Jump to content

Stephen Lawrence


Hatch

Recommended Posts

Minimum and that's very important. Mansfield QC suggesting that they will stay inside longer.

 

Indeed. If this is the earliest they can apply for parole it's very rate for lifers to get it first time round, they'll probably end up doing 17-20 years depending on factors in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means that's how long AS A MINIMUM they'll be incarcerated before they're considered for release on licence. And that licence can be revoked if they re-offend.

 

YEs, i have edited. I was getting confused with none life crimes where you can apply for parole at the half way point of the sentance and be on licence & parole for the remainder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed bridge too far.

 

I suppose 15 and 14 years isn't a great deal by today's standards, as I believe racially aggravated stabbing carries a minimum 25 year sentence.

 

But given their age at the time of the attack and the inability of the crown to determine who of the two (or others) dealt the fatal blow, it certainly represents some form of justice.

 

The starting point for this sentance was 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the Daily Mails coverage of this today. It seems they are just stalking the other three suspects(they should let the police do their job, as they are quite capable of doing it, trial by media is wrong) whilst also playing up their own role in it all.

 

And if it is minimum 15 years, but technically could be forever, they won't be out for a long time and good. They've arrogantly walked around for 18 years freely that they should have been in jail for. Stephen Lawrence never had that chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the Daily Mails coverage of this today. It seems they are just stalking the other three suspects(they should let the police do their job, as they are quite capable of doing it, trial by media is wrong) whilst also playing up their own role in it all.

 

And if it is minimum 15 years, but technically could be forever, they won't be out for a long time and good. They've arrogantly walked around for 18 years freely that they should have been in jail for. Stephen Lawrence never had that chance.

 

Why dont you send a strongly worded email letting them know of your concearns. I'm sure they'll call off the seatch know the 18 years old TSW know it all Young Poster of the Year 2011 is unhappy with they way they are carrying on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the Daily Mails coverage of this today. It seems they are just stalking the other three suspects(they should let the police do their job, as they are quite capable of doing it, trial by media is wrong) whilst also playing up their own role in it all.

 

And if it is minimum 15 years, but technically could be forever, they won't be out for a long time and good. They've arrogantly walked around for 18 years freely that they should have been in jail for. Stephen Lawrence never had that chance.

 

If the police did their job properly, this would have been sorted 18 years ago, and based on the sentence they received, they would have probably been released by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the Daily Mails coverage of this today. It seems they are just stalking the other three suspects(they should let the police do their job, as they are quite capable of doing it, trial by media is wrong) whilst also playing up their own role in it all.

 

The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head as usual.

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/mail-becomes-cause-of-and-solution-to-racism-201201044722/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the Daily Mails coverage of this today. It seems they are just stalking the other three suspects(they should let the police do their job, as they are quite capable of doing it, trial by media is wrong) whilst also playing up their own role in it all.

 

And if it is minimum 15 years, but technically could be forever, they won't be out for a long time and good. They've arrogantly walked around for 18 years freely that they should have been in jail for. Stephen Lawrence never had that chance.

 

Don.t agree it was the mail which named the racist killers years ago when the police were useless at the time with their handling of the case and the pressure needs to put the rest of the guilty men away.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see justice has been done. Innocent until proven guilty (they have) and proper sentencing from the Judge. Almost makes me proud to be British! Which is more than I can say for the disgusting witch hunt on here earlier, whether they have been found guilty or not the presumption of innocence is a bedrock of justice in this and other developed nations, to lose this would be very sad indeed.

 

Absolutely, innocent until proven guilty, but you should remember this an internet forum wher opinions can be voiced, it is for the members of the jury to stick by this mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don.t agree it was the mail which named the racist killers years ago when the police were useless at the time with their handling of the case and the pressure needs to put the rest of the guilty men away.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

Sorry mate, you're in the wrong place if you think did they right thing back then. The forum superstars on the lounge hate the Mail and all that it stands for. It's racist, evil, even been called the daily racist by some on here. Surely no one on this forum who hates the paper so passionately, believing it to be full of lies, racism and bigotary would support the mail running this story? That would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a racist murder is worse than a "normal" murder because?

 

The judge seemed to think so....

 

"The gravity of this case is in my view of a different order from, for example, a murder committed by one individual upon another as a result of some sudden quarrel. There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turkish, wow I'd love to live in your black and white world, everything so simple and clearly defined. It would only be hypocritical if someone said that the Daily Mail is "always wrong" but I've not ever said that and I doubt the forum superstars you allude to have ever said it either. As an aside I have to lol at someone with almost 7,500 posts and a location of "Strolling around unchallenged" calling others forum superstars - you're one of the biggest prima donnas on here.

 

Anyway I really dislike the Mail (tabloids in general really) but that doesn't mean they've never been right. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day and just as Dune occasionally makes a coherant and rational post then the Daily Mail is sometimes right. Having said that whilst I initially thought "good" when I saw that Daily Mail cover and agreed with the sentiment it did make it more difficult for a fair trial to take place - a shade of grey if you like. There were other ways the Mail could have played things e.g. pressure on the Met or the Government but they went for the sensationalist angle which is what you expect from a tabloid.

Edited by anothersaintinsouthsea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge seemed to think so....

 

"The gravity of this case is in my view of a different order from, for example, a murder committed by one individual upon another as a result of some sudden quarrel. There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless. "

 

Oh I see. An official court of law, once again, records the crime as a racist crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turkish, wow I'd love to live in your black and white world, everything so simple and clearly defined. It would only be hypocritical if someone said that the Daily Mail is "always wrong" but I've not ever said that and I doubt the forum superstars you allude to have ever said it either. As an aside I have to lol at someone with almost 7,500 posts and a location of "Strolling around unchallenged" calling others forum superstars - you're one of the biggest pre-madonnas on here.

 

Anyway I really dislike the Mail (tabloids in general really) but that doesn't mean they've never been right. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day and just as Dune occasionally makes a coherant and rational post then the Daily Mail is sometimes right. Having said that whilst I initially thought "good" when I saw that Daily Mail cover and agreed with the sentiment it did make it more difficult for a fair trial to take place - a shade of grey if you like. There were other ways the Mail could have played things e.g. pressure on the Met or the Government but they went for the sensationalist angle which is what you expect from a tabloid.

 

The general consensus amougst our forum superstars is the Mail is not to be trusted, racist, biggoted, tell lies, even hated has been used in the past. Except when it suits, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general consensus amougst our forum superstars is the Mail is not to be trusted, racist, biggoted, tell lies, even hated has been used in the past. Except when it suits, right?

 

If you actually read anothersaint's post you wouldn't post such peevish rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you actually read anothersaint's post you wouldn't post such peevish rubbish.

 

Coming from someone in the past that has one minute dismissed the mail as a racist and disgusting paper and the next uses it to support his own arguements, we wont be taking your comments seriously thanks all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from someone in the past that has one minute dismissed the mail as a racist and disgusting paper and the next uses it to support his own arguements, we wont be taking your comments seriously thanks all the same.

 

When did I do any of that, genius? Exactly when, ever? You're going to have to come to terms with this conviction and its consequences. I can see it may take some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general consensus amougst our forum superstars is the Mail is not to be trusted, racist, biggoted, tell lies, even hated has been used in the past. Except when it suits, right?

 

I won't repeat what I've already said. Keep going forum prima donna, you're looking more stupid with every post.

Edited by anothersaintinsouthsea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I do any of that, genius? Exactly when, ever? You're going to have to come to terms with this conviction and its consequences. I can see it may take some time.

 

I cant be arsed to trawl through your pages madman like pages of drivel to find the post where you used the Mail in support of one of your bizarre theories only weeks after dismissing them as a racist paper. However i did pull you up on it at the time and you resorted to your usual play groundlike finger pointing and name calling.

 

And as per my comments above, you can clearly see my view on the sentances and convictions, it's in page 2 of this thread and due to your silly behaviour i'm not going to engage with you on this again on this subject you silly little man.

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why dont you send a strongly worded email letting them know of your concearns. I'm sure they'll call off the seatch know the 18 years old TSW know it all Young Poster of the Year 2011 is unhappy with they way they are carrying on.

