To think Doreen Lawrence's position in the House of Lords is linked to wider issues with it?

[Jane379]

I've been following the ANL vs Sussex case and I've been very disappointed with the way Doreen Lawrence behaved. I started off feeling sympathetic to her and thinking she had been tricked but as it became clearer that Harry & other others' case didn't have a leg to stand on, she still supported it. There seem to have been other worrying things she's done : eg. Her claim that the Grenfell tower firefighters were racist towards victims, which doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.
But imo this is just emblematic of bigger issues with the House of Lords. How can a Lord behaving inappropriately be held to account unless those in power do so? And what qualifies someone to be a Lord? Michelle Mone's appointment, for instance, wasn't particularly beneficial for the nation...At least they've finally stopped hereditary peers, but that's the tip of the iceberg imo.

Thanks for sharing - I hadn't seen that before.

She always comes across as very difficult to me.

I would support the Sussexes against the press any day so have no issue with that.

I wasn't at Grenfell but that is complex, involving distinctions between the internal culture of the fire brigade - like the police. We all know the Met police are instituionally racist but they are usually careful to stay within the law.

The Lords don't have that much power anyway so I wouldn't worry but think Doreen Lawrence is as good a choice as anyone, better than many.

There is power to do so. House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015

@Jane379 - why are you so upset on behalf of the Daily Mail?

It seems unusual, so I am curious!!

This is a weird thread. Is Leo Mckinstry cos playing as a woman again?

I think that's a bit unfair. I don't think DL should be in there but she isn't a terrorist...And she did do genuine campaigning before, it's just very sad that she's tarnished that by behaving so awfully now. I agree she was probably not qualified for the role, as many Lords seem to be, unfortunately.

I followed the ANL case, and while overall I don't like the Mail, as pps said they did act bravely on the Stephen Lawrence murder, Neville Lawrence had apparently worked for Paul Dacre, I think, and he felt he had a duty to intervene.
The ANL case was extremely dodgy (recommend the Channel 4 documentary) and DL apparently seemed to decide the Mail were untrustworthy and condemned them even after the case was shown to be based on dubious evidence.

Run through the whole house of lords and tell us who should or shouldn't be there and what makes them more qualified than someone who ran a charity for a decade plus by the time of her enoblement

She wasn't given her peerage for the event, but what happened afterwards. She is as qualified as anyone, some people get in the lords for donations or even because they sat in the backbenches for years.

You can be against the house of lords but you aren't so why is Doreen Lawrence the target of your ire rather than say the creator of the show of Survivor or Joan Bakewell?

The Daily Mail may have acted bravely on the Stephen Lawrence murder, but they have also acted very badly indeed in (countless) other situations.

It has a recorded record of damaging people. The rich, famous or powerful can sue and fight back, but the others? Your average Joe? An ordinary person hung out to dry by them? Or humiliated by them? Or the countless women shamed for getting fat, or aging, or just simply committing the sin of living while female.

In terms of Dame Lawerence - for me personally I cannot impose on her an expectation of behavior. I cannot imagine, not even for a second, how I would be if I had to go through what she went through.

She gets maximum compassion, and a pass from me.

In terms of the Daily Mail - I mean, it is owned by a very powerful player, it wins some and looses some. I don't really see it as a "moral" player at all, in the sense that it seems to only be there for the class interests of the owners, and in the main, sells clicks and papers by degrading others. I really cannot be upset on its behalf, morally or otherwise, in this one situation. It has enough money, strength and power to look after itself, and is not a decent enough publication to be rooting for it.

@AlonsoMosleyThere have been many cases where newspapers have broken the law and lost court cases (and won some!) but our newspapers are highly regulated now.

You are falling into the Harry and Doreen Lawrence trap of alleging wrongdoing but with no evidence. Evidence is not feelings. Or that if you cannot explain how a story was gathered, it must have been produced by illegal means.

As for rich people owning newspapers! What exactly would you prefer? A state owned press? Restrictions like China where newspapers are gagged? It’s inevitable that the newspapers are owned by people who have views but its editors and journalists who do the work but accept the tone set by the owners. You have the choice to buy or not. The greater issue by far is Social media that’s not regulated.

We have decent enough papers and do remember that there was no evidence of wrong doing by ANL on 93 allegations brought by the claimants. So ANL had every right to defend their position that nothing illegal took place.

A big issue is also the outrageous allegations made against the judiciary by Doreen Lawrence (a lawmaker) and Harry. They were truly awful and unsubstantiated. Also during the trial it was alleged ANL lied to the Leveson Inquiry: again with no evidence. I’d look at where your ire should be directed!

I feel ashamed for comparing these two women.
I always respected Doreen Lawrence and grieved their loss of Stephen.
I have always admired her and Neville.
But I seem to have lost touch with her agenda, reading this thread.

I agree with entirely about Social Media - it really needs to be regulated.

Re the case you are talking about - you have clearly followed it and know rather a lot about it. I have not followed it, and don't have the time to dig into it. I am also not really interested in it to be honest - oth sides will shout from the roof tops I imagine.

But I repeat, I will never, ever feel like the Daily Mail is hard done by.

Over the past few decades, deregulation has allowed for media ownership to be in the hands of the few. This has given disproportionate power to some - Murdoch is a good example. No PM will have been elected here without him endorsing. There is a reason he was able to walk into Number 10 through the back door, and was often the first guest post election. He decided many a US election too.

Of course newspapers have owners, and of course they will likely be rich, and of course they will look after class interests. But, why swing to this extreme - "What exactly would you prefer? A state owned press? Restrictions like China where newspapers are gagged?

The ANL case was so ridiculous.

”The Daily Mail has hacked my phone because I know it has”

”Are you sure the story didn’t come from your friend, you know the one who’s a journalist for the Daily Mail, who you’ve partied with on several raucous occasions and exchanged eight million flirtatious texts of which we have the transcripts?”

”No she would never do that”

FML Harry- seriously???

HoL is ok in principle but in practice it’s just used by each government to boost their numbers with little thought to what experience and qualifications would be useful. It’s now far too big and urgently needs reform.

Of course newspapers have owners, and of course they will likely be rich, and of course they will look after class interests. But, why swing to this extreme - "What exactly would you prefer? A state owned press? Restrictions like China where newspapers are gagged?

@AlonsoMosley What sort of press would you like?

@AlonsoMosley You are completely wrong about newspaper ownership! They have never been cooperatives and publicly owned. They have always been owned by “press barons”. Eg Thompson, Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Northcliffe. Not to forget Maxwell - a true villain! That’s why the description came into the public domain. We have always had newspapers taking a political stance but you don’t have to buy one.

Newspapers are significantly more regulated than social media. However they, like everyone else, have a right to defend themselves against incorrect allegations. I don’t care who owns them - it’s about justice.

Agreed there have always been press barons, but recognizing that domination by one interest group was dangerous to society, news ownership was regulated after the 2nd WW. They saw what propaganda did in Germany for example.

Having many, smaller outlets counterbalanced the big ones to a degree.

Deregulation, lobbied for over the decades by the likes of Murdoch, meant that ownership of news outlets could be gathered up under one umbrella of ownership. Of course, later, Google played a huge role too, by taking their content, sending it out for free, taking their advertising money. The Social Media companies are what they say on the box, Media and should, imo, be subject to the same rules and regulations as others for the content that appears on their platform.

Of course all the outlets have a right to defend themselves. Somehow though, in the case of the DM, I find it hard to view it as "justice."

I am sure I am qualified enough to answer that. But - more local journalism would be great.

Some sort of independent funding (I know!) might mitigate the f"or or against " nature of most publications. I think that kind of binary choice is against the human spirit and causes contention.

I don't know, I would have to sit and have a think about it. But, I am tired at the moment!

What do you think? Do you think it is fine the way it is or could it do with a freshen up?

@AlonsoMosleyWhy don’t you see the ANL case as “Justice”? I assume you mean this one? You cannot pick sides when you haven’t read the details of the case! She was utterly wrong to say what she did and none of her allegations were proved in court, and she wanted £650,000 off ANL to drop them. Justice matters for everyone, even newspapers you hate.

Hold on - I thought we had moved to more general ideas rather than the specifics of the case with Dame Lawrence - sorry.

As you rightly say, I have not read closely about the case, therefore I can't really comment. Re Dame Lawrence, I really do not judge that woman.

And yes, I struggle to see the DM and Justice in the same argument.

@AlonsoMosley Thank you for answering my question.
I agree it is sad about the decline of local newspapers. Ours used to be excellent with local news, theatre and concert reviews, sports reports, property for sale and job advertisements but it is now pretty paltry and I doubt it will continue in newspaper - as opposed to online - for for much longer.
However that’s to do with the rise of the internet more than press barons.

What do you think? Do you think it is fine the way it is or could it do with a freshen up?
I think it’s ok the way it is - there are newspapers and magazines reflecting different political views, and as a pp said, no one has to put money in billionaire owners’ pockets.
Plus the fact there is an increasing number of opinion and news outlets online.

I am sure I am NOT qualified enough...

That was a bad typo...😂

@AlonsoMosley You do have a problem with Justice then. It matters that it’s not prejudiced and sadly you are. You do realise that ANL was cleared of illegal activities regarding story gathering don’t you? I suggest you DO read rhe judgement when you are sufficiently awake.

Local papers are entirely different to nationals. We have a parish news publication but the local press has gone. Everyone advertises on line and there’s a different way to get news. I don’t see that’s anything like the nationals.

I’m fairly happy with the nationals and some have exceptional journalists. They often campaign for sensible outcomes and ANL did a lot to help Doreen Lawrence. I don’t see any paper here as bad and I don’t ever want a state run press.

You do have a problem with Justice then.

I don't have a problem with Justice but it would require a nuanced conversation which I am not up for with you.

I suggest you DO read the judgement when you are sufficiently awake.
I said before and I say again; I am not sufficiently interested. I am also not sufficiently interested in you any more. Your style is needlessly confrontational and your tone imperious. So - thanks but no thanks.

Local papers are entirely different to nationals.
No! You are pulling my leg...

I’m fairly happy with the nationals
This is clear.

I don’t ever want a state run press.
Nobody here suggested that.

@AlonsoMosley The whole point of this thread is based on the issues surrounding the ANL case! Not reading the salient points of the judgement means you don’t have a handle on the nuances being discussed here. You are not really bothered about justice - just your version of it that you won’t or cannot explain. So pretty pointless really.