling.

ItsAWindUp

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I have been following media coverage of this murder since it happened and do not recall ever having read that Mr. Lawrence was involved with gangs. I feel you should either furnish proof in support of your implicit assertion or withdraw it.:rolleyes:

Those scumbags deprived him of his promising life; you should not deprive him of his good character.:mad:

You've got the wrong end of the stick I think. He was simply replying to some racist nit who said that he was in a gang.

bwatson

Dudess wrote: »

Her point was spot-on - just because you can't respond, no need for the pathetic latching on to "wow". The fact you have her on ignore now over something so trivial and because you can't defend yourself... is very telling.

No it was not, in any way, spot on. In a sense you have already conceded this yourself in asking of the relevance of my post.

I made no reference to the sympathetic views people may or may not have towards Stephen Lawrence's family. Her point was far more irrelevant as a reply to my post than any reply I earlier posted to you was. Her "wow" was in truth the final straw.

Dudess

bwatson wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

You said this was down to your "experience", "and the experience of others", I think people just want to know what you meant by this.

I study in London, I have lived in term time for the past year and a half in an area where tensions between races, youths, gangs, nationalities and so on often come to the fore. Therefore I, and many people I know who also live in very "multicultural" and student areas, would be able to give our opinions on such issues.

Not that you were actually interested in any way, you just do not agree with my opinion, do not agree with me, would not care for my view and simply want to be able to make a post along the lines of:

"thought not...no answer!".

I have, however given an answer as to how I can make such a statement.

Nobody said there wasn't racial tension in London or black gangs.
The only reason I can think why you'd throw that one out is to somewhat justify the killing.
A few people on this site resent the attention given to this case simply because the deceased was black - and they view it as special treatment due to political correctness and lament that a white man wouldn't get as much attention, they assume. Sick racist venom.

bwatson

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

You've got the wrong end of the stick I think. He was simply replying to some racist nit who said that he was in a gang.

I suggest you ammend your post immediately. His response was to me.

I am neither a racist nor someone who has suggested in any way that the incident was gang related.

Your post is lazy, and wholy inaccurate. You are the one who has got the wrong end of the stick.

Dudess

bwatson wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Her point was spot-on - just because you can't respond, no need for the pathetic latching on to "wow". The fact you have her on ignore now over something so trivial and because you can't defend yourself... is very telling.

No it was not, in any way, spot on. In a sense you have already conceded this yourself in asking of the relevance of my post.

I made no reference to the sympathetic views people may or may not have towards Stephen Lawrence's family. Her point was far more irrelevant as a reply to my post than any reply I earlier posted to you was. Her "wow" was in truth the final straw.

Why did you say it so? And take a look at yourself if someone writing a short post with wow in it is enough for you to put them on ignore.

Batsy

Queen-Mise wrote: »

everyone knew it was them that had killed Stephen Lawrence

No, they didn't.

but not enough to get them convicted.

The reason why there was not enough evidence was because they didn't do it.

Am delighted that they have eventually been brought to justice. They were nasty b*stards. It's good that modern science has been able to convict them.

"Modern science" has convicted many people over the years who were eventually released because further evidence emerged which showed that it couldn't have been then who did it (such as in the Sion Jenkins case).

Dudess

Being sympathetic to his family is not in any way being sympathetic to black people in violent gangs. Shockingly low to link him to a gang simply because he's black.

Why does Boards draw right-wing haters of everyone including the Irish? Miserable sad lives so they have to goad...

ItsAWindUp

bwatson wrote: »

I suggest you ammend your post immediately. His response was to me.

I am neither a racist nor someone who has suggested in any way that the incident was gang related.

Your post is lazy, and wholy inaccurate. You are the one who has got the wrong end of the stick.

I wasn't referring to you.

Dudess

Batsy wrote: »

Queen-Mise wrote: »

everyone knew it was them that had killed Stephen Lawrence

No, they didn't.

but not enough to get them convicted.

The reason why there was not enough evidence was because they didn't do it.

Am delighted that they have eventually been brought to justice. They were nasty b*stards. It's good that modern science has been able to convict them.

"Modern science" has convicted many people over the years who were eventually released because further evidence emerged which showed that it couldn't have been then who did it (such as in the Sion Jenkins case).

Why are you so sure they didn't do it? Because you want them to have not done it?

ItsAWindUp

Dudess wrote: »

Why are you so sure they didn't do it? Because you want them to have not done it?

Because he wants to retain his moronic and racist delusions

bwatson

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you.

OK, well in this case I apologize.

Batsy

Dudess wrote: »

Batsy is a racist to the point of sticking up for those thugs.

Sticking up for two men who I - and many others - believe have been jailed for something they didn't do is not being "racist."

