Murder of Teacher Philip Lawrence Dec 1995
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I didn't hear the programme, but it's interesting to compare and contrast the police attitude and the way they handled the 2 Lawrence murders, Stephen in 93 and Philip in 95.
The police world is rather small. I met a number of officers, all 'lower ranks', who were involved in the enquiry into Stephen's death. The differences between their accounts and the conclusions of the various reports were remarkable. I know nothing of the CID involvement, but from what I heard, nothing stood out as unbelievable, but the initial stages as reported by the reports, both 'independent' and otherwise, were quite a shock.
I've always been cynical about the conclusions of reports, and yet the variations astounded even me.
One stood out. An individual was picked out for special criticism by the official inquiry for particular actions and, on reading it, I thought that if what it stated about their conduct was true - I doubted it as it was extreme - they should be kicked out. So imagine my surprise to meet the person when we were both on a course. While they obviously enjoyed their then particular role, their enthusiasm being infectious, there was a certain bitterness apparent when talking about the murder.
I asked what many must have asked; 'What did you say to the inquiry?' I was told they hadn't been called. I asked the next obvious question; 'What did you say in your statement to the inquiry?' They had not been asked to submit one. It was pathetic. The officer's career had been blighted by the report, but, oddly enough, had taken a different route that they found interesting.
The person explained their initial conduct and then had followed procedure by telling their supervisor that it was impossible to perform their function. They had been told to stand down. The following day, they had asked what was happening and when they could return to their role, only to be told that those above were aware and would let them know their decision. The officer was then given the same role on another serious incident.
Yet the criticism of this individual had included a recommendation that police forces then had to conform to.
A couple of other officers involved mentioned what they saw as a whitewash of certain actions. They were there, they knew what had gone one, they were highly critical of the actions of their supervisor but also of their own in not standing up to the person. They, they said, would behave considerably differently in future events. Mind you, that portion of the report was a classic ‘Yeah, I bet that happened’ moment.
I don't believe official reports. I've been involved in some, and their purpose, it seems to me, is to work out a way of coming to a conclusion that was already decided. It follows, therefore, that television programmes, which one presumes are based to an extent on the various reports, are even more to be doubted as they have an additional requirement to be entertaining.
I met one PC who had a special mention, about 15 mins, on World in Action in the Toxteth riots, one that focused otherwise on the death of David Moore. The chap was accussed of grievous bodily harm on a demonstrator: fractured ribs, ruptured bits, and other problems. He stood accussed of gbh with intent. He was suspended for over a year despite it being easily shown that the injuries caused to the victim - there was indeed a victim - could not have been caused in the manner described by the victim and the police witness. Further, there was no way he could have got to the the locations of the victim. He had a complete defence, one that was supported by witnesses and strong circumstantial evidence.
When he was told he was no longer suspended as there was no evidence, he said he was going to sue the police officer and WiA. This was seen as a bad move by the higher ups because of the bad press with Moore, so he demanded a particular role, was given it, and then transferred to my old force.
As I say, it's a small world in the service. I know a bit about other major jobs and most people would not believe the distortions from the enquiries, but mainly because they will already have decided what had happened and new information will be rejected. But to criticise an individual without listening to them or, at the very least, seeing a statement, is enough, I feel, to condemn the rest of the report.
Derek Smith said:
I don't believe official reports. I've been involved in some, and their purpose, it seems to me, is to work out a way of coming to a conclusion that was already decided.
I'm with you 100% on that. But, regardless of the official report, the contrasting outcomes of the two enquiries isn't a matter of opinion, but fact. What is a matter of opinion is why that was the case. My opinion would be that there were 2 brutal murders of totally innocent victims, but the murder of a middle aged white headmaster was deemed more important than the murder of a 19 y/o black South London lad.
I was talking to someone about this only a few months ago, and he said "well if these yobbos join gangs, what do they expect" This is 27 years after the event, and Stephen Lawrence was never in a gang, but he was murdered by one.
A person who is to be criticised in a report has a right to reply to the proposed criticism. That is what is called "Maxwellisation". It happened in the MacPherson Inquiry.
Bill MacPherson was a conservative Judge. He believed in the integrity of the police. He was usually pro Government when deciding judicial review cases. He appears to have been shocked by some of what he saw when conducting his Inquiry, and may have gone a bit too far in some respects.
But, for some, the police are perfect and never do anything wrong. Racism in the Met? Not here, Guv!
Bill MacPherson was a conservative Judge. He believed in the integrity of the police. He was usually pro Government when deciding judicial review cases. He appears to have been shocked by some of what he saw when conducting his Inquiry, and may have gone a bit too far in some respects.
But, for some, the police are perfect and never do anything wrong. Racism in the Met? Not here, Guv!
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th December 17:40
Breadvan72 said:
But, for some, the police are perfect and never do anything wrong. Racism in the Met? Not here, Guv!
As normal, you do not specify whom your comment is directed at. I'll respond as if it is a general statement.The report suggested that there was no racism shown by the first responders. The two police officers I mentioned above were of a different opinion. But they were ignored by the inquiry. Many might feel the conclusions were already decided and contrary information was not looked for. They also reckoned that their performance was not what it should have been. Much easier to criticise a specific function that no one cared about, even if it did delay the career of the sacrificial lamb.
I've never been one to suggest, intimate or even hint at, the police being perfect and never doing anything wrong. You should read a book or two on the subject, both well reviewed on Kindle. My views on what the police have done wrong are held by any number of police officers, some of whom post on here. My belief that the police service needs structured change, structured non-partisan change rather, is hardly uncommon in those in the service.
The problem for many is that police officers tend to challenge opinion when it is not based on evidence. It goes with the Job. Sweeping statements of fault are often wrong. In fact, it is the norm. They should not be swept under the carpet.
Many of the sticks used to beat police officers are riddled with holes, obvious if only those wielding them would stop waving them about long enough to be examined. What I will say, and I have many examples to support, is that the conclusions of state-run independent inquiries I have knowledge of are wrong. Many might feel corrupt. Some are couched in terms that are, and intended to be, easy to misinterpret. Spin pure and simple. A critical reading of such reports will show that many of the products of press headline writers, those with political purposes and, much further down the scale, posters on PH, are wrong in fact. But it is pointless pointing out the errors. It is so much easier to suggest that all police are corrupt and inept than look for evidence.
A police officer in the Met does something and every police officer is tarred. It shows a lack of critical thinking, or a desire not to indulge in it. Shipham’s conduct, probably our most prolific serial killer, does not have any effect on the trust people put in doctors. Of course not. Such a point of view would be nonsensical. A person would have to be something of an idiot to think such conduct is the norm. Or merely prejudiced of course.
I’ve said it a number of times, and been supported by serving and ex officers, that the service needs reform. It is not perfect.
I don’t normally post on racism but in my 30 years in the service, a constant has been that the level of racism in colleagues runs at a lower rate than that of the population as whole, and the level, on both, has dropped over that time, but the service leads. I spent decades in Sussex and the level of prejudice amongst operational officers against gays is considerably lower than that of the general population. I’m sorry if those points don’t comply with anyone’s prejudices against the police, but tough.
I’d accept the point that any level of prejudice is to be abhorred, but the service recruits from the general public, and challenging prejudice is hard enough on a PH thread, and impossible in the real world.
The momentum from the Macpherson report helped cause the pendulum to swing too far the other way. Not that I'm necessarily attributing blame to Macpherson, but we've had instances where the police, and other organisations were scared of being labelled racist.
Rotherham being a prime example.
I remember how much of initial police training involved the report and themes on racism. It was excessive for the points being made and taught.
Hopefully we're getting a much better balance these days.
Rotherham being a prime example.
I remember how much of initial police training involved the report and themes on racism. It was excessive for the points being made and taught.
Hopefully we're getting a much better balance these days.
Public Inquiries have many failings, the main one of which is often blandness. MacPherson was not bland. Inquiry outcomes are not orchestrated. There isn't a Deep State conspiracy. Wagon circling by institutions is never a good idea.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 10th December 05:39
Derek Smith said:
A police officer in the Met does something and every police officer is tarred. It shows a lack of critical thinking, or a desire not to indulge in it. Shipham’s conduct, probably our most prolific serial killer, does not have any effect on the trust people put in doctors. Of course not. Such a point of view would be nonsensical. A person would have to be something of an idiot to think such conduct is the norm. Or merely prejudiced of course.
Whatever enquiries or investigations following Shipman never found that their was institutional murder of the elderly within the medical profession. The Stephen Lawrence enquiry (flawed though that maybe, and I do accept your point in your post upthread) did find, from memory, that the Met was institutionally racist. I trust my own experiences far more than a public enquiry, and as a lad growing up in multicultural West London, a teen during the late 70's and early 80s, the only time I ever had any real interaction with the police when we were out and about was when I was with a group that included black guys. When I was out with just white friends, we got a far easier ride. But with a couple of black friends in the group, we attracted far more police attention. More often it was polite, but we were stopped and questioned where we were off to and where we had come from. From what i was told, it wasn't nearly as polite if there were no white guys in the group.
Worth a watch if anybody has the time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-5...
Derek - how accurate/realistic would you say the film was?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-5...
Derek - how accurate/realistic would you say the film was?
La Liga said:
The momentum from the Macpherson report helped cause the pendulum to swing too far the other way. Not that I'm necessarily attributing blame to Macpherson, but we've had instances where the police, and other organisations were scared of being labelled racist.
Rotherham being a prime example.
I remember how much of initial police training involved the report and themes on racism. It was excessive for the points being made and taught.
Hopefully we're getting a much better balance these days.
Checked my personnel record - I had my first race relations training in 1991 - dont recall much of the content now but this was well before Steven LawrenceRotherham being a prime example.
I remember how much of initial police training involved the report and themes on racism. It was excessive for the points being made and taught.
Hopefully we're getting a much better balance these days.
k up that investigation was.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's on Philip Lawrence's Wikipedia page - released in July 2010 after serving 14 years, re-arrested 4 months later when he allegedly threatened to kill someone during a mugging, acquitted of that but only released in May 2014 as he was "adjudged to present a risk".FunkyNige said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's on Philip Lawrence's Wikipedia page - released in July 2010 after serving 14 years, re-arrested 4 months later when he allegedly threatened to kill someone during a mugging, acquitted of that but only released in May 2014 as he was "adjudged to present a risk".Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff