(UK) Stephen Lawrence murder - Dobson & Norris Guilty

KINGVictor

brummytom wrote: »

Sorry to butt in.

As an English person (oh look, I didn't say I was Irish!), I feel that black and white communities get on better than any other. Black immigrants have assimilated into society in a way other groups haven't.

Brummytom, you make a good point.

No doubt, we don't have the racial tensions that was visible years ago and increasingly people are realising the need to co-exist ( if that is the right word) in a peaceful manner.

Indeed, there is even an increase in inter-racial relationships much to disgust of some people, but I would wager it is here to stay. But there is still much work to be done, both from a sociological and political point of view.

This is tangential to the topic but there are still elements of distrust between both parties-as expected -but I believe in reciprocity, hence, a need for immigrant communities to understand they are in a new country that have their own values,culture and norms which they must make efforts to understand and follow but also a realisation from natives-if you you like- to recognise and appreciate difference from what they are used to.

In other news- Sky is reporting that detectives have received new information about S.Lawrence death in the past 24 hours...


http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16142465

bwatson

KINGVictor wrote: »

I was expecting more explanation than that tbh.

I am not too sure but I assume you said you are in University where the importance of facts and empirical evidence must have been taught. You have not explicated these personal experiences and as you know in a debate of this manner, anecdotal evidence is basically unreliable- because anyone here can come up with them.

So can you explain why you think Blacks are 'very racists' towards White people from your own experience. Also can you explain why you think the 'average Irish poster' would support Blacks because they do not have a relative population of blacks in Ireland compared to the Uk.

The word support is not one which I remember using in truth. I think however that there is some amount of truth in the statement I made of British and Irish views towards crime by and between different ethnic groups as being very different.

Personal experiences would include witnessing young women on night buses verbally abused and harrassed (including the use of phrases such as "white girl" suggesting very much a racial motive) by black youths. Are they truly racist or just acting in a way which would actually heighten their associates' opinions of them? I can't say for sure.

Additionally, I have been unfortunate enough to have been on the wrong end of an attempted mugging (not that there is a right end) by black youths who couldnt have been more than 14 or 15 years of age. The use of the word "white" and "english" (which deeply offended) me, by said youths would also suggest I was targetted due to the colour of my skin.
I'm not sure they were expecting anything other than complete compliance to their demands, however I think they were expecting to confront a young student from the home counties and not an Ulsterman who has grown up understanding that it is only right to stand up for yourself (silly of me I know, as they could very well have been armed).

To give some kind of balance I am aware of certain areas where white people cannot drive for fear of having stones thrown at their cars by asian youths. And of course in my own country bigotry and intolerance by whites towards whites are things that I completely understand exist. I am in no way suggesting that only blacks are racist, or only whites can be victims of racist abuse.

From a more holistic viewpoint, statistics released by the British Crime Survey (on the home office website) and subsequently highlighted by the BBC and some newspapers suggest that there are more racially motivated attacks carried out by non whites than by whites. It is quite a remarkable fact when you consider that whites still make up around 90% of all people in the UK, regardless of nationality.

sausagehead

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.

Dudess

Appropriate username. He got banned not for his belief but for being a racist and refusing to provide evidence for his belief - because he didn't have any, other than hating all blacks. And admiring the thugs. That's thicker than any paddy.

sausagehead

Evidence my arse. this ain't a court of law!

predictable dig at my username!:eek:

brummytom

sausagehead wrote: »

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

No it's not. Batsy is a disgusting racist.

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. I don't know anyone who believes these men to be innocent. Not that that would matter anyway, they've still been found guilty.

This whole thread is a joke, there's no discussion to be had. There was no suggestion the victim was in a gang, until the OP assumed so based on his race.

Dudess

sausagehead wrote: »

Evidence my arse. this ain't a court of law!

predictable dig at my username!:eek:

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.

K-9

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

K-9

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

A Dub in Glasgo

sausagehead wrote: »

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

Somehow I don't think the likes of Batsy were cheerleading those cases :pac:

ejmaztec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'?

Father Damo

bruschi wrote: »

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'?

