They should be grateful that non of them have died in police custody or been hit with a tasser.

And anyway if they have done nothing wrong they got nothing to fear. They should be glad that when they were arrested there was not a film crew or photographer to splash their faces in a tabloid………oh wait.

Seeing as the Sun has it’s nose up this govt’s backside I don’t know what he is talking about holding politicians to account. This really is the whining of people who have had too much power, and now are having wind it in. Fuck um.

At first I couldn’t accept Kavanagh’s piece was a real article, I thought it was the Daily Mash spoofing the Sun’s web address somehow.

Schadenfreude is all well and nice. Even I think the Sun is getting what it deserves. And the law should be enforced.

But up to now newspapers have been seen as an important part of the democratic constitution. Such as it is. The Fourth Estate. If we are going to have a wholesale assault on them – and we seem to have one – then it is an important change to the British constitution. Such as it is. And we really ought to be talking about this before the police go about ripping up people’s floor boards.

Do we want a less zealous newspaper industry? Frankly I tend to agree, but I am surprised anyone else here would. These actions were illegal, if true, no doubt, but were they unacceptable? Presumably the Guardian is next. Will people be so happy when it is their turn?

Again it is not that the police should not be doing this. It is just that we should not think this is just about people we don’t like, it won’t be, it will be every paper, and that it will have no effect on British political life, it may be bigger than gutting the House of Lords or dicking around with the Supreme Court. The biggest Constitutional change of this generation. And we are going to treat it like a playground spat?

I can’t even begin to list the amount of times the Sun has wanted the police to be given more powers of arrest or investigation. Nor can I begin to list instances when the Sun attacked civil libertarians for being too harsh on the police. This is the environment Trevor Kavanagh helped create.

It is not really the point is it? The question is whether this is the environment you want to live in. Or rather under.

Hmm. Gonna have to agree with SMFS here. While we’re all getting excited at seeing some well-deserving people get their just desserts, we’re in danger of sitting by while the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Sorry for the horrible mixed metaphor.

I have no problem with Sunny’s article pointing out the Sun’s hypocrisy in publishing this article, but at first sight the tactics of the police smack more of a desire to have their zeal noticed than of investigatory action proportionate the alleged offences. It would be interesting to see the reasons given to the magistrate when they applied for the necessary warrants, and whether they met the conditions set out, for example, here http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-to-search-premises/search-of-premises-under-a-magistrates-warrant.html

Further, it would be interesting to know why they felt search warrants/dawn raids were needed for these cases but not, apparently, in relation to higher profile people’s arrests.

Unless similar raids happen on the offices of the Met officers who took the brown envelopes I can’t see this being anything other than a PR exercise by Britain’s biggest street gang.

But this is typical Sunny.
Didn’t he find it funny too when some EDL types were beaten up?

So this kind of thing, and that kind of thing, are fine so long as the victims are people he dislikes.

@3
All I want is a proper free press instead of the travesty that passes for a free press in this country. What other countries, other than those in authoritarian states, have a press that is completely biased in favour of one party? I can’t think of many.

We need a free and lively press.

That doesn’t mean we need the press we have right now.

A demise of The Sun – which isn’t going to happen – would be no miss to our democracy and national conversation, just like the News of the World is not missed.

Journalists should be aware of that.

@8 I would suggest that those arrested at the Sun newspaper can not really be classed as ‘victims’. Unless you intend to claim they are innocent of bribery.

@ 11 Cylux

If the correct process has not been followed (and I’m not saying this is the case, but it seems to be on the table), then I disagree. If you shoplift and the police arrest you, that doesn’t make you a victim. However, you ARE a victim if the police then beat you up in custody.

@ 9 buddyhell

“What other countries, other than those in authoritarian states, have a press that is completely biased in favour of one party? I can’t think of many.”

Um, Britain doesn’t have that either, unless you think that the Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent et al are Tory mouthpieces. Even the Sun and the Times have been known to back Labour.

What Britain has is a press where most of the papers purchased are biased towards one party most of the time. Plenty of countries have that, I’m sure.

8 look at the silly troll projecting.

That is what the sun is doing. All the freedoms, and presumtions of innocence that the sun as abused and ridiculed over the years, it now demands them for itself.

But it is par for the course for rightwingers. You will always find that those that attack civil liberties, and defence lawyers demand and get the best lawyers when thy are in trouble. They are the biggest hypocrites going.

Law and order joins taxes, morality, It is only for the little people. Not for the elites.

What other countries, other than those in authoritarian states, have a press that is completely biased in favour of one party? I can’t think of many.

What Chaise said. In 2001, only two papers supported the Tories. In 2010, the Lib Dems received as many endorsements as Labour.

You basically have one exclusively Labour tabloid (the Mirror) against two exclusively (almost) Tory ones (the Mail and Express) and one ‘swing voter’ (the Sun). You then have one Tory broadsheet (the Telegraph), two soft left broadsheets (Guardian and Indy) and one ‘swing voter’ (the Times).

In terms of party allegiance, that’s a pretty good spread.

12 our little concern troll again is all concerned about the rights of the sun. A paper that has shown no concern for the rights of others, has supported police abuse, has invaded peoples privacy for no reason than to titillating it’s moroni raedership.

Once again the trolls show their loyalty to their masters. We won’t take them seriously on matters of law and order again.

@ 16 Sally

“12 our little concern troll again is all concerned about the rights of the sun. A paper that has shown no concern for the rights of others, has supported police abuse, has invaded peoples privacy for no reason than to titillating it’s moroni raedership.”

You can’t tell the difference between a newpaper and a human being. To my amazement, that makes you even more mad and stupid than I thought.

“Once again the trolls show their loyalty to their masters. We won’t take them seriously on matters of law and order again.”

Question, folks: if Sally says I’m not to be taken seriously, does that make me Very Serious Indeed thanks to the double-negative of sorts?

I would suggest that those arrested at the Sun newspaper can not really be classed as ‘victims’. Unless you intend to claim they are innocent of bribery.

Which, of course, they are. Until proven guilty on a charge that hasn’t even been pressed against them. Some people need to re-read A Man For All Seasons.

Sun whining about the police raiding thei homes at 5 am

Remind me who was with the police at 5am for the arest of Harry Redknapp?

I have listened to right wingers for the last 30 years claim the police do not abuse their power. That defence lawyers and civil liberties people are woolly minded leftiez who want the criminals to go free. So forgive me if I could not care less for a bunch of people who now find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Maybe they should start talking and tell the police who were their bosses that told them to act like they have. Murdoch mafia crime family.

10. BenM

We need a free and lively press.

That doesn’t mean we need the press we have right now.

A demise of The Sun – which isn’t going to happen – would be no miss to our democracy and national conversation, just like the News of the World is not missed.

Journalists should be aware of that.

I think the News of the World is missed.

And I take it by a “free and lively” press you don’t mean what you sound like you mean – one that agrees entirely with you. So what do you mean? Apart from, of course, that any newspaper that disagrees with your politics ought to be shut down and somehow this soft Stalinism will produce a freer press.

Any news about what’s been happening with James Murdoch lately?

His Dad can’t be any too pleased with having to fly into London this week to sort things out here.

A free and varied press in Britain? It costs a fair bit of tin to run a newspaper and these days there aren’t the readers or advertisers prepared to pay. Newspapers have always represented the interests of their owners while attempting to pander to the prejudices of their readers but now they are nothing more than loss leaders to pressure politicians into obeying their owners’ whims. Investigative journalism is in its death throes, fearless editorials and tireless campaigning against vested interests are long gone. In their place is simplified tosh and acres and acres of celeb garbage all produced as cheaply as possible.

The longer I live the more true Yes Minister becomes:

Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press, I know exactly who reads the papers: 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 Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and the The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.

@18 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045

Course if they are innocent, they’ve got nothing to worry about

That one ain’t gonna get old in this thread!

I agree, Sunny, that Kavanagh has nothing to fear if he is innocent.

By complaining like this, it makes one think that perhaps he DOES have something to hide.

When are the police going to knock on HIS door?

In all fairness to the Sun backing our erosion on Civil liberties, I didn’t hear the left criticise some of the erosions of civil liberties like the abolition of double jeopardy, or the view that any incident has to be treated as a racist incident if anyone say’s it is, Plus the sun backed the tories who have got rid of section 44 stops, got rid of Stop and account forms and decreased time held with out charge from 42 days to 14 days, Plus the Sun carrying the allgegation wasn’t of peadophilia but holding Child porn pictures after the sun said he’d been arrested for it.

When civil liberties were not Kavanagh’s first concern:

http://harrangueman.blogspot.com/2005/11/thank-christ-our-press-is-better-than.html

@ 25 john reid

” I didn’t hear the left criticise some of the erosions of civil liberties like the abolition of double jeopardy, or the view that any incident has to be treated as a racist incident if anyone say’s it is”

Oh look, it’s SMFS Lite. Look, your implication that “the left” is somehow responsible for the fact that you didn’t hear something, probably because you weren’t listening, is extremely boring. I know sweeping and inaccurate generalisations are fun when you want an excuse to bash people you don’t like, but try to be a bit more rational, yeah?

Rupert Murdoch the old demon behind the masks of newspapers……http://soundcloud.com/brianrouth/my-power-murdoch

john reid,

In all fairness to the Sun backing our erosion on Civil liberties, I didn’t hear the left criticise some of the erosions of civil liberties like the abolition of double jeopardy, or the view that any incident has to be treated as a racist incident if anyone say’s it is,

Just because you’re ignorant of something happening, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Plus the sun backed the tories who have got rid of section 44 stops, got rid of Stop and account forms and decreased time held with out charge from 42 days to 14 days, Plus the Sun carrying the allgegation wasn’t of peadophilia but holding Child porn pictures after the sun said he’d been arrested for it.The Sun backed 42 days. I can’t be bothered to look into the rest of your claims.

27. Chaise Guevara

Oh look, it’s SMFS Lite. Look, your implication that “the left” is somehow responsible for the fact that you didn’t hear something, probably because you weren’t listening, is extremely boring. I know sweeping and inaccurate generalisations are fun when you want an excuse to bash people you don’t like, but try to be a bit more rational, yeah?

But it is simply a fact. Thatcher did erode some civil liberties. And important ones. But the big losses in modern times has been to the Left. And because of the Left. We are becoming less free all the time. Naturally the people who tend to support change are on the Left. The people who tend to support keeping the status quo are conservative and hence on the Right. As a general rule.

The Left talks a big game but when it comes down to it, they are on the side of rights on paper but unrestrained executive authority in practice.

@ 30

I’m on the left. In what ways am I authoritarian?

SFMS @30:

I’m still amazed that anyone could possibly think that the governments we had between 1997 and 2010 could be characterised as ‘the Left’. I mean, this is Rupe’s bestest friend Tony we’re talking about.

As for Kavanagh’s frantic rant, I think this takes him down for a body-slam:

http://sim-o.me.uk/2012/02/read-all-about-it-trevor-kavanagh-in-fisking-shocker/

31. Chaise Guevara

I’m on the left. In what ways am I authoritarian?

All apples may be red, but that does not mean everything red is an apple. The fact that the Left contains small remainders of a long-dead but more liberal tradition does not change the fact that most of the authoritarian moves we have seen over the last 60 years have come from the Left. It is true that the Right has always had a love-in with tougher law and order policies for instance, but these have had a minor impact on our rights and freedoms. The real threats come from the Left. And they have for half a century or more. Even if not everyone who describes themselves as on the Left agrees with every loss of freedom.

@13

“Um, Britain doesn’t have that either, unless you think that the Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent et al are Tory mouthpieces. Even the Sun and the Times have been known to back Labour”.

Ah yes and only once did that happen and I guess that had nothing to do with a little meeting between Blair and Murdoch prior to the 1997 election? Nice try.

“What Britain has is a press where most of the papers purchased are biased towards one party most of the time. Plenty of countries have that, I’m sure”.

Name some.

Well blow me down! Hang-and-flog-em-loranorder types So Much for My Dwindling Sense of Self and cjcjcjcjjjjjjjcccccccjjjjjjjjjjjj suddenly turn into fervent apostles of Shami Chakrabati when it’s the journalists of their favoured press tyrant under investigation! Break about the banners guys! Talkin’ bout a revolution – hold on!

Who’d a thunk it? No doubt they were just as righteously vexed when those latter-day Solzhenitzyns Archer and Aitken were langusishing under the Stalinist heel.

When the journalists of the nation’s largest right-wing media conglomerate can’t get away with bunging that nation’s police officers a few hundred grand to keep them on side once in a while – well – something really has gone wrong. What happened to British fair play?

32. The Judge

I’m still amazed that anyone could possibly think that the governments we had between 1997 and 2010 could be characterised as ‘the Left’. I mean, this is Rupe’s bestest friend Tony we’re talking about.

I don’t think it matters. Our important freedoms were long since lost by then. Even if we did have some minor rebalancing under Thatcher. The point about Blair’s government is that so many of them were former Communists and like many former Communists, leaving the party doesn’t mean you become a liberal.

