Stephen Lawrence: The PC Carnival Rolls on

by David Webb

Sean Gabb Comments: I lived for most of the 1990s within walking distance of the place where this alleged martyrdom took place. There was a continuing battle between the paramilitary arm of our pc state (aka the Plod) and various anonymous wits, whose comments on the plaque marking the Sad Spot were most entertaining. I once saw a man arrested for standing there with a placard containing the names of white people allegedly murdered by blacks in South London during 1999 alone. His list filled both sides of the placard, and asked who was calling for a public enquiry.

Several of my students assured me that the mainstream media story was a pack of lies from start to finish. I cannot recall any of the supporting evidence they gave me. Moreover, no sane man would refuse assent to the proposition that Duane Brooks and Doreen and Neville Lawrence are persons of the most unspotted integrity – they and all those allowed to have their say in public. But  I do believe they were mistaken, and that this killing was drug-related. [SIG]

We know that traditionally English people have not been subject to double jeopardy, but that is no longer the case, and two men in East London are to be retried 18 years after the death of Stephen Lawrence. If only they were so tenacious when English people were killed by ethnic minorities! I would like to make two points:

1) legally, there is no way these men can get a fair trial after the hysteria that has been whipped up by the race lobby on this case.

2) The judge said today that a cardigan worn by one of the men may be connected to the case, and added: “It does not and could not demonstrate that Dobson wielded the knife which caused the fatal wound, but given the circumstances of the attack on Stephen Lawrence – that is, a group of youths in a violent enterprise converging on a young man and attacking him as a group – it would be open to a jury to conclude that any one of those who participated in the attack was party to the killing and guilty of murder, or alternatively

In other words, the cardigan is not proof of which person killed Stephen Lawrence, but the judge openly invites the jury in the upcoming case to decide to pin the offence of murder on someone wearing the cardigan who may have been an onlooker. What about beyond all reasonable doubt? That principle has gone out of the window. If they are going to get the killer, they need to get someone who, beyond all reasonable doubt, wielded the knife. It seems a conviction has been ordered by the government at the highest levels.

6 responses to “Stephen Lawrence: The PC Carnival Rolls on

  1. According to a report I read, “the acquittal has been quashed”.

    I didn’t know that one could “quash” an acquittal. Presumably anyone who has been found not guilty can now be told they are no longer not guilty???

  2. Gerald Amberley

    I remember reading an article in American Renaissance which gave the details of the Rodney King case that the mainstream news peddlers chose to totally suppress; that King was a career criminal who was drink- driving whilst two and a half times the legal limit and that the thrashing he recieved took place after a high speed pursuit. The way the story was presented caused the gullible to believe he was an innocent motorist who had been pulled over for no good reason and brutally beaten. The only “facts” we’re permitted to know about Lawrence is that he was “a promising student” who was “murdered because of the colour of his skin” . I find it very hard to believe that there isn’t a good deal more known about Lawrence which is very much at odds with the MSM’s treatment of this case.

  3. C H Ingoldby

    This is quite scary.

    A genuine show trial. In England.

    And no one gives a damn.

  4. How long does it take to say “yes” or “no” ?
    On Monday 14th November 2011, two men, Gary Dobson and David Norris went on trial at the Old Bailey charged with the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The very same day, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan police asking them if ALL the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to Mr. Dobson’s and Mr. Norris’s solicitors had been disclosed, or had they chosen to keep it deliberately concealed again, as they have done in other cases.

    I made my FOI request publicly on the what do they website, and you can view it here:

    As you can see, their acknowledgement of my request does not accurately reflect the question I have put to them. The law says that FOI requests should be answered PROMPTLY, and in any case within twenty working days.

    It is now two days since I submitted my request. I will let you know when I have received a satisfactory response, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

  5. David, you said:

    “But I do believe they were mistaken, and that this killing was drug-related. [SIG]”

    But offer no evidence for this whatsoever. Is there any evidence for this or merely a ‘gut feeling’ you have?

    Also, Gerald Amberley, you said,

    “King was a career criminal who was drink- driving whilst two and a half times the legal limit and that the thrashing he recieved took place after a high speed pursuit.”

    What do you think would have happened if he was white? Or if he was a an off duty policeman? Do you think he would have received the same treatment?

  6. Shame on you to use this poor young mans death for political ends…… you mean to say that racism was not rife in London or within the MET?? What you spout is pure vile fascism disguised with fancy words and theory to hide your inadequacies as a human being who is incapable of grasping what it means to be unjustly and savagly attacked for the colour of your skin!!