Monday, June 24, 2013

Digging the dirt to smear Stephen Lawrence family


So, let's get this right.

While Neville and Doreen Lawrence were struggling to cope with the trauma of the brutal murder of Stephen, their 18-year-old son, the police who were supposed to be investigating the crime were, in fact, told to find 'dirt' on the whole Lawrence family, in order to smear and undermine their campaign against racism in the police force?

This is the astonishing allegation of former undercover officer Peter Francis, who says he posed for four years as an anti-racist campaigner. He was also asked to target one of the witnesses to the murder, Duwayne Brooks: "I had to get any information on what was happening in the Stephen Lawrence campaign," Mr Francis told the Guardian. "They wanted the campaign to stop. It was felt it was going to turn into an elephant. Throughout my deployment there was almost constant pressure on me personally to find out anything I could that would discredit these campaigns."

The murder of Stephen Lawrence must have been a cause of unimaginable grief for the family. To discover now that there was a conspiracy to discredit them and key witnesses is profoundly shocking and deeply disturbing. Indeed, it is evidence in itself that Sir William Macpherson was right to conclude that the force was 'institutionally racist'. At the moment, of course, these are simply the allegations of one former police officer. But in the context of recent revelations of police misconduct in the phone-hacking and 'Plebgate' scandals, one might be forgiven for inclining to believe Mr Francis's allegations.

The police have been corrupted by political vendettas and sinister agendas. While we're consistently led to believe they're leaving no stone unturned and exploring every avenue in their inquiries, they are, in fact, seeking to preserve their reputation and discredit those who raise a complaint against them - especially if they're black and allege racism.

Mr Francis said he came under 'huge and constant pressure' from his superiors to 'hunt for disinformation' that might be used to undermine those arguing for a better investigation into the murder. Why should any police officer be wasting time, money and resources on finding 'dirt' on a victim of crime? Surely they should be totally focused on finding the criminals?

Peter Francis has become a whistleblower. He has decided to reveal his identity to call for a public inquiry into undercover policing. "There are many things that I've seen that have been morally wrong, morally reprehensible," he said. "Should we, as police officers, have the power to basically undermine political campaigns? I think that the clear answer to that is no."

As a whistleblower, he will now become the victim of all manner of harassment, bullying and subtle forms of persecution. He will be systematically undermined, demoralised, and his mental health questioned. Just as he was tasked with spreading 'disinformation' about the Lawrences, so his superiors will seek to discredit and slander him. It is a sadly familiar tale.

35 Comments:

Blogger LEN said...

This tragic case seems to have similarities with 'Hillsborough.'

It is to the credit of 'whistleblowers' that' doing what is right 'takes precedence over self preservation.

Doing the' right thing' seems sadly lacking in almost all of our Institutions today perhaps a result of the' no absolutes' in truth and morality?.

24 June 2013 at 10:50  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len,

Spot on !. Well said. In the absence of a belief in a God who provides, out of concern for our welfare, absolutes, anything goes. And what passes for the "anything" of one decade soon morphs into an even more degenerate "anything" of the next decade, and so on, ever downwards.

24 June 2013 at 12:07  
Blogger Corrigan said...

See this one's really setting the Toryboys and Girls on fire, isn't it? Got anything on the EU, Cranmer?

24 June 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...



It seems to be that the people most paranoid about the police.

Are the people either in or connected with the police.

Phil


24 June 2013 at 17:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say fellows, three cheers for our marvellous Metropolitan police !!!

When a young black is stabbed to death on the street, experience has shown there is a damn good chance he was in the middle of illegal activity. Drug dealing gone wrong, that kind of thing. You see, the entire Lawrence family had to be investigated to see if they were all in it together. As it turned out, the family is exonerated from that particular crime. Otherwise we would have had to give them the benefit of the doubt, but with black crime in London at a staggering level, there’s precious little doubt around these days for blacks, sure you’ll agree ! Still, the results are in now and the entire family, including the deceased, are angelic, apparently. Suspicion lifted. We couldn’t have done that with meaning otherwise, you know !

So, what’s the problem...







24 June 2013 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Would you adam and eve it. Nearly 10 hours after this missal first saw the light of day, a mere 5 comments, albeit 1 good one in there, what !

Just goes to confirm the Inspector’s suspicion that those who want to be heard in this life are just as bored of the Stephen Lawrence industry as the rest of the population. Do you think he is now the third most recognised face in the UK, after Jesus and Hitler...

Farewell thread – early bed for you...

24 June 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Without God there is only corruption. It is a scandal of course and your observation on the fate of whistleblowers so true. Here is another example of the exposure of government gross illegality from across the pond but the same rules apply.

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/patriot-act/3-nsa-veterans-speak-out-onwhistle-blower-we-told-you-so.html

Here we have very reliable evidence of the detachment of the Government from the Rule of Law. We are seeing the outline of a corruption in the heart of Government at all levels. "When the Government wants something bad they get it bad".

24 June 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs King, before we attach the noble sobriquet of whistle blower to the man concerned, we must first decide whether or not he is a disaffected ex-policeman on the make. To wit, how much is he going to sell his ‘story’ for. Also, if smearing of the family was entrusted to him, what was the nature of the fabricated evidence. No fabricated evidence, then no smearing, just the investigative truth, which as a policeman, he would have been entrusted to come up with...



24 June 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Bit lonely up here, what! Even Bob (the soon to be) Buddha hasn't commented.

You're somewhat 'institutionalised racist' observations about black communities aside, you have raised some valid points. Until we know precisely what Peter Francis' remit was it is perhaps wise to suspend judgement. It is worthy of further enquiry, wouldn't you agree?

That sais, the Police do have a long track record of seeking to protect their organisation over and above the pursuit of justice when it comes to the crunch. Of course they're not the only organisation to do so and I doubt they'll be the last.

24 June 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

^ Your ^, not you're!

24 June 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, the Inspector an ‘institutional racist’ ???

You would not have posted that if you knew how much hurt this man has on seeing those words...


24 June 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

An interesting post by his Grace. Sad that Corrigan has to piss in the wind with his usual cynical attacks.

24 June 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Then I'm sorry for any hurt caused. The thing with racism (like sexism and homophobia) is that the person isn't always entirely self-aware.

24 June 2013 at 22:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Peter D. And one would say the brainwashed don’t realise how they are bending to their PC masters. Oh for free thought, what !

24 June 2013 at 23:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

Trouble is Inspector, that true free thought is an ideal to be aimed for. Wouldn't you agree?

25 June 2013 at 00:21  
Blogger Corrigan said...

I stand chagrined, D. Kavanagh. You know you're truly lost when a Zionist calls you cynical.

25 June 2013 at 05:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I'm with Len on this one, "this tragic case seems to have similarities with 'Hillsborough."

It surprises me not that the police sought to bully and traduce the suffering victims. It is rather like the police gun licensing files always amazingly "disappearing" whenever there is mass shooting incident such as Dunblaine and Hungerford (yes this is true in both cases!). As I said above when the Government and its agents, in this case the police, have no respect for the Rule of Law then the populous are in deep trouble.

Bad rulers (ie who do nor fear God) are in place the people groan.

25 June 2013 at 06:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...


And we are seeing the same in the NHS and GCHQ and higher up in Government too. When the MP's expenses scandal was being investigated wasn't it "surprising" that all the MP's expenses records could be located with the single exception of Tony Blair's file, which had gone "missing". Yes this is true.

25 June 2013 at 06:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...


When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

25 June 2013 at 06:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Also attacking the victim is a standard tactic of the Fabian/Frankfurt School of Politics. This cowers the populous and engenders fear of the state police, who can then more easily control the country for the benefit of an elite (small in number) ruling class.

It is classic totalitarianism, in all its forms, that the police are an arm of fear, domination and control. People don't complain because they fear the consequences.

Are there parallels in our society ? I believe that there are.

25 June 2013 at 07:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And the antidote ?

Ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility:
for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.


These are Christ Jesus' "secret" weapons.