Still I can think of three and a half important losses of freedom under Blair – the Hunting ban which was just childish but from the Left, the new Security laws which were stupid, the centralisation of NHS medical records which was and is appalling and the expansion of DNA databases which is not really a big issue.

The medical database programme is a good example of the trend of modern history. No one much is for it, but the technology makes it possible. Because it is possible, and will be more convenient for bureaucrats, it is moving forward even though there is no one much in favour. It is a massive intrusion by the State into matters that should be private. But no one cares. The modern world makes a loss of privacy and hence civil liberties possible, so it is inevitable that the people who want the world to move forward and “progress” will support it. Britain simply does not have any politically active people who give a damn about civil liberties.

34. buddyhell

Ah yes and only once did that happen and I guess that had nothing to do with a little meeting between Blair and Murdoch prior to the 1997 election? Nice try.

It would be hard to argue cause and effect. Murdoch is more of a follower than a mover. The Scottish Sun backed Independence after all. But either way, it is irrelevant isn’t it? The Murdoch press did not continue to support one party.

35. Arthur Seaton

Well blow me down! Hang-and-flog-em-loranorder types So Much for My Dwindling Sense of Self and cjcjcjcjjjjjjjcccccccjjjjjjjjjjjj suddenly turn into fervent apostles of Shami Chakrabati when it’s the journalists of their favoured press tyrant under investigation! Break about the banners guys! Talkin’ bout a revolution – hold on!

Sorry Arthur but would you care to stop making an idiot of yourself and actually read what I wrote?

When the journalists of the nation’s largest right-wing media conglomerate can’t get away with bunging that nation’s police officers a few hundred grand to keep them on side once in a while – well – something really has gone wrong. What happened to British fair play?

It depends if they are the only ones who have done so. I don’t think they are. It was common practice. Illegal of course, and the police should crack down on it. But we still need to think if we would prefer to continue to turn a blind eye. We want newspapers to report what the police know after all.

Still it is odd giving a British policeman the odd fiver is such a crime while taking far larger sums from the KGB or from the Stasi, as a number of Guardian journalists, in the loose sense of the term, did is fine.

Yes we need a free press, in the same way we need a police force.

However, if the police regularly piled into the middle of towns every Friday night, drunk, smashing the place up, beating people and generally wildly abusing their powers, then we’d demand something was done about it.

The problem with freedom of the press, is that there’s some areas of the press that don’t understand why it’s there, and it’s not there to hack phones or take pictures of celebrity knickers from a mile away.

You can’t abuse your freedoms for decades in that way and then act all shocked that someone’s calling you out on it.

Of course tighter regulations could be restrictive of proper journalism, and no-one wants that (ok, some of the rich, famous and powerful do). However, a decent, neutral and empowered version of the PCC would be a good start, and less of the current attitude that something is news because there’s someone famous involved.

I’m not pretending that the Independent is a perfect newspaper by any stretch, but I’m still very pleased that I’ve managed to convert 2 Daily Mail readers to the ‘i’ paper so far, they’re much happier not having to plow thru 30 pages of hate and celeb nonsense before they find a news article, and they’re saving a few quid a week too. I just don’t know how ‘i’ does it for 20p without the massive circulation of the Sun.

Wot Arthur Seaton says at 35!

Slam dunk.

My complaint is that I’ve not been able to read the Sun for months. I used to be able to rely on finding a dicarded copy at least once a month on the buses I travel on to go shopping. But now that hard times are back, I can ony find freebie papers like the Metro, and it’s jolly good for short news reports.

The only people I heard criticisng the abolition of double jeopardy were Peter Hitchen Plus another Tory writing on Ianidale.com agreeing with him, anna Raccoon, the thirdestate ,socialist unity and the Libdems, plus when anyone points out anti white racism exist as “any incident has to be treeted as A racist if anyone say’s it is, ” I’ve heard those on the left say that ,that phrase doesn’t apply to it when it’s a White person that’s been killed.

@ 33 SMFS

“All apples may be red, but that does not mean everything red is an apple. The fact that the Left contains small remainders of a long-dead but more liberal tradition does not change the fact that most of the authoritarian moves we have seen over the last 60 years have come from the Left.”

Firstly, you’re goalpost-shifting a bit here. If you accept that I’m non-authoritarian and left-wing, your statement “The Left talks a big game but when it comes down to it, they are on the side of rights on paper but unrestrained executive authority in practice” is untrue, disproved by contradicting evidence. It could be true of most left-wingers, but not “the Left” as a whole group. I make this distinction because you’re a fan of sweeping pejorative generalisations about “the left”, which you then justify based on *some* of the left. In which case “the Right” can be described as rapists and murderers.

You’re now going to say that most rightists aren’t rapists and murderers (and quite right too), but that most leftists are authoritarian, and therefore that’s the difference. Fine, but I’d need evidence for that second claim (you’ve already made it so I’m not really putting words into your mouth). Also, for it to be relevant here I think you need to demonstrate that most leftists are more authoritarian than most rightists.

“It is true that the Right has always had a love-in with tougher law and order policies for instance, but these have had a minor impact on our rights and freedoms. The real threats come from the Left. And they have for half a century or more. Even if not everyone who describes themselves as on the Left agrees with every loss of freedom.”

What specific impacts and threats are you talking about? On the right’s side I’m claiming drug prohibition and the official treatment of gays as second-class citizens (via the banning of gay marriage), tell me if you disagree. What has the left got? This is a honest question, not a challenge, I can think of at least one example myself.

Stop the presses! John Reid has heard some more stuff! And not heard some other stuff! And it all conforms to his prejudices!!!! Someone ring The Troll Times, we’ve got their front page!

Ah yes and only once did that happen and I guess that had nothing to do with a little meeting between Blair and Murdoch prior to the 1997 election? Nice try.

The only newspaper to have an unbroken run of endorsing one party since the war is the Mirror. The Times backed Labour in ’01 & ’05 (but backed the Tories in ’97). The Sun backed Labour in ’66 and ’70 as well as ’97, ’01 and ’05. Even the Mail backed a coalition Govt in ’74.

“What Britain has is a press where most of the papers purchased are biased towards one party most of the time. Plenty of countries have that, I’m sure”.

Name some.

The US? Canada? Australia?

@ 34 buddyhell

“Ah yes and only once did that happen and I guess that had nothing to do with a little meeting between Blair and Murdoch prior to the 1997 election? Nice try. ”

Thanks for ignoring what I said about the Guardian, Indy and Mirror. That was very polite and grown-up of you. Glad we can have a mature conversation.

