| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:35:53 PM |
No one has been convicted of his murder yet, so I am not sure how you can say the above with any conviction ? Just a quick thought... his murder might have had nothing to do with the colour of his skin.
The evidence and the views of the Met Police, the CPS and McPherson based on that evidence are unanimous that Stephen Lawrence's murder was racially motivated (and nothing else). As for the murderers - one of the reasons for changes in 'double jeapordy' is this murder - so that if any conclusive evidence ever emerges the suspects can be brought back to court and tried again. In Scottish Law the result of the original trial would not have been 'Not Guilty' but 'Not Proven'. The Stephen Lawrence case was a pivotal and significant one in British Legal history and the Daily Mail and Sir David English were key influencers in making it so.
If The Mail spent a little more effort in dignified campaigning (as above) and a little less of its pages devoted to snide digs it might be a better newspaper. Its recent history in upheld complaints, out of court settlement and lost battles for libel/defamation show how it has slid down hill. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:57:32 PM |
The evidence and the views of the Met Police, the CPS and McPherson based on that evidence are unanimous that Stephen Lawrence's murder was racially motivated (and nothing else).
Irrelevant. If the evidence was that overwhelming don't ya think a conviction or two would have happened by now  ?!
The CPS, etc, cannot even find the killer/killers, therefore, how can they possibly know the rationale for the murder ? Who is to say he was not killed by another black man ?
As for the murderers
You say it as if you know there were more than one, how do you know this?
Daily Mail and Sir David English were key influencers in making it so
I cannot comment on that, as I do not know anything about the named journalist!
It would appear that the Daily Mail is no different to any other paper in respect of it having its place in the market. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 7:35:40 PM | "... Nick Griffin denied student Stephen Lawrence was murdered by racists, it was claimed yesterday.
Instead he said the 18-year-old - stabbed to death 12 years ago - was a drug dealer killed by "another black", a court heard.
...
Griffin, 45 - who is accused of race hate crimes - was filmed at a meeting in Morley Town Hall, Leeds, in May 2004.
Referring to Stephen's murder as he walked with his friend Duwayne Brooks in Eltham, South East London, in April 1993, he said: "Everyone down there knows he was notorious for taxing kids for their dinner money and he was a drug dealer."
"According to many people within the Metropolitan Police, he was killed by another black - not a white racist attack at all." "
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/01/19/bnp-leader-stephen-lawrence-was-not-murdered-by-racists-115875-16601105/
It's easy to see the political sympathies of those who disagree with the Met Police's view that Stephen Lawrence's murder was racially motivated. It is easy to see where the ugly unsubstantiated and base rumours originated - from Nick Griffin.
The perpetrators of the murder are known, what there isn't is enough evidence to conclusively prove them guilty. Had the Met been more diligent and efficient at the time (see McPherson) that evidence would in all likelihood have been obtained and (probably) convictions made. The Mail 'banged the drum' and campaigned vociferously for things to be put right.
What's wrong with the Daily Mail? Jan Moir's comments illustrate what's wrong - unsubstantiated conjectural snide remarks. These contrast starkly with Sir David English's journalism and the specific Lawrence case where the newspaper campaigned for a travesty of justice to be put as right as possible and for changes to be made to ensure it had less chance of reoccurring. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:10:10 PM | Richard Littlejohn - the bigot
Jan Muir - the homophobe
And the fact they're quite liberal with the truth in their articles (ie. some news stories have been proven to have been made up entirely). I've got no problem with different political persuasions, but to think trees are felled so they can print the offensive rot some of their journalists come out with... It's not news. It's mainly propaganda. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 1:08:16 AM |
I have, and he wasn't.
It's amazing that some posters on this site who seem to delight in making sure that every statement made in the forums can be proved to be factually correct, can at the same time make statements that verge on the ridiculous.
Not having read the output of every poster on the site, I cannot comment upon that.
However, if there are any Met police who are unaware as to Stephen Lawrence's 'activities', then I'm surprised, given the high profile attached to the murder.
The Daily Mail has been castigated for being racist, and yet the publishing of those names suggests otherwise. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 1:33:19 AM |
That is not where my comment came from, as it came directly from the depths of my own mind. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that the muderer(s) could be of any gender, any age, any race, etc seeing as no one has yet to be convicted. I simply used the "black person" to illustrate that there is no concrete evidence to suggest he was killed due to the colour of his skin, which is what have implied/are implying.
When though you just make stuff up it has the problem of being factually inaccurate. OJ Simpson was not convicted of his crime but it is safe to assume that he did it, there is the Liverpool case of Michael Shields where he was found guilty but it is widely believed that Sankey is the real perpetrator, the case of Rhys Jones where the killer was known in the local community and it took time to gather that evidence.
The killers where identified within hours of the murder and the reasons for the conviction not being got was due to bribes by the drug baron boss father of one of the youths to two corrupt Police officers and the testimony of the key witness not being allowed and general failings of the Police force.
There is a chance that the 5 youths named aren't guilty but a lot more likely they are. There names are easily found on the net. They were named on the front page of the Mail and were publicly challenged to sue for libel if they didn't do it, they chose not too.
The perpetrators of the murder are known
How can they be known if they are not known? How can you know something/someone that doesn't exist?
A few people have been in the limelight over the years, but that does not mean they were/are the murderers!
what there isn't is enough evidence to conclusively prove them guilty
Until which point the murderer(s) cannot be known, I rest my case!
This isn't a court of law and facts don't have to proven to 99.9% probability and I think that if a civil case was brought against the 5 they would lose as they are the most likely murderers. If they were the probable killers than it was in all probability a racist murder committed by white men against an innocent black man. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:06:31 AM | Have I got this right?
1. The Met Police "knew" Stephen Lawrence to be a drug dealer but took no action? Shame on the Met - does that make them a trustworthy body? Or was it an unprovable suspicion that therefore warrants no credence?
2. The Daily Mail ran a campaign to introduce the abolition of "double jeopardy".
(Edit after questioning tenor of post below: Should that read "The Daily Mail ran a campaign to abolish the protection afforded by the notion of "double jeopardy".? I took this information from posts above praising the Daily Mail for their campaign that brought the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into being.
The Stephen Lawrence case was a pivotal and significant one in British Legal history and the Daily Mail and Sir David English were key influencers in making it so.
I am not a Daily Mail reader. As I said - "Have I got this right?")
3. The UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (which dates in itself back to 1950) which gives protection against double jeopardy. The UK however did not ratify the Protocol which allows the re-opening of any case where new or newly-discovered facts emerge, i.e. allows for abrogation of the double jeopardy principle.
4. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, which applies only to England and Wales, removed the double jeopardy protection that had existed since Norman times and thus allowed cases to come to re-trial if new and compelling evidence was discovered.
My conclusion is that the Daily Mail either chickened out (does it hold anti-EU principles?) or wanted credit where it didn't need to exist, and instead of calling for the ratification of the already-existing anti double jeopardy Protocol in the ECHR; a European piece of legislation that would have applied to the whole of the UK; chose instead to campaign for a divisive piece of legislation that makes citizens of the UK unequal.
Nice one!
So, remind me again - why should I respect the Daily Mail? (I have, by the way, nothing against its readers provided they bring a questioning mind to what they read. But that applies to any newspaper reader.) | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:21:08 AM |
"The Daily Mail ran a campaign to introduce the abolition of "double jeopardy"."
Really? That's a new one on me? They must have slipped that one through when I was browsing the 3rd page of another newspaper. Or maybe they gave it all the clout of their campaign to stop free carrier bags? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:35:28 AM | | I haven't read the Daily Mail since I lived at home and read bits out of my mum's paper. However, I decided to go onto their website today to see what they have on their news pages. I'd like to be able to offer something really interesting to this debate but got completely sidetracked with their video from Australia of the newsreader with a gigantic seagull sitting behind him | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:49:34 AM |
The Stephen Lawrence case was a pivotal and significant one in British Legal history and the Daily Mail and Sir David English were key influencers in making it so.
If The Mail spent a little more effort in dignified campaigning (as above) and a little less of its pages devoted to snide digs it might be a better newspaper.
You seem to credit the Mail here for being a key influence in the changing of the double jeopardy law, not through campaigning but give them credit all the same.
Then dismiss them completely
"The Daily Mail ran a campaign to introduce the abolition of "double jeopardy"."
Really? That's a new one on me? They must have slipped that one through when I was browsing the 3rd page of another newspaper. Or maybe they gave it all the clout of their campaign to stop free carrier bags?
I agree entirely that they are different and you are technically correct in both cases but it reads to me at least as a bit contradictory. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:12:04 AM | When a journalist opens a door and walks into a room, the truth exits by the window 
Papers are ok for keeping abreast of current affairs and getting a rough idea of what is going on in the UK and the rest of the world.
I happen to read the Daily Mail, but do not take it very seriously, in fact I do find the over sensationalism rather amusing.
Am I right wing? Not really,
Am I a racist? Most certainly not.
Am I a Bigot? Nope.
Do I agree with the stereotype which us Daily Mail Readers are tarnished with?
YES
Afterall if one cannot laugh at oneself then who can they laugh at.  | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:20:49 AM | I read the daily mail most days
Just because my ex hubby works as a printer and prints the said paper
He is the earliest news paper man around he drops in in my letter box on the way home from work
Ex hubbys have some uses | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:20:48 AM |
What's wrong with the Daily Mail? Jan Moir's comments illustrate what's wrong - unsubstantiated conjectural snide remarks.
What is all the fuss about? I have just read Jan Moir’s piece sgain, and all I can see is legitimate journalistic comment. She certainly raises a couple of interesting point about events in the apartment…
I think it is as legitimate to speculate about the death, as it is to speculate whether or not Ms Moir is homophobic, etc.
The simple conclusion is that Liberals will not permit contrary views to be expressed, or increasingly even thought. The irony of it is these people claim to be in favour of “Freedom of speech” when their actions clearly suggest otherwise.
I am still struggling to see the issue with the Daily Mail and especially the article being referred to. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:24:13 AM | The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. The Independent is read by people who know the government runs the country, and The Sun is read by people who don't care who runs the country so long as they have big tits.
According to some bloke Phil? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:11:24 AM |
In a word "Yes". Anyway, I am sure it is not that 'offensive', I mean if you were from South London around that time of the incident, you would know that the 'rumour' was common knowledge...
Anyway, shouldn't you be asking the same question to the poster who placed an offensive rumour regarding x amount of innocent lads being "racist thugs", "murderers", etc.
However, if there are any Met police who are unaware as to Stephen Lawrence's 'activities', then I'm surprised, given the high profile attached to the murder.
"Everyone down there knows he was notorious for taxing kids for their dinner money and he was a drug dealer." Nick Griffin on Stephen Lawrence.
The majority of Met Officers don't follow the creed of Nick Griffin and his party. No evidence of anything but good character has ever been published in any Metropolitan Police documents relating to Stephen Lawrence - QED. One of the things that Sir David English highlighted was that Stephen Lawrence was a normal, decent, ambitious kid.
Nothing from the coroner indicated that Stephen Gately died of anything related to drugs or homosexual activities; conjecture on 'sleaze' is just that conjecture - good journalism uses and uncovers facts.
The simple conclusion is that Liberals will not permit contrary views to be expressed, or increasingly even thought.
Or maybe they just object to scurrulous unfounded smears being created about people who have died in sad situations and aren't able to defend their own names? When that smear is made by a major newspaper and a record number of people complain - maybe they have a point? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:11:38 AM | Free as a bird, On Moir: using a young mans death of natural causes as a tool to promote her own small minded homophobic anti gay marrige agenda is pretty loathsome. She insinuated he died in some sleazy hedonistic circumstances, belittled his relationship with his husband and caused great upset to his partner and family in the process.
Why is it ligitimate to speculate about his death?? If he was married to a woman and one of her friends stayed over would we be speculating about his death in that case?? Its again an assumption that because he is gay he is somehow depraved and something sleazy had occured.
Freedom of speech is one thing, defamation is an entirely different thing. Check out the difference. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:16:44 AM | The majority of Met Officers don't follow the creed of Nick Griffin and his party
You have totally missed the point... surprise surprise. I said "I mean if you were from South London around that time of the incident, you would know that the 'rumour' was common knowledge", implying I was from South London at the time, therefore, I am going on personal experience. I have no idea why you are attempting to bash a certain party or certain people within it , very baffling!
No evidence of anything but good character has ever been published in any Metropolitan Police documents relating to Stephen Lawrence
I know several people who would be classified as having 'good character' if their local police force were to publish documents on them, because they have not directly had any dealings with the police. This doesn't mean those people live their life according to what the police classify as 'good character'.
Nothing from the coroner indicated that Stephen Gately died of anything related to drugs or homosexual activities
I did not follow the case a great deal, as it wasn't something of interest to me, but I am sure I read somewhere albeit early on that the coroner could/did not rule out 1) He had vomited, and 2) Drugs/alcohol were in his system. Based on this information the Daily Mail journalist had every right to speculate!
good journalism uses and uncovers facts
True, and given the above comments re the coroner it would appear her comments were somewhat based on facts .
Or maybe they just object to scurrulous unfounded smears being created about people who have died in sad situations and aren't able to defend their own names?
How do you know what is founded/unfounded ? Don't believe all what you read from biased sources, look a little further and paint a bigger picture...
When that smear is made by a major newspaper and a record number of people complain - maybe they have a point?
Not necessarily true, especially when the complaints were a direct result of Stephen Fry's twitter message... I wonder why he done that... possibly to take the dairy of the controversial comments he recently made .
You have still not convinced me that the Daily Mail is any worse than any other paper. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:30:58 AM |
using a young mans death of natural causes as a tool to promote her own small minded homophobic
As I said previously, the journalist had every right to speculate about the death just like you have the right to speculate about her rationale. The Daily Mail journalist could be right in her speculation, but equally she could be wrong, just like your above comment.
Why is it ligitimate to speculate about his death??
When transparency is missing, speculation tends to fill in the missing spaces. See the comment in my previous message concerning the original comments from the coroner.
If he was married to a woman and one of her friends stayed over would we be speculating about his death in that case??
Was he a friend or a random stranger from the street? Excuse my ignorance on the case...
It is quite possible that the Daily Mail journalist would have speculated if it were a heterosexual couple. There is no way you or any other poster can say beyond all reasonable doubt that she would not, as it is simply a hypothetical situation, which we can only speculate on.
Freedom of speech is one thing, defamation is an entirely different thing
I could not agree more... I feel so sorry for some of the defamation the named journalist has had to endure... it is a tragic state of affairs.
So, do you have a judgment (positive/negative) of those who read the Daily Mail? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:32:58 AM | I think there is something that needs clarifying here, Stephen Gately did not not die because of anyone else's involvement and most likely had a heart attack which caused fluid in his lungs. He didn't die because he is gay.
His lifestyle generally seemed to be quite clean cut, he was on holiday and seemed to be experimenting and pushing his normal barriers as most do when on holiday.
The question is why a healthy 33 year old has a heart attack? Did he do anything that night that was out of character that led to the travesty? It is already documented that he used cannabis that was out of the norm for him.
A journalist has the right to ask those questions and even to speculate providing it is clear that is what they are doing but it should be done sensitively and without prejudice.
I think Ms Moir had already answered the questions in her head without facts and took no account of the feelings of the fans, friends and family of Stephen Gately and that is how she failed as a human and a journalist imo. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:51:58 AM |
I think there is something that needs clarifying here, Stephen Gately did not not die because of anyone else's involvement and most likely had a heart attack which caused fluid in his lungs. He didn't die because he is gay.
Well said
A journalist has the right to ask those questions and even to speculate providing it is clear that is what they are doing but it should be done sensitively and without prejudice.
Again, very well put. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 12:07:49 PM | If they were the probable killers than it was in all probability a racist murder committed by white men against an innocent black man
Some comments never cease to amaze me! There are many reasons why someone would kill another regardless of whether they are/were the same race or a different race.
I see though... we must all believe that if a perpatrator and victim are a different race, the chances are it was/is a racially motivated attack above all else . I don't envy anyone who thinks so narrowly.
An earlier poster mentioned defamation of character, which I believe happened when the Mail decided to put the 'boat races' of the suspects on the front page all those moons ago. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 12:32:12 PM | I see though... we must all believe that if a perpatrator and victim are a different race, the chances are it was/is a racially motivated attack above all else . I don't envy anyone who thinks so narrowly.
A racial motive isn't mere speculation though, is it? Duwayne Brooks, a witness on the evening, heard racist names directed towards Stephen prior to him being knifed to death. So you can slow your roll with your mealy-mouthed apologist interjections.
An earlier poster mentioned defamation of character, which I believe happened when the Mail decided to put the 'boat races' of the suspects on the front page all those moons ago.
Which Norris and Co were perfectly at liberty to seek libel damages for. They didn't. Any ideas as to why they didn't cash in on such a windfall, seeing that most of them were by then unemployed and unemployable?
Naming and shaming those suspects is probably the only decent thing the Daily Mail has done in its entire life-time as a publication. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 12:46:44 PM |
If they were the probable killers than it was in all probability a racist murder committed by white men against an innocent black man
Some comments never cease to amaze me! There are many reasons why someone would kill another regardless of whether they are/were the same race or a different race.
What ceases to amaze me is people who can't read. I agree that there are many reasons beyond race why someone would kill someone of a different race but I am not talking about anybody in particular but the 5 men cited by the Mail who are confirmed racists.
But in reality Norris relies heavily on unemployment benefits and the support of his gangster father.
A violent racist raised in the shadow of crime, he was captured on a covert police video in 1994 saying: 'If I was going to kill myself do you know what I'd do? I'd go and kill every black, every Paki, every mug, every copper that I know.
'I'd go down to Catford and places like that with two submachine guns and I'm telling you I'd take one of them. Skin the black alive, mate. Torture him, set him alight.
'I'd blow their two legs and arms off and say: "Go on, you can swim home now".'
Norris, 29, was jailed in September 2002 for a racist attack on an off-duty black detective Gareth Reid, to the distress of Doreen and Neville Lawrence on the very road where Stephen was murdered.
He threw a drink carton at the policeman as Neil Acourt swerved his car towards him, both men shouting '' - the same word used during the attack on Stephen.
Norris and Acourt were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, but served just six. Jailing the men Judge Michael Carroll said: 'You went to the area where Stephen Lawrence was murdered nine years ago, an event which you have complained resulted in persecution and isolation for you both.
'Yet you committed this particular offence about half a mile from where that murder took place - indeed on the same road.'
While in prison the couple wrote letters of praise to London nail bomber David Copeland, who killed three and injured 139 in three bomb attacks on blacks and homosexuals in 1999.
That is the actions of the two of the people I said if they did do it that race was a probable reason. | |
|
Home
login 
