Originally posted by Lateralthinking1
View Post
Only a few days to wait now .....
-
Well I'm sure that the judge will be aware of all this when s/he makes his/her sentencing speech, Lat.
Only a few days to wait now ..... -
Thanks am51. I don't think many will be happy with the decision but I could be wrong. Lat.Comment
-
Well, Dobson said, on being lead down to cells, that they were sentencing an innocent man. Perhaps now, he will turn Queens Evidence and name the rest? I don't know, but such an ordeal, all these years for the family.Comment
-
There's some pedantry needed here. Both these men were young at the time of the offence (I'd forgotten that, I admit). If they were under 18, irrespective of the age at conviction, they will actually be sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure; if they were aged 18-21, it will be custody for life; if over 21, it will be life imprisonment. However, since they're now over 21 they will be treated as life sentence prisoners. And the sentencing judge may indeed have some constraints on setting a minimum period because of their ages at the time.Originally posted by Lateralthinking1 View Post
However, what I said about the difference between the judge's minimum sentence and the life sentence itself, and the process for release, are correct. The decision whether to recommend release will be made by the Parole Board, based on years of observation of the prisoners, and the actual release will be agreed by ministers (normally the Prisons Minister, though I expect the Home Secretary will do this one). If released, they will remain on life licence, and can be recalled at any time for the rest of their lives if their behaviour gives concern (this happens sometimes).
What you are quoting are guidelines for setting the minimum sentence, not for release.
Here's a summary of the sentencing guidelines: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...manual/murder/ They seem to me to indicate (paragraph 5g) that racially motivated murder should attract a minimum of 30 years.Last edited by Pabmusic; 03-01-12, 19:03.Comment
-
The brothers who were convicted of Damilola Taylor's manslaughter were sentenced on 9 October 2006. Gloria Taylor collapsed and died on 8 April 2008. The brothers were released on 8 September 2010 and sometime in 2011 respectively, having served half their sentences. And their cousin was given an OBE a few days ago.
Dangerous drivers who seriously injure other people will face a maximum five-year jail sentence under plans announced by the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke. I don't condone those people in any way but there is surely a difference between being seriously negligent and seriously malicious.
Half of 12 years is 6 years. If we hear that these two are to serve 12 years, they could be out in time for the 2018 World Cup!
(Thanks pabmusic - our posts crossed so it may be longer than I am suggesting - let's see as am advised. Lat).Comment
-
No. The difference is that these two have been convicted of murder (Damilola Taylor's killers were convicted of manslaughter). Murder carries a life sentence, whether it is dressed up as life imprisonment or detention at HM pleasure. A life sentence is an indeterminate sentence; there is no guarantee of release. The Taylor killers were given determinate sentences of 12 years - that means they fell within the rules for 'normal' sentences - and were released accordingly, with remission. The present two will have life sentences and will not be entitled to remission at all. If the judge recommends a 12-year minimum, they will not be released before 2024; if a 30-year minimum, 2042. But all that is subject to whether the Parole Board recommends release at all.Originally posted by Lateralthinking1 View PostComment
-
Thanks for clearing that up pabmusic. I found that helpful.Comment
-
It is complicated, isn't it? No wonder the media can never explain it well. And I've been out of it all for a few years, so I have to think carefully!Comment
-
I will add a link as follows, which I urge you to view, and to which I will offer the following two observations:
1. The most disturbing aspect of these two interviews is that the accused feel not remotely inclined to pay any heed to the accusations put to them. Barely a shrug of the shoulders or a flicker of discomfort. Perhaps they are wholly at ease with themselves and untroubled by the charges being put to them. I cannot infer that their mute response is indicative of any guilt but I suspect, if I were in their shoes, I would hollar my innocence from the rooftops.
2. It is easy to knock the police for the failings in this case in the past, but I'm afriaid that this clips shows how the Met simply has not moved on. Is this an example of modern day interrogation techniques. Frankly, I've had tougher interviews down the Job Centre.
I'm not advocating a policy of 'rough and tough' in the interview room, but suspects now have the protection of live videoing and recording, so this lame and faltering performance by these two detectives is lamentable.
Are these tapes only of a formal 'putting of the charges' interview? I don't know.
As I say, theres are only observations. Right or wrong.Comment
-
Police tactics and the Krays - It makes the police look impotent but is that about the interviewing technique? It was not the only time when D and N didn't answer questions. The lawyers advised silence. I always thought that non answers could lead to prosecution so what signals are being sent out? How widespread is "no comment" both in major and minor crimes? Whatever the advice of overfed law teams, the demeanour of the killers was unquestionably evil. We had seen this time and again, not least in their brazen interviews with Martin Bashir. The coldness has been utterly repulsive. Regrettably, I doubt it is unique. In the 1980s, I had university friends in the Eltham area. I was warned about two brothers who styled themselves on the Krays. My friends had attended the same school and felt "required" to speak if they bumped into them. So does this come round every generation? Is it that the Krays have a permanent folklore status in the area which leads to arrogance and crime? If so, it needs addressing.
The BNP and multiculturalism - Then there is the race dimension. The BNP had its base nearby from 1990 to 1995. Blood and Honour arranged a provocative concert at the Yorkshire Grey, Eltham in 1992 with international coordination. Disruption was on such a scale that it was known as the Battle of Waterloo. The song lyrics on that night could have been D and N talking. The singer died mysteriously in a car in 1993. We can guess why. But did the police ever look at the vivid photos of the riot to see if they could spot D and N in the booted crowd? It was influential. For it was not all race war. My friends from the area were white and black and introduced me to Womad. I also attended a wedding of work colleagues from Eltham, one white and one of Indian origin. The vast majority of families live happily side by side but when something like that occurs in a locality, it will inevitably have significant impacts along the fault lines. That is almost certainly its intention and the consequences can be devastating.
The white working class - Members of my family also moved to Eltham. Earlier generations had been near Peckham. They are not racist but have a style that is brusque and common among working class whites in South London. Conservatives because they are macho and support the aspiring. Before the hip-hop obsession with bling, they saw big wealth as an answer to abandonment. In all communities, wealth divisions create a whole host of other tensions. The bigger the aspiration in some, the greater the resentment in others. I don't blame them for wanting to improve. Broadly many working class whites were in rented homes in the 1970s. Their houses were pulled down and they were placed in council tower blocks. They hadn't spent their lives on benefits. They had struggled to make ends meet. Consequently they were not in a position to benefit from the sale of council homes in the 1980s.
The disdain of the white middle class - So just before I studied race relations at university, the older generations of the white working class in London had been told what they would lose and where they had to go often by younger white middle class professionals. At the same time, they were being asked to welcome those from other countries as their neighbours. They did welcome new entrants to this country to a remarkable extent, given their lack of education. I witnessed that in my family and really respected it. At the same time, I recognised the thoroughly disrespectful treatment that had been meted out to them by the elites who ironically continued to live in mainly white communities. It has shaped all of my political outlook for decades. The efforts made by people of all backgrounds were natural but never easy when money was largely absent. The offspring of some saw the injustice of it, felt alienated by the system, retained nationalism and were susceptible to acquiring a racist outlook. Had they felt they had a stake in the system, I don't think that race would have been such an issue.
Why work matters - For those like my cousins who rose above sectarianism, all the system offered was the capitalist dream. Remarkably that proved to be enough for some including them. They weren't public sector people so small businesses were common, requiring far more grit than a university degree. And hard work - skilled manual - has brought to some expensive houses and cars. Just the vehicles of my family members are worth £25,000. There are second homes in Spain. Not bad for electricians. Why would anyone want to be racist in that position? But achievement has required three things. One, to go into trades which require skills that most people don't have. Two, to join with others in those trades to set a common high price - a sort of union arrangement without a union. Three, to work daily in houses on often very dangerous streets, never knowing who might be the customer. It has required toughness. I wouldn't want to do it. Then again I wouldn't have wanted to walk up six flights of stairs at the age of 91 to avoid broken down urine drenched lifts. That was what this country gave my grandmother and many like her.
The criminal element - That then is how those who felt that they could survive against the odds got tough early, moved to places like Eltham and worked astonishingly hard. Those who are not raised with the same work ethic have all the same aspiration but none of the moral channelling. D had little money. N came from the same background but had wealth. Look at the influence. A father who obtained that wealth from crime. An idea they could control their manor just like the black gangs. Susceptible to far right cultural influence. Millwall football club just down the road. Drugs too? And there is that thing about absent fathers again. The rich father goes on the run. Others are absent. That doesn't provide good authority. They live in a fantasy of being outside the framework of the law and believe they are invincible. Outrageously, that then becomes the reality. D and N also had insights in the 1990s into police corruption because of family involvement. They would have been less inclined than us to wish to obey the law.