“Name some.”

America springs to mind, as does Italy. But you’re the one claiming this is unique to Britain, so please explain how you know that all other first-world democracies have a balanced media.

@44

“Thanks for ignoring what I said about the Guardian, Indy and Mirror. That was very polite and grown-up of you. Glad we can have a mature conversation”.

You seem to be You mention the Mirror, the Guardian and the Indy, which rather proves my point: that most of the British press is owned by Tory-supporting proprietors and 2 of those daily titles are owned by Rupert Murdoch. I’m sorry if that fact has escaped you.

“America springs to mind, as does Italy. But you’re the one claiming this is unique to Britain, so please explain how you know that all other first-world democracies have a balanced media”.

“America”? How so? It’s a very big place that only has one national daily newspaper. Of course this country isn’t like Australia for its Murdoch/Fairfax duality but then, nor is an acceptable situation.

@43

“The only newspaper to have an unbroken run of endorsing one party since the war is the Mirror. The Times backed Labour in ’01 & ’05 (but backed the Tories in ’97). The Sun backed Labour in ’66 and ’70 as well as ’97, ’01 and ’05. Even the Mail backed a coalition Govt in ’74″

Some of those papers may have supported Labour but the overall tone of those papers is right-wing and reactionary and most certainly anti-trade union – a fact that escaped the attention of those who wish to prove some non-point.

“The US? Canada? Australia”?

The US, no. Canada, QED. Australia, fair comment.

@ buddyhell

“You mention the Mirror, the Guardian and the Indy, which rather proves my point: that most of the British press is owned by Tory-supporting proprietors and 2 of those daily titles are owned by Rupert Murdoch. I’m sorry if that fact has escaped you.”

That’s not your point, unless you’ve changed it. You said the press was completely biased towards one party. I’ve pointed out that three national papers do NOT support that party. Evidence AGAINST your point does not prove your point. I’m sorry if that basic facet of logic has escaped you

““America”? How so? It’s a very big place that only has one national daily newspaper. Of course this country isn’t like Australia for its Murdoch/Fairfax duality but then, nor is an acceptable situation.”

The American news media overall seems heavily biased towards the right. I don’t know if that’s true of the press specifically, but it’s the same issue.

You didn’t say anything about Italy; can I assume you accept the example? You also didn’t provide the evidence I asked for; can I assume you don’t have any? In fact, you don’t seem to have any basis for your points whatsoever, which is why you’re relying on unfounded generalisations, goalpost-shifting, and weak attempts to patronise me for daring to disagree with you. Can I assume you’re trolling?

@ 46 buddyhell

“Some of those papers may have supported Labour but the overall tone of those papers is right-wing and reactionary and most certainly anti-trade union – a fact that escaped the attention of those who wish to prove some non-point.”

And now you appear to be attacking me indirectly, having moved the goalposts again to do so! Get back under your bridge.

@47

“That’s not your point, unless you’ve changed it. You said the press was completely biased towards one party. I’ve pointed out that three national papers do NOT support that party. Evidence AGAINST your point does not prove your point. I’m sorry if that basic facet of logic has escaped you”.

Nope, I’ve changed nothing so please stop misrepresenting me.

“The American news media overall seems heavily biased towards the right. I don’t know if that’s true of the press specifically, but it’s the same issue”.

Really? In which case, you don’t know that much about the US press or the rest of the news media. Ever hear of the New York Times or the Washington Post?

@ 49 buddyhell

“Nope, I’ve changed nothing so please stop misrepresenting me.”

*Ahem*

“All I want is a proper free press instead of the travesty that passes for a free press in this country. What other countries, other than those in authoritarian states, have a press that is completely biased in favour of one party? I can’t think of many.”
-buddyhell

Lying is naughty.

“Really? In which case, you don’t know that much about the US press or the rest of the news media. Ever hear of the New York Times or the Washington Post?”

Gosh, no, what are they?

Anyhoo, I asked you three questions @47. Are you going to answer them, or are you gonna keep wasting my time with your question-dodging, goalpost-shifting, and straight-out lying?

Let’s be clear here – The Sun did not switch support to Labour in 1997 because of a change of heart or political principles, but simply because the fag-end of the Thatcher/Major years had left the Tory brand so toxic that there was no way they could win – and thus the only reason for the change was political expediency (The only thing that Murdoch hates more than fair competition is being perceived as being on the losing side). Even then, Murdoch personally extracted his pound of flesh from Blair – among other things no reversal of privatisation policy and support for unions to be reduced to a token level at most – before doing so.

Despite this, the editorial tone of the paper remained anti-union, pro-business and authoritarian – read between the lines of any of Kavanagh’s pieces and you could almost hear him gritting his teeth at being unable to denounce Labour as a party in the way he clearly wanted to. Under Murdoch, The Sun is and always has been a Thatcherite organ through and through, and any right-winger using it’s grudging support for Blair as evidence that the press in the UK is not largely aligned to the Tories is on a hiding to nothing.

What makes this schadenfreude somewhat more delicious is the sight of Kavanagh nakedly appealing to the Tory leadership for the return of the quid-pro-quo that marked the Thatcher, Major (and yes, Blair) years. I suspect that it is slowly dawning on him that this batch of Tories – Thatcherite in nature, but resolutely old-guard in terms of social status from birth – are interested only in the well-being of those in their club and of their status – something which he clearly is not.

Chaise guevara, Lot’s of left wingers who feel that the Tories and the sun have eroded civil liberites, were Quiet on the abolition of double jeopardy and I felt that those on the left who kept quiet about the abolition of double jeopardy are Now compalinging that other Liberties abolished at the Time of abolition of double jeopardy in 2005 should have criticised both the civil liberites of Detention without trial as well as the bolition of double jeopardy,

So I say that criticisng one lot of Liberties abolished but not another lot makes me prejudice?

How can my criticsm of some of the left for keeping quiet aobut the ancient law of double jeopardy being eroded ,make me prejudice,

Tipical leftie name throwing rubbish.

46 Buddy ell, teh su n didn’t exist in 66 it was called the Hearld then

the daily Mirror actually backed Tory stephen Norris for mayor in 2000 as he thought he had a better chance of beating Independent candidate Livingstone than albour’s Frank dobson did.

@52

It was because of incompetence (and possibly corruption) on the part of the Police and CPS in at least two murder investigations (Julie Hogg and Stephen Lawrence) that double-jeopardy was rescinded in the first place – take it up with the officers concerned.

54,I thought it was Micheal mansfield enocuraging the Lawrences to have a private proscution and imran khan humiliating dwayne brookes putting him up on the witness stand, without letting him look at the statement he’d made 3 years earlier, without the possiblility he’d recall what he put, But are you saying that If police ( possible corruption) and incomptetnece were the reason that an 800 year old law of you only get once chance to find someone guilty other wise they will be pre judged by a jury they’re guilty without giving them a chance to have a clean slate) was O.K to be got rid of as the left should turn a blind eye to this erosion of liberty as the police allegedly messed it up in teh original investiagtion,

If so If some black men are retried for killing a white man a few years form now as teh original police trial was (allegedly) incompetent then it’s alright for people to be tried twice as someinvestigations aren’t very good?

@55

Forget the Lawrence case for the moment, it was the Julie Hogg murder that exposed the limitations of double-jeopardy in the face of modern police work and the modern justice system. Not a case of left and right so much as a case of right and wrong.

In any case even with double-jeopardy gone, the only way you can be tried for the same crime is on the basis of substantial new evidence being found – you can’t just keep trying someone for the same crime on the same evidence.

As recently as Saturday, the Sun was declaiming in an editorial that the only solution to rampant criminality was more prisons built and harsher sentences passed. That at least some of the paper’s senior staff may be hoist by their own petard is not a left/right issue.

54. bluepillnation

It was because of incompetence (and possibly corruption) on the part of the Police and CPS in at least two murder investigations (Julie Hogg and Stephen Lawrence) that double-jeopardy was rescinded in the first place – take it up with the officers concerned.

Oh bollocks. There was and still is no credible evidence linking the convicted to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. They probably did it but as they did not confess, there was little the police could do. What they did was bug them for years, follow them, spy on them, pressure their friends and neighbours to denounce them and still they had nothing. Their case relied in a tiny speck of blood that was probably the result of contamination in the lab. No amount of competent policing could have convicted those three. It took years of media smears and highly damaging undercover footage – none of which involved anything like a confession – to get a jury to convict them. Nor is there much evidence of police wrong-doing in the Julie Hogg case. They had no cause of death. They did not find the body for 80 days by which time there was little forensics. All they had was some circumstantial evidence linking Billy Dunlop to Hogg – he had her keys and he admitted to going around there that night. That a jury twice refused to convict is perfectly understandable. They wouldn’t have got him a third time except that he was stupid enough to confess to all and sundry.

No other police force in the world would have got a conviction for the Lawrence case and Dunlop would have had a good chance of acquittal under any other legal system in the world.

56. bluepillnation

In any case even with double-jeopardy gone, the only way you can be tried for the same crime is on the basis of substantial new evidence being found – you can’t just keep trying someone for the same crime on the same evidence.

Yet. But now the principle is gone there is nothing to stop it widening further. As it will. People will be re-tried and re-tried until the State gets the result it wants. As with Stephen Lawrence – probably one of the worst legal decisions in recent times. Like nothing so much as the Jill Dando case.

As recently as Saturday, the Sun was declaiming in an editorial that the only solution to rampant criminality was more prisons built and harsher sentences passed. That at least some of the paper’s senior staff may be hoist by their own petard is not a left/right issue.

Indeed. They were still right though.

Let’s be clear here – The Sun did not switch support to Labour in 1997 because of a change of heart or political principles, but simply because the fag-end of the Thatcher/Major years had left the Tory brand so toxic that there was no way they could win – and thus the only reason for the change was political expediency (The only thing that Murdoch hates more than fair competition is being perceived as being on the losing side).

The other main Murdoch newspaper supported the Tories in 1997.

@ 52 john reid

“So I say that criticisng one lot of Liberties abolished but not another lot makes me prejudice?

How can my criticsm of some of the left for keeping quiet aobut the ancient law of double jeopardy being eroded ,make me prejudice,”

It doesn’t. But taking your posts in this thread as a whole, it’s clear that you’re only on here to disparage the entire left wing based on “some shit that I heard, no really”.

@59 I believe that is known as ‘hedging your bets’.

Haise guavara ,where do you get this assumption from,I’ve often suported the Humn rights act, admired the Lawrence reprot, so maybe I do agree witht eh tories on not naming people arrested for rape, thats only a half dozen times have I criticised the left for hypocrisy over liberties.

@57

We’re drifting off-topic here, but in fact there was plenty of evidence, and plenty of tip-offs given to the police within days of the Stephen Lawrence murder, but it was ignored in favour of trying to research and prove some kind of gangland link to Stephen and Duwayne Brooks (of which there was none). Don’t try me on this one because I’m from that area – everyone knew where the racists congregated and everyone knew that the Acourts and their crew were behind it, just as they were with Rohit Duggal’s murder the year before. The local constabulary could have easily convicted the lot of them if they’d followed the evidence trail from day one – instead they made a complete hash of it, whether due to incompetence or fear of crossing Cliff Norris is a matter of conjecture.

As for the Julie Hogg case, the police’s forensic “experts” tagged and filmed the whole scene within a few days, but because the senior investigating officers were convinced it was a runaway case they only made a cursory inspection of the house – *including* the bathroom where the body was in fact hidden behind the bath panel. It was not the police who found the body 80 days later, but her poor mum and ex-husband.

Double jeopardy is a fine and noble tradition, but in the face of a police force who clearly discriminate along race and class lines when it comes to putting investigatory effort in, it’s hardly surprising that it becomes a dodgy proposition.

Crime of the ilk that the Currant Bun is demanding more prisons to cope with can be fought equally well by reducing the level of desperation in low-income areas, but that doesn’t jibe with the social-darwinist bent of the Thatcherite credo that Murdoch and his press espouse so gleefully.

I’m sure chaise guevara will criticise me agian for showing concern at one form of descrimination and not another, but Class IS more of an issue in terms of how the police deecriminate,Agisnt it’s own officers and also agaisnt the areas tehy consider council estates not worthy of working on,and again there are those n the left who can hande the police not aring about its’ working class officers or the white working class being attacked, In facxt indirectly the fact the Police felt steven Lawrence was A working class lad so must have been in A gang a and that his paernts middle class friends of the Daily mail editor meant that teh police bigotry in those days was not only based on Race but class, the fact that lawrence was in the Boy scouts and a team player aty the Sports club, made the police years later realsie he was middle class, as middle britain showed support for the family.

Dianer abbott’s famous 1987 coment that “All white working class people are racist” was more proved out that she was Friedns with White middle classers like Jonathon Aitken and Michael portillo.Now the police, have gone out of it’s way to stop racial descrimination (too far if the Mail today is to be beleived) Yet the real descrimination that the police management shows to it’s own officers is On class, How many working class Police are at the top, Not even Masons,No ,theyr’e all Oxbridge types who know nothing about Policing like cressida Dick. or ali dizaei (well upto yesterday)

Regarding Liberties- I’m worried that the Stephen Lawrence trial now seems fit to have -The Judge seriously thinking they’d be given a fair trial, Not protecting them when they were lynched by A mob on their exit from the 1999 inquiry, Entrapment evidence that was non evidence ,People saying something racist, dodgy DNA evidence and Possible perjury charge for the families-saying that as their families roughly recall they were with them on a night 18 years ago, so when they’ were found guilty, the family must have commited perjury in not quite remembering what they were doing on a specific night 18 years ago.

@64

I can find no evidence of any Diane Abbott statement to the effect that all white working-class people are racist – so you’d better find some evidence to back that assertion up (and as someone who grew up working class and was vehemently anti-racism since I knew what the word meant I’m trying hard not to take offence).

Neville Lawrence was not a “friend” to Paul Dacre, he was a tradesman who did some home improvements for him before his son was murdered. That the Daily Heil took the murder so personally says more about Dacre’s twisted sense of social worth than anything else – all it proved was the old adage about a stopped clock being right twice a day.

The idea that anti-racism initiatives born of the left somehow leave white working class people with a thinner end of the wedge than their black/asian/middle-eastern counterparts is as wrong-headed as it is repugnant. Going on past experience, senior police officers having a habit of discriminating along class lines based in part on the amount of negative publicity which grows proportionally to the social status of the victim is nothing new. Trying to render the race aspect irrelevant has no real effect in that regard – to some officers, you’re scum no matter what the colour of your skin, the miners’ strike proved that.

So – back to the topic at hand. Two things in general that the police absolutely will not tolerate are the killing of one of their own, followed closely by making the force look bad in public. It is this second sin that the NOTW and The Sun have committed, and no matter how the state of favours done between the police and Murdoch’s red tops lies it is now irrelevant – as far as the Met are concerned, Wapping is now fair game. Murdoch has long since considered his UK operations second fiddle to his US ambitions and even if the Currant Bun survives this there will be blood.

One last thing – I know for a fact that most of The Sun’s journalists are in fact middle-class, and have been systematically patronising the hell out of their working-class readership for donkey’s years – hence my lack of sympathy.

@ 62 John Reid

“Haise guavara ,where do you get this assumption from,I’ve often suported the Humn rights act, admired the Lawrence reprot, so maybe I do agree witht eh tories on not naming people arrested for rape, thats only a half dozen times have I criticised the left for hypocrisy over liberties.”

Well, from here, your post at 25:

“I didn’t hear the left criticise some of the erosions of civil liberties like the abolition of double jeopardy, or the view that any incident has to be treated as a racist incident if anyone say’s it is”

I am sick to death of people branding whole groups based on what a few people in that group did. What you’re doing here is worse – blaming a whole group because you didn’t personally hear anyone in that group saying something.

I’m on the left, and I think the way racist incidents are defined is ridiculous. There, you’ve heard it. So please now stop branding all of us with your straw man attack based on highly suspect anecdotal data.

@ 64 John Reid

And why you think I’d criticise you for calling attention to class discrimination is beyond me.

@68

It’s quite simple. He seems to believe that because a significant number on the left are supportive of anti-racist policies, that same number have abandoned the white working class.

Quite what this has to do with the OP is beyond me…

63. bluepillnation

We’re drifting off-topic here, but in fact there was plenty of evidence, and plenty of tip-offs given to the police within days of the Stephen Lawrence murder, but it was ignored in favour of trying to research and prove some kind of gangland link to Stephen and Duwayne Brooks (of which there was none).

A young Black male is killed, stabbed to death, a gangland link is not an unreasonable assumption. In fact it is far likelier than a racist attack. Nor did the police waste any time on a gangland connection. Lawrence was killed on April 26th, by April 30th they had identified the main, indeed the only, suspects. The first of whom was arrested on May 7th. How much faster do you want them to work? Malicious gossip from the neighbours is not evidence. There was and is no evidence against these men – and it is telling that years of secret filming failed to produce a shred of evidence against them.

Don’t try me on this one because I’m from that area – everyone knew where the racists congregated and everyone knew that the Acourts and their crew were behind it, just as they were with Rohit Duggal’s murder the year before.

Why bother with juries if we can just ask the blokes down the pub? This is not evidence. It is not even close to evidence. Notice that not one of the three eye witnesses were able to identify a single one of the attackers.

The local constabulary could have easily convicted the lot of them if they’d followed the evidence trail from day one – instead they made a complete hash of it, whether due to incompetence or fear of crossing Cliff Norris is a matter of conjecture.

What evidence trail? There was and is no evidence against them. The pathetic little piece of evidence they have – a microscopic speck of blood that is probably the result of laboratory contamination – could not have been used back then. It has taken advances in DNA technology to get anything useful from it.

As for the Julie Hogg case, the police’s forensic “experts” tagged and filmed the whole scene within a few days, but because the senior investigating officers were convinced it was a runaway case they only made a cursory inspection of the house – *including* the bathroom where the body was in fact hidden behind the bath panel. It was not the police who found the body 80 days later, but her poor mum and ex-husband.

Assuming that she run away was not unreasonable. They had no body. They looked over the house. No body. It was well hidden. So what? What do you think they should have done for what was probably a run away case?

Double jeopardy is a fine and noble tradition, but in the face of a police force who clearly discriminate along race and class lines when it comes to putting investigatory effort in, it’s hardly surprising that it becomes a dodgy proposition.

There is no evidence that the police have ever discriminated. And what is more your logic is pathetic – the police and Courts are biased so we need to give them more powers and working class and racial minorities fewer rights? Come on. This is about as logical as a Barbie commercial.

Crime of the ilk that the Currant Bun is demanding more prisons to cope with can be fought equally well by reducing the level of desperation in low-income areas, but that doesn’t jibe with the social-darwinist bent of the Thatcherite credo that Murdoch and his press espouse so gleefully.

Except it can’t. Crime is not caused by desperation in low-income areas. It is caused by criminals. Who need to be locked up.

@ 69 bluepillnation

“Quite what this has to do with the OP is beyond me…”

I suspect that once John has thought of a way to bash the left, silly notions like “relevance” and “accuracy” fall by the wayside.

Crime is not caused by desperation in low-income areas.

This isn’t for SMFS, who doesn’t do ‘the literature’ and already knows it all, but if anyone is genuinely interested in the topic they can search using say scholar.google.com for “predictors of crime rates” or “criminogenic needs”. There are a number of papers about this topic.

68,69 not at all, And i didn’t say chaise guevara felt the working class prejudice was O.K

My point was that the establishment have brought in policies agisnt race prejudice (Like positive descrimination, labour has All black female shortlists, and in turn) it’s a lot more dificult for the white working class to sucseed

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/pebs/con87.htm

(second tory election broadcast of June 87,) Abbotts comment half way down )(it use to be on you tube) and these wuotes were ran in Tory adds too.

In All fair ness to abbott her defence she made several times was that it was taken out of context she didn’t all consdier white middle calss people to be racist like her firends Portillo and Aitken.

72. ukliberty

This isn’t for SMFS, who doesn’t do ‘the literature’ and already knows it all, but if anyone is genuinely interested in the topic they can search using say scholar.google.com for “predictors of crime rates” or “criminogenic needs”. There are a number of papers about this topic.

Alas I read it anyway. The literature is appalling. Even by the standards of social science. But in so far as it shows anything, it shows a correlation. Not causation. We have also seen America, for instance, entering into a serious economic down turn. But no up tick of crime. Yes, criminals tend to be concentrated in poor neighbourhoods. Oddly enough crime doesn’t seem to pay. But that doesn’t mean that being in those neighbourhoods causes crime.

@73

A Tory political broadcast, are you yanking my chain? They’ve done their research so well they can’t even spell her name right. Try again.

SFMS,

Even by the standards of social science. But in so far as it shows anything, it shows a correlation. Not causation. We have also seen America, for instance, entering into a serious economic down turn. But no up tick of crime. Yes, criminals tend to be concentrated in poor neighbourhoods. Oddly enough crime doesn’t seem to pay. But that doesn’t mean that being in those neighbourhoods causes crime.

I haven’t seen claims in the literature that it “causes” crime. ISTM this is your straw man.

predictor != cause

@ 73 John Reid

“My point was that the establishment have brought in policies agisnt race prejudice (Like positive descrimination, labour has All black female shortlists, and in turn) it’s a lot more dificult for the white working class to sucseed”

What positive discrimination do we actually use, legally, in this country? And do you have a source for Labour using all black female shortlists?

“(second tory election broadcast of June 87,) Abbotts comment half way down )(it use to be on you tube) and these wuotes were ran in Tory adds too.”

It wouldn’t exactly stun me to discover that Abbott accused all white people of being racist, given that she’s an idiot and a bigot, but a Tory broadcast featuring an actress pretending to be Abbott is not a convincing source. If she said it you should be able to find a more reliable citation.

75. a independent web site reprints the script to A tory party broadcase and get’s her name wrong, it’s not the toires getting it wrong it that broadcast, and those adverts were from newspapers everywhere.

are you denying all the other comments I thought the one aobut the brighton hotel bombing beign a justiffed attack or teh “I’d scrap the army if I could ” by livingstone or Bernie grants “bloody good hiding commetn were common knoweledge” If the best you can do to try topersuade me that abbott didn’t say it is to say that the tories quoted it so It can’t be true and there’s not that many other comments for 1987 around then, i can’t see your view

regaridng labour haivng all black women shortlists, It’s how the women who were selected for GLA seats in london that we don’t already hold were selected for the election next month, the selection took place last year.

Harriet harmans bill two years ago also said that if two equally tallented peoeple wnet for a job and htere was only one space oand one of them was A white male and the other black or female ,the other should get it.

@ 78

Sigh… any sources, John?

Oh, and I’m not saying “the tories quoted it so It can’t be true”. You’re saying “the tories quoted it so It MUST be true”.

@70

You know, the funny thing is that you’re making the same assumptions that the initial investigating officers did and they are as incorrect now as they were then, and probably for the same reasons – your intelligence comes from watching too much TV and not getting to know the area you’re talking about (and in their case supposedly policing).

The fact is that there was no serious gang trouble (of the kind you’re alluding to) in that area at the time, but there had been a spate of vicious racially-motivated assaults and at least one murder in the year or two leading up to that one, so to assume a gangland connection not only flies in the face of the evidence from the street, but as far as I’m concerned shows more than a degree of racial prejudice from the off.

Why bother with juries if we can just ask the blokes down the pub? This is not evidence. It is not even close to evidence.

The pomposity of your assertion is second only to your obvious lack of knowledge of the case – in fact the *first thing* the senior detective on scene did was walk up the road to the pub, because he assumed there had been a fight. Those witnesses may not have been able to identify the attackers, but they *all* told the officers on the scene that the gang had fled *down* the road – this intelligence was not acted upon until at least an hour after the attack, by which time they had clearly gone to ground.

There are myriad other mistakes which allowed potential physical evidence to be destroyed right under the noses of the police photographer (who was sent with no backup).

With Julie Hogg, all they had to do was pull the bath panel out to reveal the body – it was probably the most logical place to hide one and certainly was not “well-hidden” by any stretch of the imagination. She was a young mum, which counts heavily against the “runaway” assumption.

It must be a comforting notion to you that crime is committed by people who decide to become criminals, that the decision to do so is the be-all and end-all, and once that decision is made they should be locked up. That notion is as fatuous as it is incorrect because it ignores the “why”. There’s a world of difference between killing for no reason other than hate, or to cover your tracks after bungling a rape – and the petty crimes that criminalise thousands of young working class people of all races and backgrounds year on year.

75,Regaridng the gangs ,the Lawrence murderers were in A gang believed to have stabbed 6 other people,a judge at a majistrates court ordered 4 of the 6 Lawrence suspects to pay £100 each to Dwayne brookes for force inprsionment (plus 10 other lads thought to be white raicsts who lived in the area ) for Balance of probabilites based on A judges hearsay . Another well known racist gang was stopped and searched by police on the suspision of murder minutes after the Lawrence attack and their reputation was worse than the Lawrence suspects their description more than matched the lawrence suspects Brookes described too. Ref: the Mcpherson report.

Anotter sigh, there’s been many times that have repritned the Quotes the Tories had about the lefft of the labour party, Maybe i’ve seen the Likes Of Abbottand Grants comments a lot more than becasue i spent several years trying to get laobur elected in 92 and 97 and realised the reason we lost the ’87 election by antoerh landslide was those sorts of comments
i recall abbott trying to defend her comment saying it was Ironic and taken out of context, I also recall the Tories spending a couple of million on newpaper adverts with her comment among others the week before the Election as the toreis felt they were only 2% ahead in the polls.

Scroll through to page 4
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/newspaper-advertisement-for-the-british-conservative-party-news-photo/92063414

@82

We’re way off the beaten track of the discussion, so I’m not going to say any more after this on the subject. SMFS’s assertion about gangland involvement in the murder was obliquely referring to primarily Afro-Caribbean gangs from the high-rise estates further into town and in Thamesmead at the time, not the pathetic group of hate-filled tosspots who were responsible for the attacks in the area. The judge who awarded the token payments to Duwayne Brooks undoubtedly saw more evidence than you or I ever have, and I’ve said things in the past intended as sarcastic humour that would sound horrifying taken out of context, so I’m inclined to believe Diane Abbott on the subject.

Now, I can’t tell if you’re using the BNP’s favourite argument (namely “the left has abandoned working-class whites and the only real racism in this country is against working-class whites”) as a cautionary tale for us lefties because you think it is gaining ground, or whether you actually believe that argument yourself. Judging by your ranting about “positive discrimination” I suspect it’s the latter, in which case you’re a BNP sympathiser and I’m not inclined to take the conversation any further – but I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.

83 In Havering at the 2008 GLA election, there was An Asian Lady who was the Candidate ,I organised the campaign we, got1000 more votes in 2008 than 2004, we had A ll female all black shortlist for candidate in2012, and frankly I suspect we’ll do worse in 2012 than 2004.

. The judge who awarded the token payments to Duwayne Brooks undoubtedly saw more evidence than you or I ever have- the Mcpherson report concluded that ‘there wasn’t one iota of evidence they did it”
the two who were cleared at the original trial and are still Innocent till proven guilty, how could the two men who are still Innocent in terms of the law, have been considered for A £100 payout, as they’re still Not guilty in terms of the law or based on any evindence they lied about this ,or even if they new the other murderers ,there’s no proof they were with them, afterall there was 6 not 5 suspects and lots of other people both stopped by police or orderered to pay brookes compensation for force inprisonment could be considered suspects. then there’s the lad who was a suspect who wasn’t prosecuted in the private proseecution or found guilty recently. How could he be tried for this he hasn’t even said “Not guilty” in court yet

cut myself off halfway through

saying as someone pelaeded not guilty in 1996(or not even pleading in one case) yet there wasnt’ any evidence to say they were even there, for two of them, and there’s no real evidnce now in 2012 that they were there. as the men found guilty have never been proved to know the others (even the Brookes pay out,that some various people should give him £100) Let alone been in the area at that time. Yet it was suggested as they’d pleaded Not guilty in one case so they must of lied as we don’t like (So this lie is perjury) It hasn’t even been proved that 3 people have lied or not all in Pleading Not guilty as they’re still regarded as Not guilty .

@ John

No sources, then.

76. ukliberty

I haven’t seen claims in the literature that it “causes” crime. ISTM this is your straw man.

predictor != cause

So now ukl wants to follow Chaise and Jim into Sally’s territory. Great. Here’s what you objected to:

72. ukliberty

Crime is not caused by desperation in low-income areas.

This isn’t for SMFS, who doesn’t do ‘the literature’ and already knows it all, but if anyone is genuinely interested in the topic they can search using say scholar.google.com for “predictors of crime rates” or “criminogenic needs”. There are a number of papers about this topic.

So when I say crime is not caused by poverty, you objected. Presumably you were claiming that crime was caused by poverty. Now you agree there is no reason to think crime is caused by poverty. F**king hooray. Going to waste my time with some other completely pointless and spurious claim about something I did not say?

81. bluepillnation

You know, the funny thing is that you’re making the same assumptions that the initial investigating officers did and they are as incorrect now as they were then, and probably for the same reasons – your intelligence comes from watching too much TV and not getting to know the area you’re talking about (and in their case supposedly policing).

And what assumptions would these be blue? Apart from figments of your own imagination.

The fact is that there was no serious gang trouble (of the kind you’re alluding to) in that area at the time

So what? A young black male is killed in an unprovoked attack. Gang involvement is a natural first assumption. Even if the police did make it, they had all four under questioning within the first four days. It did not hold them up for long, even if it happened. So it is irrelevant. The killers did not get off in the first trial because of the police being side tracked. You were wrong.

The pomposity of your assertion is second only to your obvious lack of knowledge of the case

And your bluster is just a cover for the fact that you have spouted off about a subject you know nothing.

in fact the *first thing* the senior detective on scene did was walk up the road to the pub

Taking that phrase out of context will not help either.

Those witnesses may not have been able to identify the attackers, but they *all* told the officers on the scene that the gang had fled *down* the road – this intelligence was not acted upon until at least an hour after the attack, by which time they had clearly gone to ground.

It is their neighbourhood. There is no way that middle aged policemen on the scene hours later were going to catch anyone. You’re wasting our time.

There are myriad other mistakes which allowed potential physical evidence to be destroyed right under the noses of the police photographer (who was sent with no backup).

Such as? Again you’re making stuff up.

With Julie Hogg, all they had to do was pull the bath panel out to reveal the body – it was probably the most logical place to hide one and certainly was not “well-hidden” by any stretch of the imagination. She was a young mum, which counts heavily against the “runaway” assumption.

Sorry but how often are bodies hidden behind the bath panel? Sure, you know now. But they would have had to tear the entire house apart. They had no reason to start with the bath or even suspect it. Bodies are usually dumped. And the natural first assumption is that she had run away. People do. By what remarkable piece of logic do you arrive at the bath panel as the first place to look?

It must be a comforting notion to you that crime is committed by people who decide to become criminals, that the decision to do so is the be-all and end-all, and once that decision is made they should be locked up.

I am not sure where you think this fatuous strawman will get you.

83. bluepillnation

We’re way off the beaten track of the discussion, so I’m not going to say any more after this on the subject.

Good to see you have recognised you screwed up.

SMFS’s assertion about gangland involvement in the murder was obliquely referring to primarily Afro-Caribbean gangs from the high-rise estates further into town and in Thamesmead at the time

It was not my comment, it was yours. And in so far as anything I said referred to anyone, you have no idea who I was talking about and are in no position to make any sort of claim about my meaning.

@88

Everything I’ve said is in the MacPherson report in black and white – look it up for yourself.

89. bluepillnation

Everything I’ve said is in the MacPherson report in black and white – look it up for yourself.

I love the way the Left never believes the police. Until they do.

I wonder what The Sun’s own human rights expert, Hollie, has to say: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/human-rights-with-hollie/ ?

my comment seems to have disapeared