ferno Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Because the victim is white, its a simple as that.. Apart from the examples I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Care to explain how you came to that conclusion? It came to me in a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Apart from the examples I posted? I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about this case, in what I've read about it. Its my opinion. That you won't change, in relation to this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 The point that eludes me is how can this kid thinks that it was racism and who would know better than him that went off? The Police should treat this as the crime that is reported to them and the victim thinks it was a racial attack, why are they not as quick to inform the press that this was a racial attack as they are in other cases where there were not even any witnesses? I remember the killing of Steven Laurence been all over the news from the off, even though there was no witnesses to say it was racially motivated and was up to the the Police to actually prove it was. I'm sure there is loads of other cases where the police don't mind stating it was racial at press conferences before the CPS has drawn the conclusion on the evidence presented to them, but in the name of 'calming community tensions' in cases like this one the word 'racial' is bypassed it would seem. So is there a difference depending on the race of the victim from the police's stand point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The point that eludes me is how can this kid thinks that it was racism and who would know better than him that went off? The Police should treat this as the crime that is reported to them and the victim thinks it was a racial attack, why are they not as quick to inform the press that this was a racial attack as they are in other cases where there were not even any witnesses? I remember the killing of Steven Laurence been all over the news from the off, even though there was no witnesses to say it was racially motivated and was up to the the Police to actually prove it was. I'm sure there is loads of other cases where the police don't mind stating it was racial at press conferences before the CPS has drawn the conclusion on the evidence presented to them, but in the name of 'calming community tensions' in cases like this one the word 'racial' is bypassed it would seem. So is there a difference depending on the race of the victim from the police's stand point? If it had been a white gang attacking a Asian gang it would have been a racist attack...This is not having a go at Asians, but the police...The police would have feared the incident getting out of hand, ie riots and claims of racism by them. Double standards all over the place of late.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I remember the killing of Steven Laurence been all over the news from the off, even though there was no witnesses to say it was racially motivated and was up to the the Police to actually prove it was. This is absolute rubbish, again. And it's "Stephen". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/15/stephen-lawrence-murder-racially-motivated-trial Why are you telling lies about Stephen Lawrence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 This is absolute rubbish, again. And it's "Stephen". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/15/stephen-lawrence-murder-racially-motivated-trial Why are you telling lies about Stephen Lawrence? Your link is once again irrelevant, its after the fact, they are already in court at that stage. I won't ask why you lie, because I don't think you intend to (your just mixed up). I will look for some headlines from the time, but I am not lying, its just as I remember them. If you are going to prove me wrong then find me a link from the time of the offence and if I am wrong I will admit my mistake. But lying ? That implies intent and I don't intend of putting anything on here I don't believe. Unlike yourself I am open to change my mind if proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Your link is once again irrelevant, its after the fact, they are already in court at that stage. You said: I remember the killing of Steven Laurence been all over the news from the off, even though there was no witnesses to say it was racially motivated My link shows there were witnesses who confirmed it was a racist attack right from the beginning. If you can't even get his name right I doubt you know much about Stephen's murder, but don't lie about what actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I will look for some headlines from the time, but I am not lying Next time post the evidence before you shoot your mouth off. Until you do so I'm happy to say your statements are complete rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadogo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You said: My link shows there were witnesses who confirmed it was a racist attack right from the beginning. If you can't even get his name right I doubt you know much about Stephen's murder, but don't lie about what actually happened. I agree; after all he is buried in Jamaica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.