After London murder, an effort to smear victim's family?

A former London undercover policeman alleged he was ordered to dig up dirt on the family of Stephen Lawrence, the victim in a famous racially tinged murder 20 years ago.

|
Andrew Matthews/Reuters/File
The mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, Doreen Lawrence (l.) listens to Stephen's brother, Stuart Lawrence, speak during a service to mark the 20th anniversary of Stephen's death, at St Martin-in-the-Fields church in London April 22.

Calls for a wide-ranging public inquiry into police ethics and practices were mounting today in the United Kingdom following claims by a former undercover policeman that Britain’s largest force once sought to smear the family of one of the highest profile victims of racial violence.

The controversy comes more than 20 years after a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of white youth in southeast London. A public inquiry later accused London’s Metropolitan Police Service, or the Met, of “institutional racism” and identified major failings in how it investigated the murder. Two men were convicted of the crime last year.

Now, despite changed policies and concerted efforts to recruit minorities into the police force, a case that has long weighed heavily on the Met is once again leading to awkward questions about its attitude toward race relations.

“This killing is, and remains, an open wound in London,” says Les Back, a professor of sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London.

This week, the outrage over the case was revisited when a former undercover officer revealed that the police hunted for information to smear the victim’s family during the investigation into Mr. Lawrence’s death. Neville Lawrence, the victim’s father, and others called for a public inquiry into the claim.

Peter Francis, a police officer who infiltrated antiracism groups in the 1990s, alleges that his police superiors feared that anger at police failure to investigate Lawrence killing would fuel unrest in the way that the beating of Rodney King by police in Los Angeles was a spark for the 1992 riots there.

Mr. Francis told a joint investigation by Britain’s Guardian newspaper and Channel 4 television that he had been ordered to "hunt for disinformation" that might be used to undermine the campaign waged by the victim’s family and supporters.

"Throughout my deployment there was almost constant pressure on me personally to find out anything I could that would discredit these campaigns," said Francis, who added that superiors withheld his role from the judge who ruled in a 1999 inquiry that the police investigation had been "marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers."

According to Mr. Back, the judge addressed some of the issues arising from the case, but many that remained dormant are now emerging.

“What we are seeing now, and what we will see more of, is details of the police inability to really face the violence an injustice of the murder and their capacity to try to treat the victims as a problem which I think is a legacy of the Met’s history of their relations with the black communities in London and the kinds of policing that took place in the '70s, '80s and up to the '90s,” Back says.

'A deeper level'

Whatever investigation takes place into the allegations by Francis – who also claims police spied on critics of police corruption – the London police seem set for a bout of intense media scrutiny about its attitude towards race relations and its own diversity.

The force has long been criticized for using "stop and search" tactics with citizens on the street. Statistics have consistently shown that black and Asian Britons are more likely to be stopped than white people.

The Met compares well with other police forces in the UK and in Europe in terms of its attempts to modernize and overhaul policies in the sphere of race relations, says Karim Murji, a sociologist who has researched issues around policing, diversity, and race.

“My impression is that the police force now is not the same as it was in the '80s,” says Mr. Murji, a lecturer at the Open University who also served on the supervisory board for the Met. He says clumsy communication is to blame for many of the Met’s controversies.

He cites a blunt 1995 statement by the Met’s then commissioner, Paul Condon, who said that 80 percent of muggings in high crime areas of London were committed by young black men.

“It does look different as a force today. Having said that, some of the same thematic issues and complaints continue to occur, particularly around stop and search and policing of young black people, as well as other young people,” Murji says.

“The question is have they changed not just superficially, but also at a deeper level.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to After London murder, an effort to smear victim's family?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0625/After-London-murder-an-effort-to-smear-victim-s-family
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe