Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Amazon
eBay
Navy Net
Menu
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Featured threads
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New reviews
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
Test
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
Book Reviews
Latest reviews
Search reviews
ARRSEPedia
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Help ARRSE
Amazon Referral
Ebay Referral
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Featured threads
Search forums
Forums
The Serious Bit
Current Affairs, News and Analysis
Stephen Lawrence - 10 years on
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="woopert, post: 7737, member: 2319"] In order for a crime to be considered a "race crime", and victim from an ethnic minority only has to perceive it to be such for it to be considered racially motivated. The police and courts are then required to treat the perpetrator more harshly because in effect they have committed 2 crimes, the initial offence that brought the charge as well as a racially motivated action. Consider: you are white. A black man stops you in the street and begins to harass you. You attempt to move out of the way and he blocks you. You push him, a scuffle ensues, and the police attend. The other man can have you arrested for common assualt. As he belongs to an ethnic minority the arresting officer has to ask if the man considers the attack to be racially motivated. He says yes (irrespective of the motive), and the balance of law requires you to prove your innocence in respect to the charge of racial motivation, not for the prosecution to prove your guilt. You are found guilty and your punishment is harsher (under current sentencing guidelines) because the crime is racially aggrovated. The same incident between 2 white men and the same conviction would result in a much leaner sentence than the above described circumstances. This is as a direct consequence of the Macpherson report. Where I an officer in the Met I would write to the Chief Constable and demand he retract his statements on "Institutional Racism" because I would decline to have someone speak out and admit something in my name which I am not guilty of, and assume my guilt irrespective of my true views. He has, on behalf of his men, acted as judge, jury, and executioner without any due process of fair tribunal on behalf of each and every officer in the Met. Further, he has stigmatised a number of decent, honest, and upstanding officers and in principle he has allowed his men to be tainted unfairly without any regard for individual status. I am sure this breaches some Human Rights Act principle somewhere. Sadly, the Macpherson report has done more to set back race relations in this country than any other single act. It is no wonder that the BNP and other far-right groups are making such progress politically when no other party has the courage to speak out against prevailing liberalism for fear of being branded "racists" for asking the right and relevant questions. I would advise you all to go out and read "To hell in a handcart" by Richard Littlejohn. It summarises the current state of political affairs perfectly, and the satire is so close to the truth as to be utterly believable. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
The Serious Bit
Current Affairs, News and Analysis
Stephen Lawrence - 10 years on
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
What's new
Log in
Register
Search
Top