The problem with seeking scapegoats instead of justice: it allows crime to flourish even more

I remember it well. It was 1992. I was having chronic marital problems and under heavy stress. I suppose, at those times, when there is internal conflict, everything external appears to be in turmoil too. For some reason, society just seemed a bit more lawless then. It was the year Rachel Nickell was killed on Wimbledon Common in London in front of her two year old son, Alex. A beautiful woman, Rachel was only 23 with everything to live for. Yet she was brutally stabbed 49 times that fateful day, July 15th, when she took her son for a walk.


Desperate to charge her murderer, anyone it seems, the police fixated on Colin Stagg, who, to them appeared to fit the photokit. He lived in the area, a noticeable drifter and they needed to charge someone urgently to stem the sense of national outrage at the killing of this innocent woman. He was selected as the murderer soon afterwards and, aided and abetted by a vengeful press, they took Stagg's life apart. Everything about him was put under the microscope to 'prove', show and demonstrate why he was the killer. His name became synonymous with Rachel's. But Colin Stagg, from the moment he was arrested, kept saying he was innocent, and said it persistently, even when he was dogged in his daily life by TV cameras expecting some kind of confession. In that climate of outrage, no one was listening.

He had been charged because of two things: an undercover policewoman, working in a kind of 'honeytrap' investigation to lure a confession from him, and an 'expert' psychologist who 'profiled' Stagg as the likely murderer. Stagg served 13 months in prison awaiting trial and when the prosecution brought its case against him in court, it was thankfully thrown out by a little known judge, Mr Justice Ognall. As Boris Johnson wrote in 2006, Stagg was the subject of a trial by the press, a kind of "irrational media hysteria".

Boris continued: "The awfulness of the killing provoked the press to paroxysms of outrage. So deafening were the calls for retribution that the police were driven quite out of their wits. There being no forensic evidence, they were forced to look for likely suspects, and in Colin Stagg they found a man who ideally suited the tabloid agenda. He was runtish and rat-like, and yet also into body-building. He lived on his own. He was given to wearing dodgy-looking singlets and he was a devotee of the ancient pagan religion called Wicca. He had a picture of the Cerne Abbas giant inscribed on a black-painted wall in his flat. Someone said that they had seen him, or a man very like him, on the common on the morning of the murder - and that was enough."

In short, he was different from the norm and difference always means fear. He didn't stand a chance of being acquitted under those circumstances.

A Very Brave Judge
Yet, Justice Ognall bravely stood up to all the media and parliamentary bullies baying for blood, showing his own "audacity and common sense", and threw out Stagg's case. He had been lured by the undercover policewoman to admit things he never did because he fancied her and wanted to please her, and there was not much else that was real evidence. Yet the media hounded Stagg for years afterwards, always hinting that he was the killer who got away! Even though a newspaper paid him £43000 ($80,000) to take a lie detector test, which he passed, they still kept at him in the absence of anyone else being charged.


However, while Stagg was banged up and undergoing trial by media, Robert Napper was free, on the loose and on to his next victim in Scotland. Even when his own mother reported him to the police for a confession of rape from him, nothing happened. Just like Rachel, Samantha Bissett was young, pretty and had a four year old daughter, Jazmine. Napper kept stalking her for a while, watching her every move, then in November of 1993, armed with three knives, he crept into her basement flat and stabbed her 8 times, then cut her up and dismembered her body. As if that wasn't enough, he raped and smothered her four year old daughter with a pillow.


He was later caught and admitted manslaughter under diminished responsibility, along with two other rapes. Psychiatrists believed Napper had paranoid schizophrenia and Asperger's syndrome at the time of the killing. He was sent to Broadmoor high security hospital in 1995 where he stayed until the development of advanced DNA testing. It revealed that the tiny particle of DNA, which was swabbed from Rachel Nickell's body, did match his, and was confirmed in 2004. Despite being interviewed by police a few times since, Napper never admitted anything, until yesterday: December 18, 2008. He confessed to the killing of Rachel Nickell, 16 years after he callously mutilated her. This sad case has led to significant changes in how the police approach a murder enquiry, but it came too late to save Rachel or Samantha.

In August 2008, Colin Stagg was awarded over £700,000 ($1,250,000) for his false accusation and imprisonment, but I don't think any amount of money could make up for at least 12 years of hell that man went through, especially as he wasn't officially acquitted until 2006. He was never out of the papers which felt it their duty to play judge and jury.

What is so tragic about this case is that there are many people worldwide being accused of crimes they did not commit because of convenience, expediency and the desire for a handy scapegoat, while the real criminals are left free to continue in the same vein. Troy Davis, who has a pending execution over his head in Georgia, America, comes to mind. He has always maintained his innocence, yet regardless of the new developments with the witnesses, he is still being treated sceptically. The public do not deserve scapegoats for crimes, because they are still at the mercy of the real perpetrators. The public can only feel safe when the actual wrongdoers are caught and genuine justice has been applied.

As Boris aptly puts it: "Whom shall the media blame? The tabloids should realise that they are very largely at fault for the disaster. They decided not so much that Stagg had done it, but that this was what their readers wanted to hear, and they hammered away at it so vociferously that the criminal justice system was driven almost to insanity.

The Stagg case is a perfect example of why we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by tabloid editors. The Daily Mail's MMR panic has brought us an increase in measles, and the general panic over paedophiles has all but driven men from primary school classrooms. It needs brave politicians to resist this kind of nonsense, and brave judges to tell the media when they are wrong."

Indeed. Otherwise we simply reap what we sow.

HOT NEWS! Why it was right for Britain's Metropolitan Police Commissioner to be Sacked!!

(pic courtesy: www.thislondon.co.uk)

Sir Ian Blair, the beleaguered head of Scotland Yard and the UK capital's police force, has been sacked by the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. And one could say: About time too!

Whatever he was good at, managing a staff crisis obviously wasn't one of them. He has presided over the worst senior management debacle in the history of the Force by allowing one of his high ranking deputies to actually take the Yard to a tribunal for alleged discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The same officer even received threats from anonymous colleagues, which appeared to have been ignored by the Met. The Black Police Association, that normally works with the majority officers to promote diversity, especially in recruitment, even threatened to withdraw from the recruiting process and to stage protests outside Scotland Yard. All that seemed to have fallen on Sir Ian's deaf ears! Fiddling like Nero while Rome burnt, Ian Blair's handling of the crisis in his Force over the past few months has been a shambles and a disgrace for the highest ranking officer in a multicultural Britain.

One of his former assistant commissioners described him as 'detached, aloof and arrogant', someone who 'did not listen', which was exactly how I found him when I invited him to the British Diversity Awards. Even though he was acting on my behalf to present awards to deserving recipients, his manner was so aloof and condescending, compared to all my other presenters, it sent a chill through me, as a Black woman fighting for equality and justice. I felt that this was not a gentleman I could ever work with or even wish to work with. I've never been able to forget his manner, especially when I was on his side, aligning with his diversity goals and the Met was actually sponsoring the event!

If the Metropolitan Police needed new leadership, especially after the Charles De Menezes shooting tragedy, and the very low morale of the dedicated officers serving with him, it is right now. Boris acted superbly by taking a difficult decision at a difficult time because 2010, when his contract expired, is just far too long a wait. It has been a real surprise that Ian Blair had not exercised his own judgement ages ago and tendered his resignation, gracefully. But what can one expect of someone who believes he is right and everyone else is wrong?

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has publicly affirmed her support for him when she accepted his resignation. That was a wrong move and a slap in the face for the hard work being done by everyone for a cohesive workforce. Sir Ian needed to be publicly thanked for his service, but not publicly supported or praised. That should have been done privately. This poor judgement demonstrates, once again, why the current Labour government is really in the pits, and digging even deeper!

There is no doubt that Sir Ian Blair made a valuable contribution to the progress of the Metropolitan Police during his tenure. But the mark of a real leader is being the first to acknowledge when you are wrong, when something could have been handled with more sensitivity and understanding and when to call a halt. In all three areas, particularly in relation to simple staff management and motivation, Ian Blair failed miserably.

Boris Johnson did the right thing in acknowledging the significant part Sir Ian played in fighting terrorism, introducing the safer neighbourhood schemes and falling crime levels by applauding his 'lasting and distinguished contribution to policing in London'. That is well deserved. But someone else's leadership is sorely needed and London cannot afford to wait a moment longer simply because, if the Met Police is occupied fighting among itself, how can it be fighting crime effectively?

I am no Conservative supporter but, just for now, I say Boris for Prime Minister! What a difference to see someone who makes decisions without even blinking!

Do we really need a Black History Month?

As one who has spent the last 14 years promoting multiculturalism from the rooftops in the UK, through the only book on the subject and two annual national diversity awards, I have been pretty saddened this year to hear government ministers and others trumpeting that 'multiculturalism isn't working' or we 'cannot celebrate diversity because it encourages difference' and keeps us separate. But both statements are based upon ignorance and fear which does not really help a diverse community to move forward together.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating diversity or encouraging multiculturalism. What has been terribly wrong is a marked absence of respect on both sides of the cultural divide which makes appreciation difficult. The word 'respect' is glibly shouted by everyone in times of crisis, but it seems to be only in connection with our own needs and viewpoint and very little to do with others. We all seek respect, we feel we are denied it, we accuse each other of not giving it. But in reality, we are simply in love with the idea of the word itself, not its implementation. This could be because we really do not understand the meaning of this important word. Let's take some glaring examples of disrespect.

Origins of Disrespect

1. Exclusive labels: October has a special significance for minorities. As usual, it is Black History Month to celebrate Black heritage and culture. This is not just a showcase but an educational opportunity for the White majority to learn about their minority neighbours. It also empowers Black people to take pride in their identity and thus a wholesome cause for celebration. There are also many pointedly 'Black', 'Asian' or 'Muslim' organisations which were created to encourage a positive identity and to guard against isolation, primarily because of their exclusion from the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that at all. However, how would members of minority groups feel if they suddenly saw signs and promotion for a 'White History Month', 'White Women Forum', the 'White Professional Association' or the 'White Entrepreneurs Club', labels which are clearly racist and exclusive? They would rightfully be up in arms. Where is the sensitivity (respect again) for the pointedly White exclusion in those labels? Yet, in a diverse society, such cultural sensitivities are very important if we are to learn about, value, and appreciate one another.

2. Negative media coverage. Black History Month emerged because of a lack of positive attention to minorities (respect again!) by the media. Minorities in Britain are virtually invisible in every aspect of life except crime. We hear about them ad nauseam in relation to terrorism, guns, gangs and street crime but hardly in any other dimension. The only time you hear about minorities is when something negative is being reported. Black History Month was introduced to counteract that media exclusion, to give much needed positivity and visibility. Yet, there should be no need for a Black History month at all because there is just a flurry of activities in October (and February in the USA), a month saturated with events where everyone tries to be heard, to be significant and valued, and then nothing else for the other 11 months. Like tragic cuckoos, they coo loudly once, then go back inside their clocks for another year. What minorities need is to be treated ordinarily, like the majority community, with balance and value.

For example, the focus on celebrities is pervasive in our society. But where are the minority celebrities and achievers? The ones well known in their communities but are ignored by the mainstream press? Where are the minority guests on chat shows? On discussion panels? On entertainment programmes? Where are the minority writers to give alternative viewpoints? Such an exclusive and racist approach keeps minorities in the public eye as extraordinary and non-contributing beings who are simply taking from society. It uses them in situations that bolster national fear (immigration and crime) while ignoring the vast majority of law abiding, legal citizens quietly playing their part in their communities. Minorities are also used in a cynical way to show national pride abroad, as with the Olympics when multculturalism was suddenly cool and essential, but are largely excluded from the preparations, the promotion and the service contracts.



Lack of Recognition
3. Today I visited the website of a top national newspaper and, of its 24 writers paraded for the public, only one was Black. I won't even mention television and radio because commercial radio, in particular, is dismal when it comes to representation of their diverse audience among radio staff. Is it any wonder that the views in the media are so skewed against minorities when there is a basic lack of recognition for them, with hardly anyone speaking with any cultural knowledge? That is why there is very little sensitivity (respect again) to minority views and feelings. Being on the negative end of any reporting, they are fair game for people seeking sensational headlines without any responsibility for the divisive consquences of their actions. The BBC has been recently accused of racism by a prominent writer in 21st century Britain. That is very sad today. The real worry is that if the BBC is still lagging behind in its own objectives, a service which is supposed to be serving, and representing, the whole community, what can one expect of lesser organisations?

Diversity and multiculturalism can work harmoniously when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive together to make it a great place to live. However, we cannot respect what we don't understand or appreciate.

Starting from that base, Black History Month should be scrapped and minority heritage and culture celebrated all year round, just like that of the White majority, but under a diversity label. For example, what about Our Diverse Music in January, Our Diverse Literature in February, Arts and Crafts in April, Dance in May, Diverse Foods in June?...You get the drift. It means that, instead of just focusing on minority crime and negative issues around minorities, the White media can actually begin to pay some proportional attention, throughout the year, to the positivity of being a minority, and the rich diversity of our nation, through the cultural exchange of knowledge, particularly encouraging involvement and patronage by White sponsors and patrons. That is the only way to make all people feel included, to engender loyalty and pride, and the main way to change White perception of their Black neighbours.

It is also the only way for all British citizens, whatever their origins, to feel significant, appreciated, valued and included. In effect, to feel respected.