You should try reading the article before making inane comments like that:

Because Dobson and Norris were teenagers at the time, their minimum sentences were shorter than if they had been adults.

Yeah, reading the article has you actually know what you are talking about.

Jackson said that black people in the U.K. were treated as "second class citizens -- free but not equal, not adequately protected by law," according to a report by the Daily Telegraph.

Yes, and Jackson, an American, is clearly qualified to make that statement on the basis of a single case. Sure. Or he's just a publicity seeking whore desperate for attention who will pick up any race-baiting case and use it as his grandstand to roil the pot. One of those two things...

I read the article. But I also know many black teenagers who were tried as adults and received life sentences for less crimes in both the UK and the US. So maybe you need to read more than just this one article to understand how systemic racism is working in this case.

" a Rosa Parks moment" for the U.K." said the lawyer. Really? You had to have been in Atlanta during those days. Even the "Atlanta Constitution" refrained from reporting all that was going on around the city. Thus, the activity was never picked up by any other national newspapers or magazines.

Young "white" skin color college age kids were giving up their seats on the public buses for more elderly "black" skin color people. Of all the Baptist churches in Atlanta there were four that were considered to be the largest and most influential. Of that four two wanted to open their doors on Sunday to all people; red and yellow, black and white. Despite the efforts of the two ministers and their few backers, one being Mrs. Annie Morton,( who you will never find a thing written on), a true Christian and Biblical scholar who wanted open doors. The rest of the congregation was against it. Sad but true.

Jesse stopped calling years ago. I had raised the age old question; "do the ends justify the means?" I had told him that he needed to stop threatening and "black mailing"( perhaps a poor choice of words) the large corporations in America. I suggested other ways to bring about the desired results. " Ah Jesse, I can't help it that I'm white any more than a black cat can help the color of his fur; and look what he has to suffer....."

The Rosa Parks event was all staged. In that case it does beg an answer to the question of ends and means. The national publicity did help to bring about national attention. It is a wonderful myth and one has to wonder how it really impacted Ms. Parks. I found it very sad that following her death there was so much fighting over her estate.

Racism unlike prejudice by its very nature implies institutionalization...that is it permeates private and public institutions and excludes participation based on heritage. IMHO racism is still very much alive and well in the US and UK.

life!

I read the article. But I also know many black teenagers who were tried as adults and received life sentences for less crimes in both the UK and the US. So maybe you need to read more than just this one article to understand how systemic racism is working in this case.

Exactly. Have they ever heard "tried as adult".

First, this isn't even close to a Rosa Parks moment! I certainly don't remember Parks getting stabbed to death.

Second, don't compare our legal process to Britain's legal process...they are similar, but not the same.

Third, ironic that they (the family) give out a photo of the victim making the black power sign, which makes me think he was a racist and possibly motivated the attack himself.

Lastly, Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host????

Dahling, you need to keep up with the news! He's been on for a while now. By the way, what makes you think that at the time this photo was taken, this 18 yr. old even knew what the Black Power sign was? Guess I know what age group you're in.

First off showing the 'Black power" symbol does not mean that the victim was racist. That is no more racist than a person having "Irish pride" it's about being proud of who you are even if others put you down.

Second he was stating that it was"Britain's Rosa Parks moment" becasue like America's Rosa Parks moment it galvanized the country in the same way that it did in America. Not everyone was on the same side, but it brought to the front tensions that had been kept in the back.

I am an African American born in the U.S. but raised in Britain and you would have to be from there to understand just how profound the effect of this tragedy had on both sides of the fence there.

As for Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson I would advise them to stay out of other coutnry's affairs.

First, this isn't even close to a Rosa Parks moment! I certainly don't remember Parks getting stabbed to death.

Second, don't compare our legal process to Britain's legal process...they are similar, but not the same.

Third, ironic that they (the family) give out a photo of the victim making the black power sign, which makes me think he was a racist and possibly motivated the attack himself.

Lastly, Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host????

A "black power" fist is "racist" now? Could you please tell me how exactly the economic and political autonomy and empowerment of people who are classified as black is "racist"?

And i don't believe you're actually trying to say that this person provoked a brutal white supremacist attack, based off of what evidence???

I'm not your "Dahling"! All black kids know what the black power sign is, especially by the time they are 18. What does "He's been on for a while now" have to do with anything? And, my age group is 45-55.

I stated facts and the image is clear.

Go troll Nickelodeon...

George Carlin Said it best about Pride in ones' own heritage.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgmjL6z2jY

youtube.com/watch?v=xDgmjL6z2jY

Blacks are considered a Racist if they are showing a "black power" sign because that is what the racist group the "Black Panthers" hand gesture was/is. Just like when a white person has a confederate flag and everyone calls them racists or rednecks or when the gang bangers do their hand gestures or the best reference would be that the black power gesture has the same affect as the Nazis who hailed Hitler to most Whites.

Blacks are considered a Racist if they are showing a "black power" sign because that is what the racist group the "Black Panthers" hand gesture was/is. Just like when a white person has a confederate flag and everyone calls them racists or rednecks or when the gang bangers do their hand gestures or the best reference would be that the black power gesture has the same affect as the Nazis who hailed Hitler to most Whites.

Have you folks even read about the Black Panthers and what they stood for? They were not for racism, they were for the end of the systemic abuse of people of color all around the world. There were Black Panther Chapters in most of Asia, The United States, and Africa. One of the founding members is Japanese! Of course, to white supremacists, I can see how this could be taken as "racist". But perhaps you folks are just misinformed.

You're comparing an organization that killed 7 million Roma, Slavs, and Semites to people struggling against police brutality? Or an organization of people that owned human chattel?

Of course, no one sees things as "Saint Patricks day" as racist or nationalist, but put the world "Black" or "Hispanic" or "Native American" or anything that doesn't mean "White", and its automatically "racist".

Yeah, I immediately noticed the "black power" hand signal in the photo. altho of course that doesn't justify stabbing the kid to death....howsomever, why the photo with the particularly gesture, which is certainly not just your everyday, relaxed posture for a picture? Like most teenage males, yellow, red, black or white, he was probably a bit overconfident about his specialness which as we know can provoke meaningless, disgustinng hate crimes froomother males looking for a means of unleashing their anger, particularly of other races. women can often be targets for the same reason, if they act to confident in themselves in a bad workplace environment, specially.

The black power fist has always been racist. You can deny it if you want. You call it unity. BS.

Additionally, "And i don't believe you're actually trying to say that this person provoked a brutal white supremacist attack, based off of what evidence???" You are right, I did not say that and I never "try" to say anything.

It was clear when I used the word "possibly", but as usual, someone who seeks confrontation will read right by the key words and go to conflict. I put "possibly" based on the fact that he is showing a black power sign in the image and it may have been a motivator in the incedent. The two guys that have been convicted are not even proven to be the killers. So essentially, what we have here is a dead guy who was stabbed by a another guy and they say it was racially motivated because the guy was black. Yet, it is highly likely that both were exchanging racial insults...clearly, a black guy flashing a black power sign would not hold back from using discriminatory language when being attacked racially. Agreed? Would you hold back? I think not.

The bottom line, don't mix alcohol/drugs and racism because someone may end up hurt or dead. And that goes for all races.

Lil' Debbie...

Well said. That is a point that covers many situations. I'm not religious, but "pride" is one of the 7 deadly sins, I believe for good reason. It is good to be proud, but don't use your pride as an attack on others. We see examples of this in nearly every situation where pride is rampant. Football games, baseball games, etc. Even groups of young adults going out and partying together. Mix alcohol and pride and it is a bomb waiting to explode.

Better to keep your pride private.

A man or woman should stand there and be proud of themselves, but if you have to make a sign to show your pride, then you are just lighting the fuse. Again, I'm not saying this is the situation in this case, but I wouldn't count it out.

Prospect Survival

First, this isn't even close to a Rosa Parks moment! I certainly don't remember Parks getting stabbed to death.

Second, don't compare our legal process to Britain's legal process...they are similar, but not the same.

Third, ironic that they (the family) give out a photo of the victim making the black power sign, which makes me think he was a racist and possibly motivated the attack himself.

Lastly, Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host????

Prospect,

1st, the rosa parks moment they are referring to is the racial injustice uncovered in the system and how it purportedly affected the way they view and deal with racism just as the civil rights protest affected americans.

2nd, how do u equate black power sign of the 60's with racism??? Blk power wasn't about blk superiority and suppression of other races and religion like nazi white power. It was about encouraging a cohesive blk community and having power to positively affect the blk man w/out having to go thru the white man. Read up on your history before making stereotypical notions.

And that's pretty despicable to say someone motivated the attack. That's like saying a woman in a short dress asks to be raped.

richardharrow...Man, you made my day. I had seen that a while ago and just viewed it. Good post! Carlin, what a brutally honest guy.

Relative to the article, this is probably the single biggest factor that caused the death of that young man. Pride!

The black power fist has always been racist. You can deny it if you want. You call it unity. BS.

I think people have to be 100% delusional to call something that arose in response to people being sprayed with firehoses, attacked with Narc dogs, firebombed, and hanged on an almost DAILY basis "racist". If the black power fist has always been "racist" what does that suggest about the people (the vast majority of white people of the time who either engaged in this barbarism or did nothing to disallow it) who the fist was raised in defiance against? Kinda implicates mom and dad and uncle Jim, now doesn't it?

"Black Power" is raising a fist in the air.

"White Power" is hanging someone from a tree or bombing a place of worship.

Maybe both of you need to become more familiar with the sentencing practices in England as a whole before you play the race card here. This isn't the US. If you are so sure then name ONE case where a black teenager was tried as an adult in Britain.

Tek and Saying (what a joke) need to do some research on the average life sentence in the UK. Even if you get a life term they usually set a minimum parole term. The average is about 15 years. So even when you are tried as an adult you get the same minimum sentence as these guys did.

Tracie Andrews (a white woman) murdered her boyfriend (a white man) in 1997 by stabbing him 42 times and blamed it on 2 other white men in a road rage incident. She made up the incident and was sentenced to LIFE, with parole after 14 years. She was just released this past July.

So there is your answer Tek - A white person died and the sentence was pretty much the same. Enough talking out your arse. The issue with race here was surrounding the suspects and the police investigation, NOT the sentencing!!!

rkb5555...

Yes, the black power sign is racist. Sugar coat it all you want.

You had to go here..."And that's pretty despicable to say someone motivated the attack. That's like saying a woman in a short dress asks to be raped." I've been here before and always hate going back to it. Yes, if he made the sign, he brought the wrath on himself, however, the murderer is responsible for his actions of committing the murder. And...Yes, a women who dresses provocatively is "asking" or a better word is "motivating" certain "predators" to rape her, but the said "predators" are responsible for the act of the rape. Hopefully, this is clear as we do not, I repeat, DO NOT live in paradise and your and everyone else's actions create reactions. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, so if you make a decision to, and I'm not saying it was the case here, make a black power sign around a bunch of drunk young white males in a gang, you will likely get attacked just as if a white said something racial to a gang of drunk black males. Additionally, if a female brings attention to herself, she is the one who put the provocative dress on and went to a club with hundreds of drunk males and she may be targeted by a predator and that predator would be responsible for that rape. Point being, she probably wouldn't have been noticed if she were wearing jeans and a shirt that covers her cleavage.

And because I know this won't end here...yes, she should be able to walk around anywhere practically naked without recourse, but as I said before, we don't live in paradise, therefore, consider your actions may have undesirable reactions that you cannot control.

It is hard to know where to begin when looking at the above article and discussion:best to stick to just a couple of points. (You'll have to excuse any gaps in my knowledge of American history.)

First: this is hardly the same as a 'Rosa Parks' moment. If I recall correctly she refused to change seat on a racially segregated bus in Alabama and this became an iconic moment in the civil rights movement. As I understand it racial segregation in states like Alabama was mandated by law. There has NEVER been (to the best of my knowledge) state-approved pro-racist legislation in the mainland UK. As in any country/ place where there are more than one ethnic grouping there have been (and always will be) tensions along racial lines. With the higher numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth countries during the 50s-60s tensions rose dramatically (driven more by financial/employment fears). In 1965 racial discrimination was made illegal by all public bodies. (Although some individuals in various organizations have unfortunately continued to harbour racist sentiments.) Further legislation during the next decade made racial discrimination in all other services illegal (e.g. housing, employment, provision of services, etc.). Racial tensions ebb and flow and I'm not going to pretend that racism doesn't exist in the UK but it is not as implied by the article above. It is certainly not now and never has been mandated by law.

Equating this murder and conviction to a Rosa Parks moment is hyperbole. The Stephen Lawrence murder reminded the majority of the people (of an at that time 95-96% white country) that while racism was thought to be on the decline it could still rear-up in the most appalling way. It also revealed there were racist elements in the police which many (certainly including me) had also assumed to be in decline. There was national shock and revulsion. However, the sheer iniquity of the lack of a conviction/s was, for many, also hard to swallow.

Less widely reported is that while nearly 30 people named the 5 killers in the days after the attack - few were prepared to state it openly in public and witnesses from the local area were very scared. The father of one of the accused was/ is a career criminal/ gangland figure. It has been strongly alleged by various investigators, politicians, police-whistleblowers and judicial figures that criminal underworld figures were able to protect some of the accused by corrupting the police and hampering the investigation from the inside. One of the panel on the MacPherson Inquiry stated in this regard that there was 'a strong smell of corruption' (about the incompetence of the police investigation).

Second: A lot is being made of the 'black power' sign in the photograph of Stephen Lawrence. As far as I'm aware this is associated with the Black Panther Movement of the 60s - which DID NOT come to Britain. The Black Power sign itself DID NOT come to Britain. It has no immediate cultural significance in Britain. I've never seen it used here, nobody I know (I did a quick straw poll of a couple of people I know) can ever recall having seen it used here and one of the few times anyone can recall seeing it would be at the Olympics Games. In Britain that gesture is often seen in photographs: I've been photographed in that pose (and I'm white), sportsmen, actors, blokes on a night-out, people who've just received their degree certificates.... all use this gesture in some form. It's a sort of muted half-cheer gesture from a country that is uncomfortable with over-exuberant displays of self-congratulation or celebration. (If you watch footage of British tennis players like Scot Andy Murray or the upper-middle-class Tim Henman you'll see them forever making similar gestures.) There's probably even photos of Stephen Lawrence's killers making that gesture! It's a very common non-racially charged gesture in the UK. To see it any other way is merely mistakenly seeing one culture through the iconography of your own.

Ironically, when asked most British people over a certain age recognize what Americans see as a 'black power' salute solely from a popular 1970s sitcom, Citizen Smith, which heavily parodied idealist ineffectual Marxist (white) revolutionaries (see the picture - ) where the salute was used in its original far-left context.

Third: the murdering gits who've just been convicted and sentenced committed the horrific act while still juveniles (under the age of 18). By law, the sentence has to be in line with how it would have been if they'd been caught and tried immediately. Other factors are allowed to be taken into account: motivation, racial aggravation, etc. If they'd shown one scintilla of remorse the sentence may have been a touch lower; if they'd pleaded guilty, again, the sentence could have been lower. Since then a change in sentencing statute requires longer sentences be given if there is a 'racial-aggravation' to the crime (and not just in cases of murder). One commentator noted that if they'd committed the crime today (but as juveniles) they'd have got 25 years minimum; if as adults it would have been 40. It should also be noted that life is a misnomer: there is life with a minimum term (which is what these two got) and there is also 'a whole life tarriff' which tends to be reserved for serial killers and those that kill on-duty police officers which are both, thankfully, quite rare (with only 4 police officers killed on active duty by criminals in the last 5 years - the last being in 2009).

The single biggest division in British society is now, as it always has been, based on social class and/or how much money your parents have - which determines your school (the Etons and Harrows of this world), your university (Oxford, Cambridge), internships (usually through parental contacts), the circles the you move in (so more contacts), etc.

Lastly, I've never been entirely sure who Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are? Are they senior elected politicians? Have they done in-depth studies of British politics, policing and culture (there's around two millenia of it and most Brits seem to have trouble grasping much of it!)? By what right or prerogative do they come to Britain and pontificate and lecture on subjects on which they seemingly have limited useful or evidential knowledge?

Over the years my Black-British and African-American friends have made it quite clear to me that on matters concerning race, identity, racial discrimination/ prejudice and its history the situation is quite different between both countries.

"Lastly, I've never been entirely sure who Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are?"

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are living, breathing strawmen invoked by people who would like to distract from real issues of racism or injustice because these two men view themselves as the self-appointed voice of the black community. Although sometimes their message is right on point, their sometimes clownish behavior is a distraction. I have no idea why they believe the "black" experience in the U.S. is similar to the U.K.

Well written post. I don't think that's a "black power" salute. And even if it were, it has no relevance in this case. I'm not sure why people are making an issue of it. Furthermore, there's nothing racist about the raised fist.

To the posters making an issue of the "fist". The raised fist is merely an expression that as a people oppression will no longer be tolerated. The expression is not one of intimidation.

The main point here is that a person was murdered by a group of people who attacked him based on his ethnicity. Why all the focus on what the deceased is doing in a picture?

Ligeti...Just because your research didn't turn it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In fact, the black panther movement did bleed into the UK back in the 60's and there were and are activists in the UK which 100% means that the black power sign has been there almost as long as it has been here in the US. yes, a few black people in the UK may not know of it, but most likely do.

For your viewing pleasure go to the link below...you may have to copy and paste as it seems active links are not allowed here.

rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/brixton-black-panthers-movement/ (Put the http://) in front of it

Point is, this crime happened almost 20 years ago, that's roughly 1992 and he weas 18 years old which means this kids parents grew up in the 60's, so it is highly likely he knew the black power sign.

Peace.

Here's the most important thing. About two decades, for some "reason", a kid was murdered. (And at that age, that's what he was to me, even back then.) For some other reason, be it either institutional racism or just mostly incompetence amongst the coppers, the killers got away with it for the time being. Now, two decades later, two of the five have been sentenced. Justice delayed is better than justice deniedl Hope that the other three have to pay eventually. To me, this case is less like Rosa Parks and more like Byron de la Beckwith going to prison, what, 35 years after the four little girls were murdered in the bombing of that church in Birmingham. Would it have been better if he'd gone to prison at the time? Yes. Is it better that he died in prison than walking around free? You bet!

Also, some people on hear sound like if the kid believed in Black Power or the Black Panthers or whatever, then it would be, "Hey, what can you expect?" What B.S.! Anyway, a lot of us know how the Black Panthers started in Oakland out of self-defence after blacks were routinely beaten up and worse by the Oakland cops, since back then Oakland was known as the most racist place in California if not the entire West. They would go to the most redneck backward parts of the South and recruit sheriff's deputies for Oakland cops since most native California boys just couldn't beat on blacks with no qualms like they wanted. Sure, some of the Panthers were very bad dudes who dealt drugs, robbed, etc., but some of them also started community centers, fed the hungry and housed the homeless, even some white people. So just because someone supported the Panthers didn't mean that he automatically hated all whites.

yes virgina, idiots have freedom of speech too.

Third, ironic that they (the family) give out a photo of the victim making the black power sign, which makes me think he was a racist and possibly motivated the attack himself.

Do you always look for something to become insensed over? the would explain why it has become a constant state in everythng you see, do or think.

Just because "Black" people do something you don't, does not give it a special meaning. I was walking around town the other day and notice Latino, asian, whites and even a few black males "fist bump"... but of course, based on your peculiar vision. That would prove that the blacks were displaying gang signs - the rest were just saying hello?

the notorious "hook 'm horns" was at one time A SUPPOSED Satanic hand gesture. Now it just a juvinal idiot hand guesture used most often by half-drunk, stupified fan at sports games or rock concerts (do they even have rock Concerts any more?).

You try so hard... and still fail at being "Hip, cool" ... must be hard being you? Perpetually perplexed... angry over the many,many things you don't understand.

5 on 1, with at least one carrying, using a knife - seems pretty fair to no one. Yet, you think he started the fight?

Proof that fear does strange things to weak minds

Prospect,

You are reaching on the black power thing. I think someone who is actually there locally would know the facts better than some random web info. I don't see the kid as doing a black power sign either. I can't even tell you the last time I saw a black power sign, other than on the news. Even here in the US, I think that died in the 70's. Instead it seems like you are kinda saying… “Well, he was asking for it”. But 5 on 1, and they needed a knife? I don’t think that can be justified.

Secondly, a woman who is raped wearing a short skirt is NOT partially responsible for the rape. If I saw a woman with “the goods on display” I will definitely look and enjoy the “show”. If I was drunk, I might be stupid enough to try to talk her into having sex with me, and hell I might even get lucky. But rape her! NEVER! There is no excuse for that. The people who commit rape are sick & twisted. Rape is an act of violence. That is why a woman can be wearing baggy jeans and a sweater, and still be raped.

Prospect,

You have made assertions without clear evidence. Apparently, the Black Panther Movement was active but in what that article terms a "different type of organisation [to the US version] that responded to the specific reality of Black people in the UK" and then only active for three years. It is pretty much unknown to virtually everyone in Britain - black and white - the exception seems to be this website. (A look through the Brixton Black Panthers Website shows no readily obvious raised fists - though I haven't ploughed through all their pages.)

My research, of course, is limited to merely living in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Britain for four decades, being the same age as Stephen Lawrence would have been (had he not been murdered) and having Black and Asian friends and relatives; a diet of right, left and centrist newspapers and documentaries; studying British history and politics.

I can assure you that the Black Power salute/ raised fist, even if it has been here since the mid-60s, has barely impinged on the consciousness of anybody - black or white. (Scientology has been here since the mid-60s and that's never taken off either and most people are barely aware of its existence outside of three in-depth BBC Panorama documentaries.) The gesture Stephen uses in the photograph is merely an assertive/ cocksure thing common to most 18 year olds and is a commonly used gesture in Britain by people of all races, creeds or political persuasions. It is also usually accompanied by words/phrases such as 'go on my son', 'ave it!', 'nice' or 'yeah'. (Imagine Ray Winstone's voice for the full bravado effect.)

In today's newspaper alone I counted 3 examples of it's use (two by white football players who are displaying it to the crowd for acknowledgment of a goal; the other is a white Elvis impersonator who just seems to be doing it in a 'wow, look at me being Elvis sort of way'). Also, in copious photographs of the gang who attacked Stephen Lawrence there are some pretty similar gestures used by them used in defiance of the crowd when they exited the 1998 public inquiry.

"a few black people in the UK may not know of it, but most likely do" - this is surely merely a supposition. Why do most Black-British know something that was associated with a short-lived fringe group [in Britain at any rate] in the early 70s?

The crime happened in 1993 and he was 18 years old, true, the crime happened 18 years ago and there's a symmetry that's been noted by many in the UK - that it took the same duration as his entire life's span for him to eventually get justice.

However, his father and mother were born in 1942 and 1952 (respectively) in Jamaica and emmigrated to Britain in 1960 and 1961. Only his mother actually spent any of her formative years growing up in Britain. Neither had any known affiliations with the more extreme groups - very few Black-British did (in the same way that very few White-British in general are members of the BNP, NF, UVF, UDA; very few Welsh were in the 'Sons of Glyn Dwr' and few Americans are Scientologists or Branch Davidians). A quick scan of the their biographies shows his parents spent their lives keeping their heads down, studying dilligently, working hard and raising their children. Pretty much like the other 99.99% of the British who do exactly the same.

"It is highly likely he knew the black power sign" - this is mere supposition which ignores what life was like in Britain during the 80s/90s. Given the absence of the black power sign during the race-related Brixton/Toxteth/St. Paul's riots of the early 80s it is hardly surprising it wasn't known during the 90s. This is surely seeing British life through an American prism.

The 70s and early 80s were far more about social change, endless endless strikes, rolling power blackouts, more strikes and then a lot of yuppies making a lot of money for doing very little work, deregulation and privatization. The actual full held-high salute/ raised fist in question was (when used) entirely associated with the left-wing/labour movements in Britain and if you watch footage of even recent Labour Party Conferences you will see a number of delegates still make this gesture - regardless of colour - while they're pretending they know the words to The Red Flag. In the body language of Britain, when raised fully, this is a leftist symbol at most.

However, you have reminded me of the major reason why the Black experience in Britain and America is so radically different. In Britain the non-white population arrived primarily through choice (even back to the 17th Century - most commonly when sailors would land in places like Bristol, Portsmouth, London and decide to settle instead of going back to sea) while in the US (for a long time) the existence of the majority of the black population was as a result of slavery. The majority of the Black-British groups were arrivals from the Carribean (or central Africa) - the usual starting point being taken as the arrival of the 'Empire Windrush' in 1948. This is presumably why it was not called a 'Black Power' movement or even a 'civil rights' movement (that was more a term for the situation in Northern Ireland post-1968) but was referred to as a Campaign for Racial Equality - it is also because the British Asian community (mainly from Pakistan and India) outnumbered the Black-British population and would have been excluded. It's also worth noting that in the 19th Century a black male with freehold property over a certain value (of which there were a few) had more rights than a white male without property (or in leasehold) or a white or black woman, full-stop.

Just a few resposes to some of your previous comments:

"[on having the black power salute] which makes me think he was a racist and possibly motivated the attack himself" (supposition based on a misread gesture).

"I put "possibly" based on the fact that he is showing a black power sign in the image and it may have been a motivator in the incedent." (supposition)

"The two guys that have been convicted are not even proven to be the killers." (under British law it is not necessary in a gang/mob/group attack to establish who wielded the fatal blow if everybody is considered to be actually involved in the attack - if they had kicked him to death instead of knifed him it could have been any one of them who dealt the fatal blow or the result of a cumulative effect - it is considered to be under the 'joint enterprise' doctrine.)

"So essentially, what we have here is a dead guy who was stabbed by a another guy and they say it was racially motivated because the guy was black." (they say it was racially motivated because the other [white] people at the bus stop who had the courage to talk to the police testified that it was a racially motivated attack - see below.)

"Yet, it is highly likely that both were exchanging racial insults...clearly, a black guy flashing a black power sign would not hold back from using discriminatory language when being attacked racially." (supposition - which is contradicted by the witnesses who said that he didn't make any signs or act provocatively except to start moving in the opposite direction to the gang - as most people would do when descended on by 5 or 6 skinheads. At the 2001 census the London Borough of Eltham was 86% white-British (as opposed to white-Irish), 6% black, 4% Asian.)

"The bottom line, don't mix alcohol/drugs and racism because someone may end up hurt or dead. And that goes for all races." (Stephen Lawrence and his friend Duwayne Brooks were on their way home from school having stopped in at his uncle's to play video games for the evening - they were sober and clean.)

"Again, I'm not saying this is the situation in this case, but I wouldn't count it out." (you're not saying it but you are inferring it to be what you suspect.)

"so if you make a decision to, and I'm not saying it was the case here, make a black power sign around a bunch of drunk young white males in a gang, you will likely get attacked just as if a white said something racial to a gang of drunk black males." (which is inference based on supposition.)

However, you don't seem to know the salient details of the actual incident.

Stephen Lawrence and his schoolfriend Duwayne Brooks, both good students who hadn't been in trouble, leave school, go to a local shopping precinct then on to his uncle's where they spend the afternoon and evening playing video games. They leave to catch the bus home. Realising the bus they were to catch will get them home late they walk further to a different bus-stop to catch a more directly routed service. At the bus-stop there are three other people waiting. As Stephen and Duwayne near the stop Duwayne notices a group of 5 or 6 white skinhead style youths approaching from across the road and anxiously asks Stephen if the bus is coming - presumably hoping this will whisk them away before there's trouble. At this point the youths (including the now-convicted killers Norris and Dobson) spot the two black lads. The group of white youths hurry across the road with cries of:

"what, what n*gger!"

As Duwayne starts to edge away the gang 'engulf' (as a witness put it) Stephen. 10 seconds later Stephen is trying to stagger away with several 5" deep stab wounds to his chest and arm. Because of his high level of fitness he makes it 130 yards before falling with a collapsed lung where he dies.

The witnesses heard (and gave sworn statements that they heard) 'what, what n*gger'.

Duwayne heard 'what, what n*gger'.

Nobody saw or heard anything from Stephen or Duwayne that could possibly have been construed as provocative or offensive in any way. Unless trying to walk away from conflict is now considered a provocation.

Why has this case been considered a racially motivated attack? Because a group shouting 'what, what n*gger!' at someone then charging them starts to sound just a little like the motive might have been racial in nature.

However, you neglect something about the Black Power Gesture: for a symbol to have meaning and provoke offence it has to be understood by both sides - the person making the gesture and the one gestured to. One of the convicted killers is described as 'combining incredible arrogance with appalling ignorance' and had trouble recalling his date of birth at the trial. If many Black-British don't know the Black Power gesture how would he!

Since this murder various members of the group of attackers have been prosecuted succesfully for other racially-motivated attacks (including one on an off-duty policeman - which involved them swerving their car at the man, throwing cans at him and shouting 'n*gger' before driving off). Covert footage shot the year after the attack showed 4 of the 5 discussing how to kill 'n*ggers' and 'c**ns' and using their collection of knives to show (as they say on the tape) 'this is how you kill someone' and about going to Catford (in London) to 'kill every black c***, every p*ki.... I'd take one of them, skin the black c*** alive, torture him, set him alight'. Several of the gang had already been questioned for threatening black school-colleagues with knives (dropped due to scared witnesses refusing to testify) and they already had a reputation for carrying out unprovoked knife attacks on anybody they took a dislike to - but they had (to quote) 'a pathological hatred of anyone not of a white English origin'.

Just the testimony of all the witnesses that they shouted 'what, what n*gger' at Stephen Lawrence as they began their charge at him would seem enough to indicate this was a racial issue. And again the testimony of all witnesses that the boys were merely walking to a bus-stop would seem enough to indicate this was an otherwise unprovoked attack.

All I'm curious about is why you seem to desire Stephen Lawrence to somehow be culpable in his own murder despite all evidence to the contrary?

I'm a white Australian female, and I have heaps of pictures of me holding up a closed fist. Footy games after my team won, at the races, and just for various stupid reasons.

the so-called "black power" symbol only makes sense in the US context, kids. If it was a white kid holding his fist in the same way, would you be talking about black power? Or is it just the colour of his skin makes you leap to such ridiculous conclusions?

Jadles1,

I think it's a case of different semiotic languages and iconography at play but because of a common spoken language there is a not unreasonable though erroneous assumption that all things will be mostly the same.

It reminds me of a reported case that while 'w*nker' is not generally considered a term of endearment on British streets it [apparently] managed to sneak onto an American children's television show because it was misunderstood by the writers to be inoffensive! If only they'd known...

Despite Globalization, I still see imported American television shows where the audience/ laugh-track finds something hilarious and the reference means absolutely nothing to me! Usually it involves the names of shops, food or country-specific celebrities (especially C&W stars).

Of course, if I made a reference to 'Eastenders' or 'Neighbours' I expect it would mean next to nothing to most readers here despite the former being the most watched weekly British TV programme!

Ligeti - You rock! Excellent post. Thank you.

How is that working for them Robert?

On a yearly basis in the UK there's less than 1,000 homicides in a population of 63 million.

In the UK there's around 1 homicide per 100,000 people (with the rate steadily falling); in the US it's around 5 per 100,000. The highest homicide rate in Europe is Albania with just under 3 homicides per 100,000 people.

I think it's working out quite well.

Surely you jest!

Voice, I guess you mean they should have continued to walk around freely? Exactly what is meant by "been better for the guilty to go free" and "the rights of all to be assaulted"?

Huh? Are you related to any one of these knuckle-draggers? Or are you just shooting off your face without any thought?

I believe my statement was quite clear, what about it is confusing you? I did not in anyway defend what they did; however, to take away the solemn rights of every citizen just to get a conviction in one case, any case, is not justice, it is a tragedy and a corruption of the very concept.

I think he is referring to the double jeopardy, Meaning that these individuals were tried once and were not found guilty and then they were tried again and found guilty, How many people here would think it was OK if they were tried and acquitted and then tried later and found guilty, And just how many attempts does the system get at trying to convict you.

Were they guilty... most likely...Was justice served in their subsequent trial and conviction...Yes, But at what costs to the citizens of the UK, Is the precedent now set that any citizen who has been found innocent can now be retried...Very slippery slope

Were they guilty... most likely...Was justice served in their subsequent trial and conviction...Yes, But at what costs to the citizens of the UK, Is the precedent now set that any citizen who has been found innocent can now be retried...Very slippery slope

Exactly!! People are so focused on the specifics of one individual case that they do not care that one of the most sacredly held rights was just taken away and no one seems to care as long as they "get their guy"....whatever the cost? And if you let them do it and get away with it in one case, what is to stop them from violating ALL of your rights?

I agree. Al Sharpton is a racist.

Almost everyone on Fox News is a racist -

The real "race baiters" are FOX news, Rush, Kenny, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Sarah, Courtney and the list goes on....having all of these industries and people who consistently make racist statements represents us white folks is the "real problem"

You haven't seen his show on MSNBC obviously.

You obviously haven't watched FOX either.

Saying it how it is...

The real "race baiters" are FOX news, Rush, Kenny, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Sarah, Courtney and the list goes on....having all of these industries and people who consistently make racist statements represents us white folks is the "real problem"

Amen !!!!!!!

I love Sharpton's Politics Nation program and Tivo it daily. I haven't noticed anything remotely race-baiting about it. The show does political analysis from a center-left POV. Sharpton is smart, and his POV is informed by his experiences as a citizen, and as someone who has long been engaged in U.S. politics. Nothing wrong with that.

Nope. Never has been. South Africa would be a blaring example.

Boston and Philadelphia qualify, with apologies to L.A.'s rank.

Yella, I found as a young woman that there is MORE racism OUTSIDE of the south than is acknowledged, it's just subtle and that's more hateful. The 1st time I experienced it was in a Catholic school by the Mother Superior. The 2nd time was walking into my 9th grade class in Anchorage (and the list goes on).

In the south, they hate everyone and were upfront with it. I personally would rather be stabbed from the front rather than the back.

Do you really mean that, allison? Surely you just, altho I know what you mean about the hidden racism in the so-called race-tolerante North of the U.S. At least in the South there was/is less hypocrisy.

There's always been a saying for the north and the south when it came to racism.

In the south, it's not about how rich you are, it's about how close you get. i.e. you can be successful all you want just don't date or marry anyone white.

In the north, it's not about how close you get, it's about how successful you become, i.e. you can have as many interracial relations you want just don't get too rich and powerful.

Yeah Lil"Debbie, I would rather KNOW who's killing me or as the case may be hating me rather than guessing. I think most people (hopefully) would rather have a racist pig let them know from the beginning that they hate you just because of how you look rather than hearing a racist pig whisper behind their back's, wouldn't you?

That's why I enjoyed (for the most part) my years in the south, they're honest with their hatred

It's a television channel, dude. Like CNN, Fox News, etc...

He's handle says it all don't you think?

What about this confuses you, "Bro"?

Unfortunately I think we are going to see even worse in the US as far as trampling upon our rights is concerned. As that old adage goes...it's going to get a whole lot worse before it starts to get any better.

Yeah, I agree, all we hear about constantly is race, race, race. It's OK for Latinos to have La Raza and African Americans to have the UNCF or BC, but try to have any caucasian based organization? Instantly labeled as racist. You know what a racist is? Someone who sees everything based on race.

I agree and disagree at the same time. I can see where changing the rules on double jeopardy could be very useful, especially in light of DNA evidence being made available that wouldn't have been available at the time of the original trial. This essentially goes the same for pardoning people who were once convicted and then DNA evidence proves they were really innocent (unfortunately this is something that is not allowed in a lot of states). It definitely has the potential to cause a lot of problems though.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Not that I agree with any racial violence, but it doesn't surprise me because what we have in the US is a different set of rules for what racism is when you compare African Americans and Caucasian Americans. Any organization that is based on race should be considered "racist" and shut down by the government. Fair is fair!

Racism exists and it will never go away, but we need an even playing field when it comes to racist organizations. There should be no white or black racist organizations with the ability to collect donations, write off taxes, receive government funding, hire people, etc. It should be flat out illegal.

Otherwise, they should all be allowed. Pick one and stick with it.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Not that I agree with any racial violence, but it doesn't surprise me because what we have in the US is a different set of rules for what racism is when you compare African Americans and Caucasian Americans. Any organization that is based on race should be considered "racist" and shut down by the government. Fair is fair!

Racism exists and it will never go away, but we need an even playing field when it comes to racist organizations. There should be no white or black racist organizations with the ability to collect donations, write off taxes, receive government funding, hire people, etc. It should be flat out illegal.

Otherwise, they should all be allowed. Pick one and stick with it.

The Conservative Citizens Council, AMREN, and the KKK are NOT illegal. You should join one of them. These "racist" organizations are dedicated to conversing openly about how to continue white domination on the planet. Does "La Raza" or "NAACP" have world domination on their agenda? What exactly are you complaining about?

Allowing the police to deliberately ignore evidence is alright with you so that 5 white guys can commit murder? You have got to be kidding! If you can bring yourself to do it, read yesterday's BBC News article, there were law's that had to be re-written because of the unjustice that was done almost 20 years ago. That's why these 2 were tried again because they (& the 3 other's involved) were allowed to get away with murder.

Simply unless your dumb.

In the U.S. there is already a law that puts NO statory limitatioon on homicide, i.e. if you go free for years you can still be tried and found guilty on your deathbed if need be, of h omicide. Which I think is the right thing to do. I am glad there is no statory limut on the crime of murder in the U.S. I seriously doubt the U.S> is all that much lenient in the criminal justice system than you give it (us) credit for. Wait till you get caught in thetoils of justice, should you be so unfortunate. It all depends on whether you can affrood a goodlawyer or whether you are a celebirty...at least much of the time.

While I was (and still am) uncomfortable at the scrapping of the double jeopardy rule the legislation is framed tightly so it is only used in the most exceptional circumstances i.e. where there is 'clear and compelling' new evidence of guilt. Such a course of action has to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions (the UK's D.A.-in-Chief - apparently there's no direct American equivalent - I just checked) and then the Court Of Appeal.

Convicts seem to be able to lodge endless appeals this almost seems like a chance for the (voieless) victim to lodge their own appeal. This scrapping of Double Jeopardy can only be used in cases of Homicide, Rape, Kidnap and Armed Robbery.

In the 8 years since the rule was changed it has barely been used. The first case came three years after the scrappage: it featured a man who had murdered his [white] girlfriend then repeatedly raped her corpse but had been formally acquitted at two failed trials. He later confessed and was convicted of perjury. The confession allowed for a re-focused investigation in which DNA evidence proved guilt and the man admitted the crime (formally).

The next conviction seems to have come some 4 years after that when items of previously hidden clothing (spattered with the [white] woman victim's blood) belonging to the previously acquitted man were found, DNA tested and the acquitted man was subsequently found guilty and imprisoned.

The phrase 'clear and compelling' does seem to translate as watertight DNA evidence (preferably with a confession to back it up). The Stephen Lawrence case may be only the third use in a decade.

(There's quite a few notorious underworld killers from the 60s and 70s who were acquitted of their murders then subsequently made a fortune detailing and admitting their crimes in their memoirs arrogantly safe in the knowledge that these confessions couldn't result in a fresh prosecution who are reportedly somewhat less arrogant.)

One of the most common ways for the wrongly convicted to have their convictions over-turned in the UK is when DNA evidence proves it wasn't them and/or proves it was someone else entirely. A situation which a previous commenter makes sound highly unusual in the US.

Yet despite these successes something does make me feel instinctively uneasy about this scrapping.

Closest thing to Director of Public Prosecutions would be United States Attorney General, except that he is ultimately responsible for the prosecution only of Federal crimes, which are a small minority of all crimes. Most State AG's are politicians (the joke is that it stands for Almost Governor) who specialize in things like consumer protection and leave the prosecutions under the criminal code to what are variously called District Attorney Generals (D.A.'s) or States' Attorneys, so guess you are right, we have no U.S. equivalent.

Connie, the article says that they rec'd those sentences because of the ages they were when they commited the murder.

I realized that. But the age they were when they committed the murder does not matter. They should have been tried as adults. Even if they were apprehended as teens, I would still say try them as adults.

Connie, don't look at this through the eyes of the US justice system, in England it does matter. Part of the problem is that the investigation wasn't done in a fair and proper manner, that's why some of the laws were re-written (to also address the racism with the police investigation).

ChrisMcK,

The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10. All crimes committed by people aged 10 and above are considered as adult crimes and tried as such; from 10-17 they are considered a child/ juvenile/ minor and the court is usually set up for such a case but it's only the sentence which is mitigated by the age of the person at the time of the offence - which is what happened here.

If you think of it the other way round - just because someone is now a frail 90 year old doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted for Nazi War Crimes committed when they were a fit healthy 21 year old. It also prevents the State playing a waiting game and delaying all prosecutions of criminals aged between 10-17 until they turn 18 just so they can give them longer sentences.

Well said. I don't understand why so much of the focus in all these comments is on defending the murderers. Hatred is real.

And bigotry is ugly. I am a white, observant Jew, and only a few months ago fended off an attack by a skinhead in the parking lot of a Fresh and Easy supermarket in California. The guy wanted to kick my a**, and good. It was scary, to be sure. I left with spit on my left cheek and shoulder, and a footprint on my car. I will never forget his words, and the look in his eyes.

The point is, freedom-loving people should spend less time trying to blame the victims of hatred, and more time fighting bigotry in all its forms. Some of the posts on here make me want to vomit.

Chris, you stand condemned out of your own mouth! Lol

What purpose do you have to classify yourself as "white"?

Given all of the "whites only" signs as recently as the 1960s in establishments, the evidence shows that being white means something other than just a color.

I'm not at all saying that all whites are racist, but what I am saying, is that if you are a white person, given the evidence, there is a logical reason for any non-white person to suspect that you could be a racist. Why else are you classifying yourself as white, especially if "race" is a biologically invalid construct.

To imply that it is "racist" for a non-white person to be a bit suspicious (especially with the comments you have made in this thread, do the non-white people you know, are friends with, are married to know your views on the Stephen Lawerence case?) could be a conscious act of racism on your part.

What are your thoughts?

Sooooo Chris, what were you doing "in certain neighborhood's". Were you looking for something? By the way Chris, for a non-racist white guy you're awfully touchy, settle down. But understand something, you're, by your own definition of your color aren't always welcome in those "certain neighborhood's" just like your not alway's welcome in certain countries. Yeah we'll take your money but I bet you were more than just "sluming" in those "certain neighborhood's".

I'm also from UK and agree with Mark, to me this is just another example of the authorities bending over backwards and changing the system to pander to a minority section of society. There are numerous people who have got away with crimes because of double jeopardy it's painful for the victims family but that's the system but because this family are black they change the system. What about all the white families in the past are we going to reopen every case where someone was found innocent but the family felt they were guilty and start another trial ? Or are they not as deserving as this family because they are from the majority race. Unfortunately week willed appolagist's like you are ruining this country, please emigrate yourself.

Tim - So in your view, only the rights of the majority should be upheld and defended?

Not much for democracy, are you. Remember the adage, "majority rule, with minority rights.."

So, in short yes -- if need be, and if new evidence emerges, retry old cases. That is, unless you fear justice for some reason.

"Majority rule" with no concept of human rights is a travesty. It is, in the words of Jefferson, "two wolves and a sheep discussing what would be good to have for dinner." I'm sure that the newly discovered "majority rule" in Tunisia, Egypt and Libyia will lead to the practice of Judaism, Christianity, and any other non-Islamic religion becoming a prosecutable offense under the heading of "blasphemy". That doesn't make this legitimate, proper, or correct.

Rlquall - I don't think you read all of what I wrote. I specified majority rule with minority rights. Or maybe we are already in agreement on that.

GOOD2 -- In complete agreement, and "seconding" you!:-) You "get it".

Chris,with every word you utter you are the very thing you say you repudiate! LOL.

You don't care about justice. You simply wanted to stick up for your own skin color. You and others like you are a waste of oxygen.

Chris,

In the UK there is a legal doctrine of 'joint enterprise' (also referred to as 'common design' or 'common purpose') where if a gang/mob forms knowing that one or more (though not necessarily all) are armed in some manner (usually it is knives) then criminal liability is imputed on all.

Given the tenor of your comment I'm sure you will be overjoyed to know that it has proved quite controversial in recent years as it has been used primarily to convict young black men involved in knife crime even those who did not plunge the knife in themselves.

Chris Chris Chris

Look up the phrase "jointly and severally responsible". I think understanding that will give you a better understanding of why they were rightly convicted.

Shaking my head, how can you be so unconscionably ignorant. That is not a " black power salute" and the fact that you think that it is says a great deal about who and what you are!

What's wrong with the black power pose, and why are you 'shaking your head?

UK/USA:

I agree... He was probably holding his allotment of "Magic Beans" in that FIST. It sure didn't look like the "sign" I've seen on the Black Power flags... Ooops! Sorry, I looked again... Yup! Looks just like it...

Yeah, let's not close our eyes to what he is doing withhis right hand in the photo. Black power saluting is not illegal and never was, but for heaven's sake lets not carry our "denial" that far!!If he wasn't intentionally giving the salute, then he had soomething seriously wrong with his right hand and wrist. but as I'f\ve said before, whateve rhe was intentionally doing, is no reason to kill the guy.

I bet the young man didn't really understand to significance, it was well before he was even a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Whats the significance? What does it mean to you?

To reiterate what I said in a longer comment above: this is not a Black Power pose in the UK. I was slightly corrected and shall correct myself here: the Black Power Movement, the Black Panther Movement and its iconography did not make any significant inroads here in the UK - it next to unknown - the chances of him making such a symbol are about as likely as a kid from the Bronx flicking a Churchill V-sign to signal their vanquishing a foe!

According to a comment from an Australian lady above the same lack of cultural translation goes for Australia as well. In the UK (and apparently Australia), this is just a standard non-racially motivated semi-celebratory pose used by everyone from sportsmen to actors to people accepting degrees regardless of skin colour - a sort of fist-pump - though only ever half raised because expressing too much joy or being seen celebrating too much just isn't British (and the majority of the Black-British population show as much reserve as the white-British). It's actually quite hard to explain the full significance (or lack thereof) of this gesture to someone non-British/ Commonwealth. In my British newspaper just today I saw three instances of this pose - all white people - two sportsmen, one Elvis . The only place and time you will see anything similar to the full black power salute is at a Labour Party Conference!

Please stop interpreting other people's cultural specifics solely through American experience.

That's not what is shown in the picture.

Read a book.

I can't imagine a fan of any of the various forms of "football" played in the world who has never raised or shaken a fist in celebration of a goal, try, touchdown, whatever. It's about as close to a universal hand signal as there is, and considering how deeply the football sports are ingrained in the cultures of everywhere they are widely played and followed, to one extent or the other it would be natural for this to cross over into the wider culture. Again, this event was 20 years after the peak of the somewhat-international Black Power/Black Consciousness/Negritude movement, and this young man, unless somewhat peculiarly culturally aware, would be highly unlikely to have been cognizant of this, and highly likely to have been an ardent football supporter. I just saw his pose, along with his dress, as reflective of that and nothing more. Perhaps I'm reading too little into this, but think it far more likely that some of you are reading far too much into it.

