The Death of Richard Everitt (see below) is an article I wrote in 1994. Compare and contrast the elite response to his death and that of Stephen Lawrence.
Richard was knifed to death by an Asian gang approximately 300 yards from my front door. The gang was large with perhaps as many as 15 members. The gang was known as the Drummond Street Posse and had gone out that night specifically looking for a “white boy” to attack because they felt they had been “wronged” by a white boy (http://www.mamaa.org/infalre.html).
The gang were arrested the same night for a separate incident and blood was found on 19-year-old Badrul Miah. This turned out to be a match for that of Richard. Miah, later boasted that he had “stabbed up some white boy”. http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/kids-and-family/2008/10/13/exclusive-i-can-t-forgive-my-son-s-knife-crime-killer-115875-20799700/
After nine months the police had arrested 11 people in connection with the murder. The 11 dropped to six and after a committal hearing the number fell to 3. Eventually only two came to trial, Badrul Miah and Showkat Akbar. Akbar was found guilty of violent disorder and sentenced to three years, of which he served 18 months. Miah was sentenced to life but let out on licence after 11 years despite the trial judge describing it as an unprovoked racist attack (see Mirror link above).
The parents of Richard suffered beyond the loss of their child: “After the trial Mandy and Norman tried to move on but were the victims of threats and racial abuse. They had to leave the home where they raised their children and move out of London to Essex.” (http://www.mamaa.org/infalre.html)
Those are the bare facts of the Everitt murder. Compare the elite response to his murder with their response to that of Stephen Lawrence:
1. Only one person was convicted of the murder even though all were guilty because of the legal principle of joint enterprise.
2. There has been no media campaign to bring the others to justice.
3. There has been no public inquiry into Richard’s murder.
4. The one person convicted of Richard’s murder was released after 11 years without any media or political uproar.
5. There has been no concerted media campaign stretching over nearly two decades to bring the others in the gang to justice.
6. Unlike the Lawrence case where the Daily Mail accused the five suspects of murder in 1997 (http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/lawrence.html), no representative of the national press or broadcasters called any other member of the gang which murdered Richard a murderer.
7. The gang members who attacked Richard were older than those accused of attacking Stephen Lawrence.
8. Unlike the Lawrence murder, British politicians from the word go not only refused to adopt the tone of moral outrage which they routinely do when the death of Stephen Lawrence is discussed, but actively tried to play down the racist aspect. Considerable pressure was put on Richard’s parents at the time to go along with the usual Maoist pc line that they were not racist and so on. The local MP, Frank Dobson, was most notable for his near silence.
It is often said these days that the grip political correctness has on British society is much worse than it was. It is true that the absurdities get ever greater as the politically correct compete to be the purest ideologue, but, as the Everitt case shows, in really important matters such as the administration of justice it was already solidly entrenched two decades ago.
Here is my 1994 article:
The death of Richard Everitt
The various mass media and political responses to the murder of Richard Everitt in Somers Town on 14th August is evidence of a fundamental rottenness in public life, namely a stubborn refusal to address the legitimate concerns of the white population about the effects of Asian and black settlement in Britain. More particularly, it shows the profound contempt with which the white working class in heavily settled immigrant areas has come to be viewed by those with power and influence, who see them as at best as an expendable nuisance and at worst as a positive evil.
Comment by politicians and the media about Richard’s death has been extremely muted. Moreover, the main thrusts of the few statements that have been made have concentrated on the dangers of reprisals against Asians and previous attacks on Asians. Sincere expressions of anger or regret by public figures for the death of this white working class boy are notable by their absence. Concern for the predicament of the white working class, who form the native population of the area, has been entirely absent. The contrast with the media and political response to the death of, for example, Stephen Lawrence is startling. Where are the broadsheet editorials? Where the anguished protestations of horror from all political parties? Where the calls from pressure groups for laws to prevent racist attacks? Where the Home Secretary visiting the area to express his horror? Nowhere, that is where.
The coverage of the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs illustrates vividly the extent to which double standards are applied in the reporting of violent attacks that may have a racist motive. Here are the two broadsheet newspapers which are reputedly the most Tory, the most nationalist, the most sympathetic to native British interests. Yet the Daily Telegraph carried only three news reports about the murder, the second of which – only two days after the death – appeared on page 7. All three reports fit comfortably onto a sheet of paper little larger than a side of A4. None of the reports contains any comment. The Daily Telegraph has printed no letters, articles or leaders on the subject. It has, in fact, made no comment on the matter.
The Sunday Telegraph has carried a single piece written by an Asian, Amit Roy. (Again there have been no letters or leaders). The article’s headline gives its flavour. What could it be? ‘The tragedy of Richard Everitt’? ‘The plight of the white working class’? No, my naive friends of course it was not. The Sunday Telegraph decided that the appropriate headline was ‘Asian victims learn to strike back’. Grossly provocative would seem an apt description.
In the article Mr Roy’s primary concerns are to (1) paint the Asians as the real victims and (2) issue oblique threats of further Asian violence through the device of bruiting the names and “hardness” of various Asian gangs. Mr Roy does not, of course, say he approves of such behaviour but then he does not need to, the headline and the general tone of the article ensure that the reader gets the message. As for Richard Everitt, well, Mr Roy very generously says that he ‘appears to have been innocent of any kind of racist behaviour’. Would it have made any difference if he had been? Would Mr Roy then have thought the murder acceptable? I would not wish to bet against it. As for The BBC, they thought the matter was of such little importance that it merited, the day after the killing, no more than two minutes at the end the Radio 4 programme ‘The world at One’.
I live very close to where Richard died. I can tell you that such a tragedy is unsurprising. The area is a poisonous racial brew in which the Bengalis are merely the most toxic ingredient. The reality of mixed populations is directly contrary to the liberal fantasy of peaceful multiculturalism. Coloured immigrants actively resist integration and where, as in the case of the Bengalis, they form a sizable population they are not even circumspect in their behaviour towards other racial groups. Hence the Bengali gangs. Hence the regular police presence, prior to his death, outside Richard’s school. Hence the harassment of elderly whites by Bengali gangs. Hence the constant air of tension which pervades the area.
The truth of the matter is that the English white working class has to bear the consequences of the liberal establishment’s enthusiasm for multiculturalism, while the liberal establishment avoids the consequences by making damn sure that they either live far away or by forming self-contained colonies on the edges of immigrant areas, which device allows them to further inflate their already monumental smugness by claiming that ” I live in Hackney” when they effectively live in Islington or “I live in Notting Hill” simply because their address happens to be one street away from Bayswater.
How many liberals would be happy to send their children to a school such as Richard’s in which all but two of the class were coloured? Imagine how isolated the boy must have felt simply by being in such a situation. Moreover, the children Richard will have mixed with will not be the products of middle class, westernised immigrants, but, in the main, the children backward Bengali peasants who speak little or no English and whose primary desire is to prevent their children becoming westernised.
The government of 18th Century Britain has been memorably described as ‘aristocracy tempered by rioting’. That, in fact, is a good description of the inherent circumstances of any form of government. Unless the political class addresses the problem of race honestly, they will be most assuredly “tempered”. No people will tolerate for ever a ruling class which so cravenly acts against their interests.