Talk:Murder of Stephen Lawrence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:49, 11 November 2024

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Thomas, Sean (31 July 2013). "The murder of Stephen Lawrence and the strange case of the missing Wikipedia entries". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 22, 2021.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Kent inquiry

We should have a section, however brief on the Kent inquiry. This was an inquiry by the Kent Constabulary into the Met's first investigation, with which issues were found. As well as its own relevance, it informed the McPherson inquiry, which is hard to cover properly without this foundation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Clifford Norris arrest

We should also cover the Clifford Norris arrest and conviction, in a short section, as this was prioritised by the then SIO to reduce the intimidation of potential witnesses. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Her or His?

Is the usage of the term 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' correct in this sentence in the third paragraph?

'On 3 January 2012, Dobson and Norris were found guilty of Lawrence's murder; the pair were juveniles at the time of the crime and were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure, equivalent to a life sentence for an adult, with minimum terms of 15 years 2 months and 14 years 3 months respectively for what the judge described as a "terrible and evil crime".'

Currently it would be his, but since the conviction happened during Elizabeth the II's reign would it be technically correct to use 'her'?

Just asking because it is linked to an article which immediately uses the words "At His Majesty's pleasure."

Thank You For Answering! :D Seisachtheia (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=other|listas=Lawrence, Stephen|1=
-Is there a reason the five suspects are not named in this article? I can't see any potential legal pitfall to recording the undisputed facts that they were the subject of prosecutions and were branded 'murderers' by the Daily Mail. [[User:ThomasHarte|ThomasHarte]] 13:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
+{{WikiProject Biography}}
-: ditto [[User:StrengthCoach|StrengthCoach]] 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
+{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Death|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject London|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Low}}
+}}
+{{Press| title = The murder of Stephen Lawrence and the strange case of the missing Wikipedia entries | author = Thomas, Sean| year = 2013| monthday = 31 July| url = http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100229154/the-murder-of-stephen-lawrence-and-the-strange-case-of-the-missing-wikipedia-entries/
+| org = The Telegraph| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6IXa6hl9j| archivedate = 1 August 2013}}
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
+|archiveheader       = {{talkarchivenav}}
+|maxarchivesize      = 75K
+|counter             = 1
+|minthreadsleft      = 3
+|minthreadstoarchive = 1
+|algo                = old(28d)
+|archive             = Talk:Murder of Stephen Lawrence/Archive %(counter)d
+}}
+{{On this day|date1=2021-04-22|oldid1=1019247718}}
+{{Archives|search=yes}}
+==Kent inquiry==
-:: On two occasions its been attempted to try them for the murder, twice its failed. They are in the eyes of the law as innocent of this crime as you or I are to my knowledge. To publicly name and shame them would be inappropriate here I feel. And to use the Daily Mail image would not be allowed as their logo and article is copyright, and frankly thats just a poor work around so you can name them. I oppose naming 5 innocent people of this crime here until there is sufficient evidence for a retrial or likewise a successful conviction.
+We should have a section, however brief on the Kent inquiry.  This was an inquiry by the [[Kent Constabulary]] into the Met's first investigation, with which issues were found.  As well as its own relevance, it informed the McPherson inquiry, which is hard to cover properly without this foundation.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
+==Clifford Norris arrest==
-::: I agree with the above in terms of not naming them as murderers. It should be noted that the BBC has also [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3685733.stm named]] them as being ''accused'' of the murder. In the interest of Wikipedia consistency, if we can't list them as murderers, can we list them as 'accused' ?  and if not, what steps will we be taking to ensure that [[Michael Jackson]] and [[OJ Simpson]] articles make no mention of any accusations of crime made against them too.
+We should also cover the Clifford Norris arrest and conviction, in a short section, as this was prioritised by the then SIO to reduce the intimidation of potential witnesses.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
-::: It's an interesting discussion; and I don't profess to have an answer.. If you want to see how this topic gets muddled up with ideology etc.. see the [[Talk:Oliver_North|Oliver North]] talk page.
-::: [[User:EasyTarget|EasyTarget]] 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
+== Her or His? ==
-::: But that's utterly ridiculous. Mentioning them doesn't necessarily imply guilt. We have a whole article on [[Richard Ricci]], whose only claim to fame is not being guilty of a famous crime. I'm sure the names can be mentioned in the appropriate context. It's not like we're talking about hearsay - these people have indisputably been put on trial or otherwise involved in the case --[[User:87.82.24.140|87.82.24.140]] 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
+Is the usage of the term 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' correct in this sentence in the third paragraph?
-:::: The BBC has no inhibitions about naming the suspects and they employ lawyers who know the legal aspects of journalism backwards. Provided they're described as 'suspects' rather than 'murderers', I can't see a problem. Seeing as the suspects have declined to sue the ''Daily Mail'' for its famous front page, I can't see a problem even if we did.
+'On 3 January 2012, Dobson and Norris were found guilty of Lawrence's murder; the pair were juveniles at the time of the crime and were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure, equivalent to a life sentence for an adult, with minimum terms of 15 years 2 months and 14 years 3 months respectively for what the judge described as a "terrible and evil crime".'
-::: "I oppose naming 5 innocent people" . The fact that a court of law did not find them guilty does not mean they are in fact innocent. They are a major part of the story. Clearly stating their names and the facts around the case is the way to go. Like a court of law Wikipedia should be NPOV. It is NPOV to say A,B,C,D,E were tried and found not guilty (due to lack of evidence), but Daily Mail named them as killers.
+Currently it would be his, but since the conviction happened during Elizabeth the II's reign would it be technically correct to use 'her'?
-Is it possible to use this Daily Mail cover image in the article, or not? [[User:Sjjb|Sjjb]] 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
-[http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/historicpage?MODEL_IN_THE_SESSION=2325]
+Just asking because it is linked to an article which immediately uses the words "At His Majesty's pleasure."
-:: I would have thought that anything to do with the Daily Mail should be taken with a pinch of salt.  What exactly is meant by the "undisputed facts that they were the subjects of prosecutions and were branded 'murderers' by the Daily Mail"?  The inference seems to be that they were guilty, and should be named.  But people are not convicted merely by being charged and then being told by the Daily Mail that they are guilty.  From what I know of the facts, at least some and probably all of the five _were_ in fact guilty, but Idon't base that merely on the fact of a prosecution having been brought and the speculations of the tabloid press.  If one is going to go into all that happened in the aftermath of the murder, one should also mention the blatant misjudgment (no doubt motivated by publicity seeking) of Michael Mansfield and Imran Khan in bringing the private prosecution against the advice of the police and CPS (there being insufficient evidence at the time to secure a conviction - thanks inter alia to the flawed initial police investigation). The CPS could have taken over the prosecution and then suspended it until (as seems now to have happened) better evidence including DNA evidence emerged.  But then we know what the tabloids would have said - that the CPS stopped Mansfield and Khan obtaining justice.  MacPherson ducked dealing with this tricky issue simply by saying that the double jeopardy rule should be abolished - as if that would encourage an improvement in police and prosecutorial standards (instead it would reassure them to blunder on with other ineptly presented prosecutions in the knowledge that they could have another crack at the whip if it went wrong).
+Thank You For Answering! :D [[User:Seisachtheia|Seisachtheia]] ([[User talk:Seisachtheia|talk]]) 21:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
-== Suspects ==
-The names of the suspects ought to be added as they are in the public domain and they attracted most of the coverage at the time.
-I strongly feel that mentions of "parallels" with other racist murder cases are not inaccurate - the central issue of the case being the police's mishandling more than the crime itself - as convictions were secured in these cases. To suggest a "parallel" in the CASE (and not the crime)when the only common factor is motive carries a slightly disturbing racist subtext when the murder of a white is presented with the implicit suggestion that this is just the opposite equivalent.
-== Duwayne Brooks  ==
-I don't know much about this case but it occurs to me that it could possibly have been perpetrated by Duwayne Brooks. Was this ever looked into do we know?
-:He was never a suspect. If our not-so-wonderful Metropolitan Police could have pinned the blame on him, they would have done. [[User:Nunquam Dormio|Nunquam Dormio]] 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-== External links ==
-At the bottom of the page there is a adobe acrobat link to the site "Institutional racism and the police: fact or fiction?" however, none of the articles are dated and none of the articles are sourced to see where they come from, does anybody have any information on what year these publications were released?
-The copyright statement says 2000.
-=='see also' section==
-sadly, stephen lawrence's murder is not unique. i hesitate to accuse people of [[homophobia]] without being '''certain''', but it must be suspicious, to say the least, that someone would cut the obvious parallel with [[Matthew Shepard]], ''inter aliabus''. [[User:jamaissur|jamaissur]] <sup>[[lemon|lemon]] or [[lime (fruit)|lime]]?</sup>