 

It's easy to come out with the insults, but what about a substantial reply? I'm just saying I don't agree with trial by media, we have courts for trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to come out with the insults, but what about a substantial reply? I'm just saying I don't agree with trial by media, we have courts for trials.

 

My views on trial by media are on the opening posts of this as are my views on the sentEncing, guilt and what should happen to them. I have no wish to keep on repeating myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I do any of that, genius? Exactly when, ever? You're going to have to come to terms with this conviction and its consequences. I can see it may take some time.

you should come to terms with the convictions of say......guilty terrorists that the scots let free to go running to libya...he is still guilty you know.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should come to terms with the convictions of say......guilty terrorists that the scots let free to go running to libya...he is still guilty you know.....

 

That case had more holes than a swiss cheese, not least was the 2 million dollars paid to the chief prosecution witness and the fact that he failed to identify Megrahi 19 times before Megrahi was actually pointed out to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anyone say that, have you?

 

FFS this is like shooting fish in a barrel:

 

Before the verdict in the second trial, but obviously after the verdict of the 1997 inquest which concluded it was a racist attack:

 

Because it needs to be established. It is stated as FACT by the media and I do not think it is appropriate that it is being stated as fact without a prosecution establishing that this was the case. It could well have been a case of a gang attacking two strangers for no reason other than they felt like it.

 

I will respect the verdict of this trial. Will you?

 

After the verdict of the recent trial:

 

They deserve to go down for murder, but I don't believe it was a racist murder.

 

I believe they were racist, but that doesn't mean the murder was motivated by race

 

Pretty clear eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That case had more holes than a swiss cheese, not least was the 2 million dollars paid to the chief prosecution witness and the fact that he failed to identify Megrahi 19 times before Megrahi was actually pointed out to him.

just come to terms with the convictions...eh..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS this is like shooting fish in a barrel:

 

Before the verdict in the second trial, but obviously after the verdict of the 1997 inquest which concluded it was a racist attack:

 

 

 

 

 

After the verdict of the recent trial:

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty clear eh?

 

No this was what you said.

 

"Some of our resident racists"

 

Plural, ie, more than one. Who else has said it wasn't a racist attack, who else have you dramtically labelled a resident racist? Come on, it should be easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, you're in the wrong place if you think did they right thing back then. The forum superstars on the lounge hate the Mail and all that it stands for. It's racist, evil, even been called the daily racist by some on here. Surely no one on this forum who hates the paper so passionately, believing it to be full of lies, racism and bigotary would support the mail running this story? That would be hypocritical wouldn't it?
i still think the paper is hate rag thats why i was shocked that the daily mail defending someone who was black and really campaigned to get those racist scum sent to jail.i think it also had alot to do with paul dacre having close links with stephen lawrence dad who had did work at his house .this is one story the mail can be proud of showing journalism at its best unlike he usual lies and bigotry it peddles and hatred of modern world and being mouthpiece of the conservative right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No this was what you said.

 

"Some of our resident racists"

 

Plural, ie, more than one. Who else has said it wasn't a racist attack, who else have you dramtically labelled a resident racist? Come on, it should be easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrell.

 

You said "I haven't seen anyone say that on here, have you?". I proved that someone had. Pedantry works both ways!

 

Anyway I don't see what is dramatic about labelling Dune a resident racist. This thread and countless others show that he is whether he admits it or not. I probably should have used singular rather than plural I admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said "I haven't seen anyone say that on here, have you?". I proved that someone had. Pedantry works both ways!

 

Anyway I don't see what is dramatic about labelling Dune a resident racist. This thread and countless others show that he is whether he admits it or not. I probably should have used singular rather than plural I admit.

 

I'm not a racist. In fact I love to experience different cultures in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills
I'm not a racist. In fact I love to experience different cultures in other countries.

 

So long as they don't come over here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said "I haven't seen anyone say that on here, have you?". I proved that someone had. Pedantry works both ways!

 

Anyway I don't see what is dramatic about labelling Dune a resident racist. This thread and countless others show that he is whether he admits it or not. I probably should have used singular rather than plural I admit.

 

Saying he didn't think it was racially motivated doesnt make him racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...