Black Power/ Black Consciousness wasn't a large force or movement in the UK and certainly didn't lend the same iconography due to the different patterns of immigration to the country: the British-Asian population has always far outnumbered the Black-British population - at the last census (2001) it was by about 2 to 1. So, racial equality for all non-white people was desired (from the start) far more than empowerment for any one particular ethnic group: calls for Black Power don't win much support from the Asian community - calls for equality do. Also non-whites were never disenfranchised by law in the same way as in parts of the US (only by individual Briton's personal prejudices), for example, the first non-white MPs were Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree elected to Parliament in 1892 and 1895 respectively: the latter was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1897 and served for kept his seat in the House for 11 years until 1906.

The rise of far-right political parties espousing openly racist policies during the mid-70s converted many white fence-sitters into anti-racists as the identification of racism with fascism/Nazism was instantly resonant in a country that had only 30 years previously lost many lives to (narrowly) defeat Nazism. It's hard to argue that one form of racism is acceptable when you're father, brother, son died defeating another form. White support also removed the identity of a solely black power movement.

Effectively I'm saying there was very little to no knowledge here of Black Power as an entity or its symbols because of a completely different racial and cultural history and symbols only get used and have power if everybody knows what they mean!

If I stuck 'two fingers' up at someone would it mean 'peace', 'Victory' or be a vulgar gesture implying 'get lost'? All depends on who's viewing.

How in the world are the actions of a pack of thugs who burned down hundreds of buildings, assaulted and roobed innocent passersby and generally engaged in mayhem even remotely equivalent to what Rosa Parks did? Claiming that those riots constitute a "Rosa Parks moment" is even more asinine, and stupid, than claiming this trial was a "Rosa Parks moment".

You wonder where this lawyer ever even learned that Rosa Parks was somebody in the Civl Rights movement. Rosa Parks was non-violent, and all she did was refuse to obey awhite bus driver in the South who ordered her to move to the back of the bus where the blacks at the time were required to sit, and to give up her seat toward the front for a white person, also a custom in the South at the time. She was a domestic worker, was not young, and was tired. lShe didn't want to get up and trudge to the back. So she stayed in her seat. (Incidentally, she didn't get pepper-sprayted for it, unlike some other non-violent student proteesters did recently in California) Rosa Parks,f who lived to a ripe old age and only died a couple of years ago, was certainly not burning down buildings and razing general helll against innocent people.

Mark,

You are focusing on opportunists who take advantage of these sort of tense situations for personal gain. It's apparent that you did not pay attention to what sparked the London Riots this summer, which was I would ask you to kindly arm yourself with a bit of information before going off half-cocked and spewing insults. The riots were in response to the shooting of a man by Police, but this was merely a kettle that was about to boil over already. The people in Tottenham did not care for the way police were treating them, and this was perceived as institutionalized racism. My analogy is alot closer to what was going on in Montgomery, Alabama than this story.

Lil' Debbie,

That's the version we all learned in school. Rosa Parks was well affiliated with the NAACP, and while admirable, there is doubt that this wasn't a coordinated effort. Ms. Parks certainly wasn't the first or only person who was hauled off a bus. There was a 15 year old-girl who frequented Parks' home attending NAACP meetings who had been dragged off a bus almost a year earlier than Parks...but since she had become pregnant, wasn't a suitable candidate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/01/a-forgotten-contribution.html

I don't think there's anything wrong with staging the incident, I think the tactic was brilliant, and necessary.

It was a Rosa Parks moment because it forced the legal system to inspect itself. When it did, it didn't like what it saw. As a result, some things changed. The Rosa Parks incident had a similar effect, and also changed the way Americans thought about equality under the law.

This case has done something similar in GB.

It was a "know thyself" moment.

Good2Bhere,

I can see where you are going with this, but I still don't think it's a good analogy. In this incident the UK decided to modify it's double jeopardy laws for such things as murder, rape etc. This murder didn't prompt the change in the law, it was an example of the law in action. Hence the reason I dispute the analogy.

Rosa Parks had been well-trained, years before, in the practice of non-violence/passive resistance at the old Highlander Folk School in Tennessee and knew when to pick her spot, the right time and place. Of course, the able assistance in the cause of a young pastor just out of theology school who was also aware of non-violent resistance didn't hurt any either. Turned out that continuing to stand up for causes like this cost him his life 14 years later, but somehow I think that if he had it all to do over again he still would.

Somehow I think that if these guys had it to do all over again they would not -- at least, I certainly hope that they would not. They couldn't/wouldn't/didn't forsee any real consequences, and for two decades they were approximately right. Glad to see that times and circumstances have changed, but actually, MarineDoc, the law was changed and now I'm scared to see that double jeopardy can be waived in any common-law jurisdiction for any offence. Even if it means that people like these (or O. J. Simpson for that matter) can walk.

Rlquall,

From what I understand the law is limited to cases such as murder, rape etc., and only under very strict conditions and oversight.

Most of the "brown people" were kidnapped without the assistance of other "brown people". That was the exception, not the rule. Such an assertion is always a red flag for bigotry.

Your suggestion that slavery benefited "brown people", who were then "bred" giving them the "ability to make millions in baseball, football, basketball, etc etc etc" is racist. Period.

And for your edification, slavery still exists. Every day, people (mainly women) are kidnapped off the streets of Mexico, Europe and Asia and brought to the US and forced to work, usually as prostitutes. So, you've got some catching up to do when it comes to your understanding of what slavery is, and how it is practiced.

I can't believe that you just tried to write a defense of slavery. Tell me, do you agree with the Constitution of the United States? Delve into your better self, and try to get your understanding on the correct side of things.

Scam artists? That's quite a charge. Please be specific. In what scams have these two men been involved?

Mostly, Good2, in going to major companies with the proposition of "hire us as consultants on race relations/sensitivity or we'll start boycotts against your companies and publically embarass you, and give major amounts to our tax-exempt 'charities' so that we'll talk you up instead of down in the 'community'."

Where do you think that things like "Operation PUSH" get the majority of their (largely unaudited) tax-exempt $millions? If you doubt this, google the instance of the Hain/Celestial Seasonings Co. and how that they stood up to this rather than giving in.

Easier to happen in a country where "the Constitution" is largely unwritten, a detail not unnoticed by the Founders.

I'll second that.

There's also the point that the family of one of the accused were serious villains with a believed history of jury tampering and suspect 'links' to police officers. (Have to be careful due to British libel laws!) The MacPherson Report authors said that there was 'a stench of corruption' about the original investigation clearly implying that some police officers had been persuaded by criminal contacts to hamper inquiries. A former police officer told them as such. The Report author also pointed out that this was almost impossible to prove as police rarely give receipts when accepting financial inducements.