25 June 2013 at 08:19  
Blogger David Hussell said...

People will tend to still believe that our rulers are just because the changes that are happening to our society are creeping up on us, gradually, not through a dramatic, highly visible sudden change. It's all very British and evolutionary in style. So all the structures and institutions appear to remain the same, outwardly at least, but inside they have been hollowed out by the removal of the beliefs that both created them and kept them operating fairly. As people retire and those that succeed them no longer hold the same beliefs, having been processed through a PC "thought factory" fair play and justice slips away. Gradually the capacity and opportunity for independent thought is removed and society is bent, all in just one direction.

25 June 2013 at 08:23  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Most murders are committed by a member of the family, or someone close to the family. It is routine in a murder case to look at the family and friends for this reason.
No doubt this was done in the Lawrence case, and it takes very little to change "looking at the family background" to "digging the dirt", especially when you are trying to get publicity for a book.
A storm in a teacup to my mind.

25 June 2013 at 09:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well said David Hussell

"full transparency in the state management, privacy on the internet, as well as better use of IT and technology make better democracy."

About Snowden

Edward Joseph Snowden is a former technical contractor and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), before leaking details of classified NSA illegal mass surveillance programs to the press.

Snowden shared classified material on a variety of top-secret NSA programs, including the interception of US telephone metadata and the PRISM surveillance program, primarily with Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, which published a series of exposés based on Snowden’s disclosures in June 2013.

Snowden said the leaks were an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is being done against them." This is how the Governments of Britain and the US disregard the Rule of Law.

(Remember the National Organisation of Marriage and other Christian conservative organisations being targeted and their members persecuted by the Inland Revenue Service of the US government as recently exposed and now the subject of a court case against the IRS by the Organisation for Marriage on the basis of Government illegality).

Snowden’s alleged leaks are said to rank among the most significant breaches in the history of the NSA. Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian in Washington, said disclosures linked to Snowden have "confirmed longstanding suspicions that NSA’s surveillance in this country is far more intrusive than we knew."

On June 14, 2013, US federal prosecutors filed a sealed complaint, made public on June 21,[8][9] charging Snowden with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorized person; the latter two allegations are under the Espionage Act.

Snowdon has sacrificed his whole life for something he felt was very, very wrong. What he has done is exemplary. He has sacrificed a life of freedom to inform the public about most serious illegal infringements by the State.

25 June 2013 at 10:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...


And here is more to flesh out David Hussell's analysis that the political elite and their agents are "hollowed out by the removal of the beliefs that both created them and kept them operating fairly" ie the Fear of God.


Shame of the 4,000 ‘bent coppers’ as police crime soars. More than 4,000 police have been sacked, forced to resign or otherwise disciplined for criminal offences in the past five years, shock figures reveal.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/410026/Shame-of-the-4-000-bent-coppers-as-police-crime-soars

One officer was caught with sub-machine guns, while others brought shame on their forces with sex crimes, drug trafficking, fraud and domestic violence.

More than 100 of them held the rank of inspector or higher.

And criminality in the ranks is a growing problem, data disclosed by 34 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales showed. The revelations – which emerged after freedom of information requests – damage confidence among crime victims.

The number of officers found guilty of misconduct has rocketed by 56 per cent – from 559 in 2008 to 873 in 2012. In London, it shot up from 47 in 2008 to 327 last year – a sevenfold increase. They are part of a total of 4,115 officers disciplined over criminal behaviour. Of those, 643 were dismissed or forced to resign.

A sergeant in Lancashire was sacked after being discovered with three sub-machine guns and ammunition. An officer from the same force resigned when he was caught drug trafficking and a colleague was dismissed for possessing illegal pornography.

But police chiefs merely handed written warnings to staff for some offences the public would find unacceptable. One had thrown bits of his kebab at a colleague after sexually touching a WPC and then exposing himself.

Others who escaped with a slap on the wrist included an officer who had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable victim of domestic violence and another who had sex in public.

A Northamptonshire inspector was dismissed for posting an indecent image on Facebook and a PC was handed a written warning for posting an inappropriate photo on the force’s twitter site.

In South Yorkshire, an inspector was sacked after being arrested for shoplifting and a PC was fired for assaulting their partner.

Another of the force’s constables resigned after installing a hidden camera in a ladies toilet.

Two quit after being arrested for perverting the course of justice.

A Met detective constable was sacked for stealing handbags, as was a PC found guilty of distributing photographs of children being sexually abused.

Greater Manchester Police disciplined nine PCs for drink-driving and three for theft. an inspector was fired for “criminal conduct”.

One of the most senior officers on the list was a chief inspector in Avon and Somerset who was given a written warning for unlawful disclosure of police information.

25 June 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...


There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.

25 June 2013 at 11:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Corruption in public life and worst still, corruption directed by and for those in the very highest of office (take the BBC for example), is an Ebola eating away at the very heart of our nation.

25 June 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I think Naomi King is not a real person but some kind of an automated blogging response virus.

25 June 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger LEN said...

Yes Ive met a few of those Dreddy(sigh)

25 June 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Lyndon T Palmer said...

So this police version of Martin Ingram expects us to believe that his task was to find truth with which to smear the Lawrences ?

Balderdash.

When police want to smear a person they invent a case or a means to intimidate.

For example 1996 Ramsgate. Police visit a complainant. After they leave via his yard he notices his hammer is missing.

Ten minutes later, by complete coincidence, a Detective constable knocks at the door to inform chap that he has been identified as a suspect in the hammer murders of a family at Chillenden.

CID then visit the chap's wife's place of work and announce that her husband is a suspect for the savage hammer murder.

Then police did nothing further. They had sent the message that DNA evidence could be smeared on the hammer.

The chap they tried to intimidate is an ex police officer with no criminal record.

Next trick the Protection from harassment Act widely abused by police to intimidate complainants. Because the first warning carries no right of refusal and trial.

On other complainants four malicious prosecutions thrown out on directions of Crown Court judges. And one issued 80 HORT1 producers per year for 15 years.

Another cornered into a garden shed and two police dogs released into the shed on him.

The Lawrences get headlines on a retrospective interpretation of purported orders, he cannot prove were given, by an undercover cop ?

Don't fall for it. More attention seeking behaviour by the Lawrence case.

In 1997 that complainant whom police failed to intimidate won the support of Kent Police Authority who called on Chief constable for inquiry and report. At a time Kent Police were investigating Met handling of the Lawrence case.

That Kent Police were cross case compromised was reported in due course to Doreen Lawrences advisor and to her solicitor.

Funny how the self styled fighters for justice chose to keep quiet and to not tell the MacPherson Inquiry ?

Yes please. Let a public inquiry actually be fit for purpose and get at the truth of the Lawrence roadshow and police inquiries.

Let's have some balance and examine all the relevant case histories.

25 June 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger Lyndon T Palmer said...

The next thing I would like you to take on board is that a constable cannot be a whistleblower. And is deserving of nothing but contempt if he does go public.

His oath of office is bound by the Coronation Oath. To pursue duties faithfully ONLY unto law.

Press faux outrage is not the law is it ?

So let's have some law Whistleblower.

You have divided your oath. An act of treason undermining the Monarch and the Crown as the authority for the administration of justice.

Life imprisonment. If a constable wishes to tell his story then it can only be on the back of pursuing his duty to the Court.

He is but a little man. Don't admire it. A snake in the grass.

25 June 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The Queen gave a Coronation Oath which she has disregarded in giving assent to the Abortion Act and will no doubt do again for the Homosexual so called "Marriage" Act. Lydon you belief in Oath's is touching but childish.

I Took myself to the Wimborne Tivoli Theatre on Wednesday June 19 to hear what Nigel Farage might have to say for himself, and I came away uplifted beyond my faintest expectations. Since my schooldays, I have waited to hear an Englishman talk like this particular Englishman.

I grew up listening to Churchill on the radio, being thrilled by Dickens for my leisure (no TV), learning Shakespeare in the classroom, and the Bible at both school and Sunday school. Sports made my childhood complete.

All character building influences which I like to think moulded me to be an understanding, compassionate person ready and willing to stand up for the underdog.

25 June 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger Naomi King said...


As His Grace has pointed out whistleblowing is a risky business. I expect that, as they planned their course of action over the four months, Edward Snowden and his main media minder, Glenn Greenwald, paid very close attention to what happened to three past whistleblowers who crossed the NSA. And looking at these three men gives an idea of the interests, principles and powers that are being contested beneath the superficially simple tale of a young analyst who fled to Hong Kong to tell the world about runaway US government surveillance.

There is no evidence to suggest that the three whistleblowers, who convincingly say that they live under the closest US government surveillance, had any prior knowledge of Snowden's exploit; but there are considerable indications that his situation and the information he holds are the focus of their concern and, in turn, Snowden was guided by their example and experiences.

There are three well-known NSA whistleblowers: Bill Binney, J Kirk Wiebe, and Tom Drake. They were whistleblowers in the legal sense - they reported to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and, subsequently, oversight committees of the US Congress that a multi-billion dollar NSA data collection program known as Trailblazer was ineffective and wasteful and another one, Stellar Wind, had been programmed to strip out procedures that prevented acquisition of the data of US citizens (and assured the constitutionality of the program).

These three gentlemen were not, with all respect to Edward Snowden, pimply-faced junior techs with pole-dancer girlfriends. Drake had spent 12 years at NSA and, before that, 10 years in the Air Force specializing in intelligence. Bill Binney had worked for the NSA for 30 years and had risen to the position of Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Wiebe had worked for the NSA for 30 years, was awarded the NSA's Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and finished out his career as senior analyst. Pure organization men, Binney, Wiebe, and Drake followed the chain of command and the procedures for whistleblowing - and passed no classified information to the press.

Yet they were all undone by the hostility of the NSA.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

25 June 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Binney, Wiebe, and Drake's complaints became public knowledge in 2007, after the Bush administration searched for the sources of an unrelated leak to the New York Times' James Risen for his expose of illegal NSA surveillance of US citizens.

The FBI decided to talk to Binney. He described his experience to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!:

"Well, they came in, and there were like 12 FBI agents with their guns drawn, and came in. My son opened the door, let them in, and they pushed him out of the way at gunpoint. And they came upstairs to where my wife was getting dressed, and I was in the shower, and they were pointing guns at her, and then they - one of the agents came into the shower and pointed a gun directly at me, at my head, and of course pulled me out of the shower. So I had a towel, at least, to wrap around, but - so that's what they did."

"And then they took me out and interrogated me on the back porch. And when they did that, they tried to get me - they said they wanted me to tell them something that would be - implicate someone in a crime. ... I said I didn't really know about anything. And they said they thought I was lying. Well, at that point, "OK," I said, "I'll tell you about the crime I know about," and that was that Hayden, Tenet, George Bush, Dick Cheney, they conspired to subvert the constitution and the constitutional process of checks and balances."

Wiebe and Drake's experiences were similar. None of them were implicated in the leak.

In 2010, Binney and Wiebe finally received Letters of Immunity from the Justice Department confirming their whistleblower protection. Drake, however, was less fortunate. After being threatened with spending "the rest of his natural life behind bars" if he didn't provide information on the source of the leak to the New York Times, and several years in the NSA/Department of Justice wringer, he was finally indicted and put on trial.

25 June 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Tom Drake: "But see, I am Exhibit No. 1. ...You know, I was charged with 10 felony counts. I was facing 35 years in prison. This is how far the state will go to punish you out of retaliation and reprisal and retribution. ... My life has been changed. It's been turned inside, upside down. I lived on the blunt end of the surveillance bubble. ... When you are faced essentially with the rest of your life in prison, you really begin to understand and appreciate more so than I ever have - in terms of four times I took the oath to support the Constitution - what those rights and freedoms really mean. ..."

"Believe me, they are going to put everything they have got to get him. I think there really is a risk. There is a risk Snowden will eventually be pulled off the street."

Q: What should Edward Snowden expect now?

Binney: 'Well, first of all, I think he should expect to be treated just like Bradley Manning [an army private now being court-martialed for leaking documents to WikiLeaks]. The US government gets ahold of him, that's exactly the way he will be treated."

Q: He'll be prosecuted?

Binney: "First tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed."

The UNHCR's concern about the treatment of Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning invites speculation that its local office might eventually approve a request by Snowden for asylum against a US extradition demand on the grounds that he is at risk of persecution, not just prosecution in the United States.

After all, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Juan Mendez, reports to the UNHRC and is on record characterizing the treatment of Bradley Manning at Quantico as follows: "I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture. If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture."

25 June 2013 at 21:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older