Forum Topic

Mr Hawkes I see the Mail now has a paywall, so I can't read that article, but I'm extrapolating one presumably has to separate the Mail's support of the Lawrences' campaign for justice from the alleged acquisition of private data? I can imagine but, true, I can't be sure, they're different departments but anyway I'd imagine over time personnel change and have different motivations? Pity the full article isn't available for me to read.As I said, I'm not that bothered by the ruling, just interested in the legal system ignoring the criminal activities of private investigators to illegally obtain confidential information. I guess if Elton John and his husband, and Prince Harry are involved in this case they have the funds to support it - that's their business not mine.Obviously, any race can be racist, and historically I suppose the British have a track record of open discrimination: remember the appalling "No blacks, Irish, dogs" accommodation adverts of the 1950s and 60s? (It also negates the idea the British are animal lovers?) Actually, it persisted after then; in the 1970s I knew a couple of white people brought up in the West Indies who, as soon as they phoned up for a flat advertised in the newspapers were told, on hearing their West Indies accents, it "was gone" but if their UK friend, one of my colleagues, phoned they were invited for a viewing.So, I agree, it's not a binary (black and white!?) issue as usual, but in this case, as I understood it, we were discussing Baroness Lawrence. Whataboutery on your part?I guess "Institutional racism" means that the culture, policies and processes of an organisation are biased for or against particular races. What's your definition?Yes, authorities have made major errors in certain cases. Perhaps that's because of poor police leadership, low morale, etc as highlighted in the report by Lords Blunket and Herbert? We also have to consider some of the police haven't been properly vetted and have themselves been rapists, abusers and even murders of women. But that wasn't part of the original discussion. I've worked with many who have roots in the Indian subcontinent and West Indies, and elsewhere without issues: they've contributed significantly to my IT teams' achievements and appear good family people. So perhaps we need to be careful of demonising the good, well behaved, majority by the bad actions of a few - whether that's immigrants or the police?

Michael Ixer ● 20d

Mr IxerWhat is the definition of being 'institutionally racist' ?Does such a description apply to the fact that when Henry Nowak, a white 18-year-old UK student, was fatally stabbed by Vickrum Digwa, the police did not take him at his word but believed that of his killer a non-white Sikh ?And were the authorities not institutionally racist against white British women and girls, sexually abused in vile circumstances, by not pursuing their attackers who were non-white Pakistani Muslims ? In your eyes it seems racism can only be carried out by whites against non-whites and never the other way around.Why are you so antipathetic to those of your own ethnicity ?And I see you are not only the world expert on cyber crime but are also similarly qualified regarding our legal system. I did not realise that in English Law there is possible for a case to be Not Proven.Or so you wish in your obvious frustration that the Mail was totally exonerated in what it published and how this weas sourced.https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/paul-dacre-prince-harry-daily-mail-privacy-case-reaction/I assume you will be joining Elton John to fund the legal costs of Doreen Lawrence who maliciously turned against the Mail, the paper that did more than any media outlet to get her son's killers locked away.Even the boy's father thought this was an indefensible position to take.https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15960327/Stephen-Lawrence-father-breaks-silence-moving.htmlBut as I said above you leftist bien pensants always have to take a whataboutary counter position to that of the sensible majority.

John Hawkes ● 20d

I'm not sure I care much about this case either way. Lady Lawrence obviously, and deservedly, got her peerage for campaigning against the seemingly racist police who investgated her son's murder (or were they just corrupt or incompetent?). She was assisted in this by the Mail but, of course, there may be more too it, or internal divisions within the Mail's departments than we're aware of?Seems to me it was one that will keep the lawyers' Champagne fridges stocked up. (Perhaps if it goes to appeal, their caviar consumption will increase too?) Still, if it's fair game for these people, then I don’t see why Farage is whinging about some investigating journalists who may have exposed something the electorate should have been aware of - but let's wait for the standards body to adjudicate on that even if his current antics do delay that.I was interested in the following comment..."However, Justice Matthew Nicklin accepted, as part of the factual background, that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) had used private investigators and that some of those investigators had engaged in practices such as ‘blagging’, or deception. The Court also acknowledged evidence showing that, before 2007, private investigators instructed by ANL regularly supplied information in circumstances that gave rise to at least a prima facie case that it had been obtained unlawfully."Does that mean it's ok for journalists to collude in criminal offences with private investigators? Should there not be a criminal investigation? The journalists must know who the private investigators they used are? Maybe Farage does have a point if information was obtained illegally? And I suppose there's benefit in that banks, etc have enhanced their security?https://www.article19.org/resources/uk-high-court-judgment-in-prince-harrys-case-exposes-gaps-in-media-accountability/

Michael Ixer ● 22d