It is highly unreliable. It is highly suspect after all these years in a much criticised case. And more than likely wont last an appeal. I find it unconceiveable that in a case where the pressure has been on the police and CPS for 20 years to get a result that people wouldnt entertain the idea of some type of fix. Again, they more than likely were involved, but the method by which they were convicted is highly suspect, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that.

Please tell me what "acting gay" is exactly

Thats your best retort? Jesus wept. My point was attending 3rd level doesnt make you automatically enlightened.

policarp

There is at least three more suspects in this crime.
Try them.

marcsignal

policarp wrote: »

There is at least three more suspects in this crime.
Try them.

that's the tactic

Norris (a mentally unstable drug user) is in jail, with Dobson (the only one with a college education).
They won't want to go down for the whole wrap.

They will sing, just give it time *


*There's a crisp 50 riding on that if anyone fancies a flutter ?

policarp

marcsignal wrote: »

*


*There's a crisp 50 riding on that if anyone fancies a flutter ?

What's the odds?
If they aren't guilty they're complicit,
if you can believe the media. . .

Father Damo

policarp wrote: »

What's the odds?
If they aren't guilty they're complicit,
if you can believe the media. . .

Whcih is exactly the problem here. The story has been so long out there in the media 12 semi literate monekys will give you a guilty verdict on any half baked DNA story you gave them. Try putting Stephen Hawking, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the jury and give them the rubbish that was showed at this trial. They would be of the opinion of that yes, they did it, but the evidence aint a full cigar. There should be a certain test of academic capability and general IQ for this type of high profile trial IMO.

Seriously- how intelligent are the British public? I know a massive amount of Brits in Australia and I can tell you for a fact most of the females havent a clue what the name of their own prime minister is, let alone get around the x and ys of DNA evidence. More Brits in their teens/ 20s voted in the 2001 Big Brother final than voted in that years general election (and if you broke that into how many British women voted in which, Id reckon you would see a shocker. Honestly, what lad would ever vote ion a BB final). Yet most of them in that age group could tell me who came 3rd place in X Factor 2006 or Big Brothers winner in 2004, in all likelihood. Honestly, when it comes to news and current affairs, never mind the complexities of DNA testing, the British public should not be trusted to sit on a jury in a media exposed case without prior intelligence vetting.

Tipsy McSwagger

I believe they did it but there is definitely a case of 'of course they did it just look at them' from the British public rather than convicting them on the evidence. The jury convicted them mainly on Norris disastrous testimony on the stand.

Batsy

policarp wrote: »

There is at least three more suspects in this crime.
Try them.

They already have been tried, just as Norris and Dobson had already been tried. And, like Norris and Dobson, they were found not guilty of the crime.

And, before 2003, Norris and Dobson wouldn't have been tried again because England and Wales had a law known as double jeopardy, which stated that no person can be tried for the same crime twice.

Johnny Foreigner

marcsignal wrote: »

This must be such a relief for Stephen Lawrence's parents after 19 years...



Article

..... I'm glad justice has finally caught up with these two.
Albiet late, better late than never.

Norris and Dobson are murderers. Its a mute point.
But Stephen Lawrence was no angel either. You wont get that side of the story in the tabloid media though, as its not as salacious as a white on black racist murder story.
Why did it take 18 years for the Metropolitan Police to discover a victims blood on a murderers jacket?
I will tell you why. There was a culture of institutionalised racism in the Met Police under Sir Paul Condon (now Lord Condon). I lived in London in the 1990's, and the Met Police were definitely prejudiced against blacks. There was a lot of stop and search going on. Blacks were being stopped all the time, and whites were going unsearched.
Sir Ian Blair made great efforts to eradicate the institutionalised racism in the Met Police when he took over. But the damage was done, and he was left with the legacy of unsolved crimes such as the Lawrence murder.
The thing is, Stephen Lawrence was known to the Met Police already, and it he hadn't been murdered by Norris and Dobson; he would have been a target by other members of his community. Stephen Lawrence was a known face who was making a name for himself for the wrong reasons.
I believe he got what he deserved. The Met Police did too at the time, and that is why they were happy to leave the murder unsolved.

