Second guessing criminal motivation
A public building in South East London has just had some of its windows broken. Not good, but par for the course, I fear.
However, based purely open which building it is, and with no detail of any damage beyond window breakages, this is being described as a 'racist attack' by the Mayor of London.
The building is the Stephen Lawrence Centre in Deptford. The Guardian has drawn the same conclusion, and headlines 'Racists vandalise Stephen Lawrence Memorial Centre'. The Met have also decided it is a racist incident.
They may well be right, but are they not all being a little presumptuous?
However, based purely open which building it is, and with no detail of any damage beyond window breakages, this is being described as a 'racist attack' by the Mayor of London.
The building is the Stephen Lawrence Centre in Deptford. The Guardian has drawn the same conclusion, and headlines 'Racists vandalise Stephen Lawrence Memorial Centre'. The Met have also decided it is a racist incident.
They may well be right, but are they not all being a little presumptuous?
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
I did never understand why certain crimes are treated differently depending on the state of mind of the criminal. Is a racist assault worse than a non-racist one? Is criminal damage worse if the victim is well-known? Is theft more acceptable if the perp is poor and the victim is rich?
By definition any attack on anything connected with or named in commemoration of Stephen Lawrence must be a "racist" attack even if it's nothing of the kind: it's what "institutionalised racism" is all about.
Not that it matters (all this thought crime stuff is trash) but - technically - they are being racist in making these assumptions. If a memorial to a white person is attacked (as happens all the time) how would the Mayor and the Guardian view anyone who jumped to the conclusion that the attack was by a black person motivated by racial hatred?
Indeed, indeed. The reversion of society back to one based on status not contract continues apace.
I believe the police have to treat it as a racist incident as it was reported to them as such.
Subsequent enquiries may show it was not racist. Regardless, it was a nasty thing to happen and there is no excuse for vandalism.
C your comment re status not contract is superb.
Worrying it would be, were I not so consumed with my own ego to assume status!
Livingstone's statement is entertaining. Apparently the LDA helped to fund this project.
Given the LDA's - and Lee Jasper's - record in funding, now might be the right time to take a look at the books for this 'cultural centre'. And while we're at it, which particular 'culture' is this a centre for?
Who might have reported this to the cops as a 'racist' incident, then?
"statues not contact"; I thought his memorial was a "Centre" rather than a statue. And surely whatever broke the windows made contact? Am I drunk?
@ Tony
No-one is defending vandalism. We're condemning jumping to conclusions based on reading the thoughts of persons unknown. (See appendix to 1984)
» Post a Comment