Youth and aggression - Additionally, they had that lethal combination of youthful aggression and issues about territory. No army outlet. It is probably true of many households, white and black, that there are scenes the like of which were caught on camera. Those involved do see it all as lighthearted. Not all of it is about race. But race can become the main aspect of the dialogue. It offers a social excuse for venting aggression and there is often some historical depth to it. It takes emotional intelligence on all sides to adapt to the changes we have witnessed with multiculturalism. The distant middle classes may wring their hands - I am one - but that is because my parents left London in 1960. For many who went later, there was an element of flight from situations that emotionally they were too weak to handle, still feeling a warped need to fight. So where does that leave those of us now in the middle who started out neither poor or mega-rich? We expect to see sensitivity and common sense. The media here has a part to play. Generally television and radio are a bigger part of the problem than they are of the solution.
The television coverage - Channel 4 handled the coverage well. Typically Neville was very dignified in his interview with Snow and emphasised the policing improvements. He said there was a need to move on. By contrast, the BBC became obsessed with the failure of policing. Doreen was rightly critical of the police but to isolate that part of her statement was just wrong. She also said that the police had improved and asked for people of all backgrounds to remember her son as a person. No one could have expected any more of them. But the Beeb got it wrong. Yes, I fully accept the comments of Brian Paddick on Newsnight that far more needs to be done. However, changes have been made. And Cressida Dick is increasingly impressing me. She is doing her best to be real. In fact, we all need to get real. Stephen Lawrence was a good guy and the victim of an evil murder. It was absolutely tragic and I am so pleased that his evil killers are to be put behind bars. Let us hope it is for a very long time. It has also been said that he was selling t-shirts of Malcolm X. We need to establish why someone like him ever feels moved to act in that direction. It is to do with the culture. The one in which the fittest survive. All the young are victims of a culture that over-emphasizes money.
What needs to change - The inequalities in society, the selfish gene in the middle aged middle class, and the turning of competition into the national religion, have all been deeply divisive. The racial dimension is often a by-product of such things but it becomes a key component in young identities. Is it different from families becoming divided over the closure of mines? No. There are similarities in the breakdown of cohesion. Policing does still need to improve. Recruitment and retention of black and Asian police officers is poor. There is unfairness in stop and search. We need though to decide what the police are supposed to do to tackle drugs and terrorism. Change will only be effective if everyone changes. We need change in Afro-Caribbean gun and drugs culture, in Muslim leadership, in the willingness of the white working class to integrate, in the opinions of the middle class towards policing. And the Government needs to find jobs for those who aren't earning footballers' wages, rein in the violence in games and cds, tackle the problems of drugs more vigorously and come down tougher on the far right. This isn't a job for the police alone.Last edited by Guest; 06-01-12, 18:05.Comment
-
There are so many things still to be explained, including the fact that the Acourt's father was involved with a corrupt police officer, and the stink of corruption around this has never gone away.
Neville Lawrence expressed the hope on Channel 4 News last night that the others involved in his son's murder would be revealed, but there seems little chance of that. The repeated police attempts to destroy Duwayne Brooks needs to be explained as well, his was another life destroyed.Comment
-
A correction and apology from me, I'm afraid. It was the father of Norris who was involved with a corrupt policeman, not the Acourts, although they were all part of widespread gang activities.Comment
-
Mr Justice Treacy has handed down just about the maximum sentences at his disposal. Let's hope the other involved in the murder can now also be brought to book.Comment
-
I must say that I felt the palm of my hands itching when I watched those sullen responses.Originally posted by Stillhomewardbound View PostI will add a link as follows, which I urge you to view, and to which I will offer the following two observations:
1. The most disturbing aspect of these two interviews is that the accused feel not remotely inclined to pay any heed to the accusations put to them. Barely a shrug of the shoulders or a flicker of discomfort. Perhaps they are wholly at ease with themselves and untroubled by the charges being put to them. I cannot infer that their mute response is indicative of any guilt but I suspect, if I were in their shoes, I would hollar my innocence from the rooftops.
2. It is easy to knock the police for the failings in this case in the past, but I'm afriaid that this clips shows how the Met simply has not moved on. Is this an example of modern day interrogation techniques. Frankly, I've had tougher interviews down the Job Centre.
I'm not advocating a policy of 'rough and tough' in the interview room, but suspects now have the protection of live videoing and recording, so this lame and faltering performance by these two detectives is lamentable.
Are these tapes only of a formal 'putting of the charges' interview? I don't know.
As I say, theres are only observations. Right or wrong.
I wanted Charlie Barlow (Stratford Johns) to come bursting through the door and give them the Ferguson hair-dryer treatment.
Yes I know that is fiction and this is lfe, but ...
Comment
-
Comment