Batsy

Also, what is a mystery to me is why Labour's odious Shadow Health Secretary Diane Abbott is still in her job as an MP after her latest in a long life of racist, anti-white comments stretching back many years to at least her "blonde-haired, blue eyed Finnish nurses" comments back in 1996.

Diane Abbot, the black Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, has caused uproar after making racist comments against white people on Twitter in which she stated that white people "love to divide and rule."

The comments provoked a backlash from fellow Twitter users, who demanded she apologise for her racists comments and to stand down.

But, despite getting a dressing down from her boss Ed Miliband, Abbott is still in her job and the Labour party has been very quiet on the issue. It makes me wonder what would have happened if it was a white Tory MP who had made such comments against black people. The whole of the Labour Party would have been on him like a pack of rabid dogs demanding him to step down. However, it seem that black people making racist comments about white people are treated more leniently.

And now new comments that Abbott has made on Twitter have shown how hypocritical she is. Just days after making racist comments herself, she has posted new comments on Twitter in which she calls London taxi drivers racist!

She tweeted: "Dubious of black people claiming they've never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?"

Sun cabbie Grant Davies — who interviewed Ms Abbott in the back of his cab during the Labour leadership contest — said: "She's guilty of peddling outdated racial stereotypes.

"There are thousands of London cabbies from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. They just reflect the society we live in.

"Ed Miliband should show guts and sack her. She's shown herself to be completely incompetent. How can anyone have confidence in her?"

His anger was echoed by Steve McNamara, spokesman for the London Taxi Drivers' Association.

He said: "Ed Miliband needs to ask himself, is he a man or a mouse? He needs to get rid of her.

"I really don't know why he won't sack her. Maybe he's just too weak to take her on.

"These comments are an insult to thousands of taxi drivers but she seems to just get away with it."

Mr McNamara said he had picked up Ms Abbott in his cab and she had seemed "a very nice lady".

Labour refused last night to condemn her latest outburst.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4044660/Diane-Abbott-in-new-row-after-racist-cabbies-slur.html

Today's Twitter storm is the latest in a number of blunders made by the MP who positioned herself as an anti-racism campaigner, once claiming that Britain had 'invented racism'.

In 2010 Abbott called David Cameron and Nick Clegg 'two posh white boys', sparking claims of racism on the BBC's internet message boards. One wrote: 'I am sure that if a posh white person sat on this programme and mentioned a colour comment like that, there would be uproar.'

The same year, she was criticised over remarks she made on BBC's This Week over her decision to send her son James to a private school. Andrew Neil quoted her saying that 'West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children'.

Mr Neil responded by asking: 'So black mums love their kids more than white mums, do they?'

Furious Abbott said: 'I have said everything I am going to say about where I send my son to school.'

In 1996, Abbott faced accusations of racism suggesting that the 'blonde blue-eyed Finnish girls' working in her local hospital were unsuitable as nurses because they had 'never met a black person before'.The secretary of the all-party Finland group of MPs, Conservative Ian Bruce responded by accusing her of "using racial stereotypes", adding: "All Scandinavian countries have people from African and Caribbean countries living there. It shows ignorance to make such remarks."

Abbott has positioned herself as an anti-racism campaigner and in 1988 claimed that Britain had 'invented racism'.

The latest row follows a previous race controversy on the same show, fronted by Andrew Neil, last year, after he compared Abbott to a chocolate HobNob biscuit.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083252/Diane-Abbott-sparks-ANOTHER-Twitter-race-row-branding-taxi-drivers-racist.html#ixzz1im3xQrn4

Batsy

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

Why did it take 18 years for the Metropolitan Police to discover a victims blood on a murderers jacket?

Because that tiny speck of blood wasn't on Norris or Dobson's jacket to start off with. The jacket only became contaminated with Lawrence's blood and hairs after it was stored right next to Lawrence's clothing in a storeroom. This was something that the defence mentioned during the trial, calling it shoddy and unprofessional, but I think it was just ignored. The reason why it took 18 years to jail Norris and Dobson over the crime was because they didn't do it.

he would have been a target by other members of his community. Stephen Lawrence was a known face who was making a name for himself for the wrong reasons.

I believe Lawrence was murdered by a rival gang member.