Talk:Philip Lawrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anyone else?

Was wondering if anyone else remembers Mr Lawrence's first year at school? I was one of his pupils and knew him very well. Probably better than any other student at the school in fact. He was a wonderful man. I left in '94. Much mourned man.Iamlondon 09:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Chinese origins of murderer

The newspapers of the time of this tragedy claimed the murderer was Chinese. This was total rubbish. The killer is Italian-Filipino mix. He may say he was a member of a triad, but that was just fantasy. Please don't taint the crimes committed by Italians, Filipinos and Vietnamese with the Chinese in Britain. We may all have black hair and dark eyes, but unlike these other ethnic groups, the Chinese in Britain are very law abiding. 27 Sep 06.

Not sure what your point is, since the article says that the killer was Filipino and only claimed to be a member of the Triads. -- Necrothesp 11:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

194.60.106.5 09:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC) The point is the links from TRIAD in Wiki site said TRIADs are Chinese. Although article said the killer only claimed to be a member of the Triad, nowhere in it stated that this was only a fantasy, and that no Chinese was involved. If he'd claimed he was a relative of the Queen, how would that be treated? Currently my experience is that in the mind of the European public anything bad committed by an East Asian looking person is equated with something committed by a Chinese, when this is very far from the truth. I want to clarify the fact that Chinese are Chinese, Filipinos are Filipinos, Vietnamese are Vietnamese etc, and hope the European public not get us mixed up. After all, the English and the German are classified as 'Whites', but no Englishman want to be accused of being a Nazi just because some German in the past were Nazis. The Chinese don't want to be tainted with the crimes committed by Filipinos and Vietnamese.

This is a stupid argument. The article clearly states he was Filipino and only claiming to be a Triad member (who, incidentally, are still criminals, let's remember, so let's try not to get all dewy-eyed about them). Nobody is tainting the Chinese with anything. Nobody I know in the UK equates the Chinese with violence or has anything bad to say about the Chinese. Even most racists have nothing in particular against the Chinese, but tend to reserve their hatred for the black and Asian population. May I suggest you need to be a little less sensitive to wrongs that aren't happening. -- Necrothesp 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

213.122.115.251 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)What is a stupid argument? Is it stupid because it is true and you can't put forward a decent counter argument, which only shows that you are the one who is stupid and won't accept the fact that you are stupid? When the late Lord Tony Bank was mugged, it was reported that the muggers were 'Chinese'. There was no proof that these muggers were actually Chinese, they could have been Filipino, Vietnamese and so on, and very unlikely to be Chinese, so why point the finger at the Chinese, especially when like you say 'nobody I know in the UK equates the Chinese with violence...'. What you stated simply showed that you don't know very much about the prejudices the Chinese in the UK encounter as part of every day life. If a Black man commits a crime you don't automatically assume he is a Nigerian or has ancestry from any other named 'Black' country. The article here does not state the murderer is Filipino, just the gang was mainly Filipino (so what race was the rest of the gang?). In fact the murderer is half-Italian-half-Filipino. I stated very clearly in the discussion that I was referring to the newspapers of the time of the tragedy, and not the article here. I want to make sure readers who use Wiki as an information resource know that the murderer had nothing to do with the Chinese. What is so stupid about that? The article also does not state that the Triad bit was pure fantasy, as was shown in the trial. Also are you saying that the Chinese in the UK do not suffer from racism? Well, I am a British Chinese and proud to be one, and I have suffered racism (including from the Police), but I just keep the peace and walk away (the British way). I am not sensitive so don't patronise me. I suggest when you write, don't twist the truth into something that only suits you, and when you do read, read carefully and not jump to a conclusion that only suits you. 30 Oct 06

213.122.115.251 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Necrothesp have you actually read the article (or may be you even wrote it), but I just thought I'll let you know that nowhere in the article was it stated the murderer is Filipino. Who's stupid then? 30 Oct 06

213.122.115.251 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) "The Wo-Sing-Wo gang, which was mainly Filipino, aspired to be a junior version of the Triads." Where's the source of this information?

The BBC, a reliable source by any definition. Yes, I did write the article. The article says the gang was mainly Filipino, and the killer blatantly does not have a Chinese name. In fact, nowhere does the article mention the word "Chinese" or suggest anyone involved was Chinese, so who's the one drawing conclusions that aren't there? May I suggest you read our policy on personal attacks. Calling me stupid is a good way to get yourself blocked. -- Necrothesp 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

194.60.106.5 09:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) When did I call you stupid? This is a discussion part of the article. It says so on the heading. You said it was a 'stupid argument' without stating what was stupid, so as such your comment is by your definition stupid. I asked you 'who is stupid?', not 'you are stupid', are you now confirming that you are? 'No personal attack policy'. You called me 'sensitive', could that be a personal attack, so you should be blocked too? So who's being sensitive? As for the substance of your argument, you said the article clearly stated that the murderer is Filipino. I have pointed out to you that nowhere in the article did you state this, and now that you know you've made a mistake, instead of admitting to it, you divert your argument by attacking me. The murderer's name is not a stereotypical Chinese name, but then a 'Chinese' from Thailand or Indonesia by their local laws cannot have typical Chinese names. So what exactly is a Chinese name? It just shows that you don't know much about Chinese names. As for the name of the murderer, it appears more like Italian, so why didn't you say that the murderer has an Italian name and by implication an Italian. Authoritarian and dictatorial attitude such as yours should not be allowed to appear on this site, which is devoted to true information and informed arguments. As for using the BBC as a source, you should state that this was the source in the article. The BBC may be a reliable source, but not everything that comes out from the BBC is factually correct, and unfortunately this claim is one that was made without proper research to its validity. You may of course like to think that your jobs give you the immunity from being challenged, but in Wiki this is not the case, you can't get away with being a bully on this site. 31 Oct 06

"which only shows that you are the one who is stupid and won't accept the fact that you are stupid". What's that then? I said it was a "stupid argument", I didn't call you stupid. And saying someone is sensitive is not a personal attack. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, since you are obviously interested only in polemics and not in contributing to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 11:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

194.60.106.5 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) This attitude of yours is really stupid. Speak for yourself, as there is absolutely no point in talking with anyone who cannot admit they have made a mistake. 31 Oct 06