To use your argument, bet if he was white and the thugs black, you'd be calling for the latters' heads.

If Lawrence was white and the people who killed him were black we probably would have never even heard of the killing. The media would most likely have not even reported on it. The only reason it's got such a high profile is because he was black.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

Sticking up for two men who I - and many others - believe have been jailed for something they didn't do is not being "racist."



If Lawrence was white and the people who killed him were black we probably would have never even heard of the killing. The media would most likely have not even reported on it. The only reason it's got such a high profile is because he was black.

Er, nope sorry I don't think that's true

ejmaztec

Batsy wrote: »

"Modern science" has convicted many people over the years who were eventually released because further evidence emerged which showed that it couldn't have been then who did it (such as in the Sion Jenkins case).

Don't get too upset when it doesn't happen in their case, nor in the case of any other guilty as sin individual dragged through the courts for taking part in the same crime.

Dudess

And there we have it. Nice - use the kid's murder to push your disgusting agenda.
Oh right, so now it's not a case of "they definitely didn't do it", it's a case of you believe they didn't. Glad you cleared that up. Any decent reason as to why you think they didn't do it, apart from them being white and the victim black and you immediately therefore liking them?
Very same circumstances but the killers being black and the victim white and you'd be delighted with their conviction.

****ing sick.

Batsy

Originally Posted by ItsAWindUp
You've got the wrong end of the stick I think. He was simply replying to some racist nit who said that he was in a gang.

Why is it racist to assume that Lawrence was in a gang? There are probably about 250 gangs in London alone and around 50% of them are fully black. A lot of the remaining 50% have some black members.

The majority of black teenagers who are killed on London's streets are gang members who have been murdered by a fellow gang member, who is usually black.

Therefore you can see why many believe that Lawrence was a member of a gang and was killed by a rival gang member, just like what happened on Boxing Day on Oxford Street on Boxing Day when gang member Seydou Diarrassouba, 18, was killed by what is believed to be a rival gang member.

Dudess

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Batsy wrote: »

Sticking up for two men who I - and many others - believe have been jailed for something they didn't do is not being "racist."



If Lawrence was white and the people who killed him were black we probably would have never even heard of the killing. The media would most likely have not even reported on it. The only reason it's got such a high profile is because he was black.

Er, nope sorry I don't think that's true

He's always throwing out unsupported sh1t - single mothers all just get pregnant for a house etc, nothing to back it up. A joke really.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

Why is it racist to assume that Lawrence was in a gang? There are probably about 250 gangs in London alone and around 50% of them are fully black. A lot of the remaining 50% have some black members.

The majority of black teenagers who are killed on London's streets are gang members who have been murdered by a fellow gang member, who is usually black.

Therefore you can see why many believe that Lawrence was a member of a gang and was killed by a rival gang member, just like what happened on Boxing Day on Oxford Street on Boxing Day when gang member Seydou Diarrassouba, 18, was killed by what is believed to be a rival gang member.

I'd like to see the proof of this

Arianna_26

bwatson wrote: »

No it was not, in any way, spot on. In a sense you have already conceded this yourself in asking of the relevance of my post.

I made no reference to the sympathetic views people may or may not have towards Stephen Lawrence's family. Her point was far more irrelevant as a reply to my post than any reply I earlier posted to you was. Her "wow" was in truth the final straw.

You said 'The average Irish person will be far more sympathetic towards black people because there are far fewer, far smaller black communities in the Republic at the moment'.

Did I miss something - are the Lawrence family not black people?

A Dub in Glasgo

Batsy wrote: »

If Lawrence was white and the people who killed him were black we probably would have never even heard of the killing. The media would most likely have not even reported on it. The only reason it's got such a high profile is because he was black.

You have got to be a headcase if you truly think that.

I remember a white kid in Glasgow was abducted by an Asian gang and then murdered. He was simply targetted for being white. It was all over the news and papers and the media followed all the legal process. The racist kllers got their just desserts just like the 2 members of this gang. Hopefully they will get the rest of the murdering gang.

Batsy

Dudess wrote: »

And there we have it. Nice - use the kid's murder to push your disgusting agenda.

I'm not pushing any agenda. I just believe Dobson and Norris didn't do it. People in the past who were jailed for murder have eventually been released, pardoned and paid compensation when there seemed to be far more "evidence" that it was them who did it than in the Norris and Dobson trial.

Oh right, so now it's not a case of "they definitely didn't do it", it's a case of you believe they didn't.

Yep. I believe they didn't do it.

Glad you cleared that up. Any decent reason as to why you think they didn't do it, apart from them being white and the victim black and you immediately therefore liking them?

I never said I liked them. I said that I believe they didn't do it. I've also written many times on here as to why I think the "evidence" for Dobson and Norris being the killers is flimsy.

Very same circumstances but the killers being black and the victim white and you'd be delighted with their conviction.

If a white person was killed by a gand of black people in a racially motivated attack we would never hear about it.

And did you know that the vast majority of victims of racist crimes in Britain are white? Yet we only hear of such crimes in the media when the victim is black.

Ellis Dee

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

You've got the wrong end of the stick I think. He was simply replying to some racist nit who said that he was in a gang.

Understood. Thanks for clearing it up. It's clear that Mr. Lawrence, a brilliant student and all-round admirable young man, had nothing to do with gangs.

Dudess

So you agree - you wouldn't have a problem with the evidence if he was white and the killers black. Yes it is racist to assume someone is in a gang because of their skin colour and location and no other reason.
And it's dumb. And the kid was stabbed to death but no sympathy from you, just suspicion, because he was black. Totally warped.

A Dub in Glasgo

Here is the link to the case I quoted earlier

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6123014.stm

Dudess

Ellis Dee wrote: »

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

You've got the wrong end of the stick I think. He was simply replying to some racist nit who said that he was in a gang.

Understood. Thanks for clearing it up. It's clear that Mr. Lawrence, a brilliant student and all-round admirable young man, had nothing to do with gangs.

Maybe he had - but we have no proof whatsoever, hence decent people don't make the link.

Guy:Incognito

bwatson wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read the last few pages. I have not suggested that Lawrence was a gang member nor the victim of a gang related attack. I am not so sure why you are directing the question at me.

Fair enough if you didnt say he was in a gang . From readign the last few pages I thought you were backing batsy on that point. Consider the question directed at batsy.

Batsy

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Understood. Thanks for clearing it up. It's clear that Mr. Lawrence, a brilliant student and all-round admirable young man, had nothing to do with gangs.

Yeah.

Lawrence was a decent, caring, kind, gentle, member of society, whose smile lit up any room that he was in and he never caused any trouble and loved nothing more that working for the Samaritans and helping little old ladies cross the road and hed never been involved in any gangs or crime-related activity at all.

Funnily enough, we hear the same platitutes about almost any kid stabbed to death on Britain's streets - and then it emerges that they were, in fact, a gang member and a drug-dealing scumbag.

We were led to believe that Mark Duggan was a kind, loving and gentle sort of bloke. And now we actually know the truth about him.

A Dub in Glasgo

On a slightly different topic, I was a bit suprised to see the 15 year sentence which I think is a bit low for an aggravated offence

Guy:Incognito

Batsy wrote: »

Why is it racist to assume that Lawrence was in a gang? There are probably about 250 gangs in London alone and around 50% of them are fully black. A lot of the remaining 50% have some black members.

The majority of black teenagers who are killed on London's streets are gang members who have been murdered by a fellow gang member, who is usually black.

Therefore you can see why many believe that Lawrence was a member of a gang and was killed by a rival gang member, just like what happened on Boxing Day on Oxford Street on Boxing Day when gang member Seydou Diarrassouba, 18, was killed by what is believed to be a rival gang member.

So why wasnt there a retalliation by members of Lawrences' gang?

Batsy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

On a slightly different topic, I was a bit suprised to see the 15 year sentence which I think is a bit low for an aggravated offence

They got such a sentence because the judge had to not only base their sentences on 1993 laws when murders in England & Wales has much more lenient sentences than they do now but he also had to base their sentences on the fact that when the two men supposedly did the killings they were under 18 years of age (Dobson and Norris were younger than Lawrence was when he was killed).

Batsy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So why wasnt there a retalliation by members of Lawrences' gang?

How do you know there wasn't?

Also, how do we know that his fellow gang members knew who killed him?

Dudess

Batsy wrote: »

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Understood. Thanks for clearing it up. It's clear that Mr. Lawrence, a brilliant student and all-round admirable young man, had nothing to do with gangs.

Yeah.

Lawrence was a decent, caring, kind, gentle, member of society, whose smile lit up any room that he was in and he never caused any trouble and loved nothing more that working for the Samaritans and helping little old ladies cross the road and hed never been involved in any gangs or crime-related activity at all.

Funnily enough, we hear the same platitutes about almost any kid stabbed to death on Britain's streets - and then it emerges that they were, in fact, a gang member and a drug-dealing scumbag.

We were led to believe that Mark Duggan was a kind, loving and gentle sort of bloke. And now we actually know the truth about him.

This is pretty shocking and barrel-scraping. Why should Lawrence have to have been any of the stuff in your first paragraph to ensure he was a decent person?
And the only support you have for your assumption he was in a gang: he was black and living in London. Take a look at yourself. That sh1t is psycho.

ejmaztec

Batsy wrote: »

If Lawrence was white and the people who killed him were black we probably would have never even heard of the killing. The media would most likely have not even reported on it. The only reason it's got such a high profile is because he was black.

That's naive in the extreme.

The only reason the Lawrence case was high-profile was because it took them so long to wrap it up, and there's a bit more wrapping up to go.

I don't recall any similar black-on-white cases where the perpetrators weren't caught soon afterwards. In those cases, it would have dropped out of the news a few months later, soon after a court case.

Dudess

Batsy wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So why wasnt there a retalliation by members of Lawrences' gang?

How do you know there wasn't?

Also, how do we know that his fellow gang members knew who killed him?

Because obviously we'd hear about it due to its link to such a high-profile case.

Batsy

Dudess wrote: »

And the only support you have for your assumption he was in a gang: he was black and living in London. Take a look at yourself. That sh1t is psycho.

1) Most London gang members are black.

2) The vast majority of teenagers stabbed or shot to death on London's streets are gang members.

3) The vast majority of such victims are black and the vast majority of these killings are carried out by black rival gang members.

When you take all these into account it's reasonable to assume that Lawrence was a member of a gang who was killed by a rival gang member.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

1) Most London gang members are black.

2) The vast majority of teenagers stabbed or shot to death on London's streets are gang members.

3) The vast majority of such victims are black and the vast majority of these killings are carried out by black rival gang members.

When you take all these into account it's reasonable to assume that Lawrence was a member of a gang who was killed by a rival gang member.

Again, you are refusing to give statistics to back up these alleged facts

KINGVictor

Batsy wrote: »

I'm not pushing any agenda. I just believe Dobson and Norris didn't do it. People in the past who were jailed for murder have eventually been released, pardoned and paid compensation when there seemed to be far more "evidence" that it was them who did it than in the Norris and Dobson trial.



Yep. I believe they didn't do it.



I never said I liked them. I said that I believe they didn't do it. I've also written many times on here as to why I think the "evidence" for Dobson and Norris being the killers is flimsy.



If a white person was killed by a gand of black people in a racially motivated attack we would never hear about it.

And did you know that the vast majority of victims of racist crimes in Britain are white? Yet we only hear of such crimes in the media when the victim is black.

You have not provided any cogent reason why Dobson and Norris did not participate in the murder of Lawrence other than some fiticious notion that Lawrence 'could' have been a gang member which you have acknowledged you have no proof of either.

You have consistently made ridiculous assumptions on this forum, a lot on the borderline of insanity. I have read nonsence in the Daily mail and the Telegraph which you get most of your info from but at least the reporters from those media outlets are not blatantly inaccurate in their assumptions. There is no correlation between the murder of S.Lawrence and gangs in London- it was clearly a racist attack.

Every attempt to explain your folly and inability to deal with facts has been met with even more vile and ludicrous comments from yourself. Even a BNP spokesperson would do a better job.

Batsy

Dudess wrote: »

Because obviously we'd hear about it due to its link to such a high-profile case.

Not really. Many gang members are murdered every year by a rival gang member and we hardly ever find out why it was done.

But just because he was killed by a fellow gang member doesn't mean that the other members of the gang knew who did it.

brummytom

Batsy wrote: »

1) Most London gang members are black.

2) The vast majority of teenagers stabbed or shot to death on London's streets are gang members.

3) The vast majority of such victims are black and the vast majority of these killings are carried out by black rival gang members.

When you take all these into account it's reasonable to assume that Lawrence was a member of a gang who was killed by a rival gang member.

It's not reasonable at all. Just because he was black doesn't mean he was in a gang. Generalisations mean nothing to individual cases.
Even if 99% of black kids were in gangs, what's to stop him being the 1%?


I really hope you're trying to wind people up.

ejmaztec

Batsy wrote: »

1) Most London gang members are black.

2) The vast majority of teenagers stabbed or shot to death on London's streets are gang members.

3) The vast majority of such victims are black and the vast majority of these killings are carried out by black rival gang members.

When you take all these into account it's reasonable to assume that Lawrence was a member of a gang who was killed by a rival gang member.

We know about "assume", don't we?

Dudess

You're stating your assumptions as fact - are you mentally ok?
And yes we would hear about it - it was a high profile case. Just because that doesn't suit your racism, doesn't make you right.

El Weirdo

Batsy wrote: »

1) Most London gang members are black.

2) The vast majority of teenagers stabbed or shot to death on London's streets are gang members.

3) The vast majority of such victims are black and the vast majority of these killings are carried out by black rival gang members.

When you take all these into account it's reasonable to assume that Lawrence was a member of a gang who was killed by a rival gang member.

I'm going to ask you again for any evidence that Stephen Lawrence was involved in gangs.

Thanks.