Stephen Lawrence

A UKIP official who mocked murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence as “Saint Stephen” and claimed his mother, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, was “boring us all to tears” has been selected as a candidate.

Pamela Preedy was the secretary of UKIP’s Redcar branch when she was exposed for a series of vile remarks about Lawrence, whose killing led to profound cultural changes in attitudes to racism. At the time, a party spokesman told the press:

“Where elected representatives or party figures make comments bringing the party into disrepute, we act accordingly.

Apparently, “accordingly” means making her a candidate for elected office. This leaflet is currently hitting doormats in Redcar:

UKIP Redcar leaflet Pam Creedy

Preedy ranted:

“I’m sure his mother still grieves for him, but it’s time she did it privately without setting him up as some kind of media icon. She risks … boring us all to tears.

“The image of Stephen Lawrence has been promoted to sainthood, with his own memorial site, constant invocation of his name in any discussion of racism”

She claimed that David Cameron is “worshipping at the shrine of Saint Stephen” and complained:

“we are supposed to publicly mark the anniversaries of his death … Please give it a rest!

Dozens of ‘Kipper activists and candidates were exposed as bigots during the party’s rise. Scrapbook dreads to think how many of them are still standing in May 2015.

  1. This story is inaccurate and should in fairness be corrected. It shoud read “ANOTHER UKIP official who mocked murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence as “Saint Stephen”” has been selected.

  2. Typical Labour trolling. Out of date info and old leaflet as She’s not and hasn’t been a registered candidate.

  3. Chris Gallacher says:

    The leaflet was produced before a firm decision was made by the candidates and unfortunately for your trolling no longer relevant. Why not try and clean your own mess up first. You must all be desparate to hold on to power. Enjoy it because it is slipping away.

  4. timothy roberts says:

    is nobody allowed opinions anymore?

    so she has an opinion. so what? why try to make it out to be scandalous. i bet if a labour or a green candidate said the same thing, nobody would bat an eyelid.

  5. Yes, Timothy Roberts, we are all entitled to our opinions, however, most decent people will abhor the tasteless comments attributed to the UKIP candidate, and they are entitled to say so, just as you are entitled to be wrong.

  6. As a matter of fact if a member of the Labour party, Greens, Liberal Democrats or any similar party spoke in such a way it would not only go viral but the party leadership would move swiftly to distance itself from these comments. Thankfully the majority of Great British political parties both Left and Right would not stoop so low as to score political points over the bereaved mother of a murder victim. Yes she has made a name for herself since her loss, in helping bring about change for the good of all – helping defeat racism – a goal that our rich tolerant and fair country should feel proud of.

  7. Thanks for the input, Timothy Roberts, but do we need to remind you that at least one person has received a visit from the police following UKIP complaints about completely factual reporting on statements made by senior UKIP officials and candidates?

  8. You have to hand it to the UKIPers… They are very hot at jumping on any criticism trying to misdirect and misinform. The very fact that they would even contemplate selecting someone so obnoxious is enough to condemned them. It seems that examining their selection process every stone you turn over has a racist, homophobic reactonary underneath it. Their deputy and many other representatives were thrown out of other parties for corruption, bigotry or racism.

  9. “boring us all to tears”
    I don’t think the UKIP ex-candidate has any right to speak on behalf of “us all”, my reaction is not boredom, but anger that terrible racist attacks and murders can happen.

  10. it was a shame about hes death but it has gone on far to long now if that had been a white person it would have been forgotten 3 days later so i personally think it has gone on far to long and the ukipper is only saying what a lot of us are thinking

  11. just wondered what has it got to do with politics anyway just another reason to do a bit of mud slinging if this was not a election year nobody would have give a fuck what was or was not said

  12. What has a short about a politician got to do with politics hold on I’ll do some research and get back to you on that

  13. I Find It astonishing that these deluded Ukippers continue to claim they are expressing what most people are thinking. Tub thumping, bigoted, reactionaries are fortunately not most people

  14. hmmm I wonder if the people who are complaining had their son murdered for no reason then had to wait another 19 yrs before any justice was done and only then 2 of the 5 men involved in his murder we sent to prison for less time than it took to get them there would be out fighting for justice with anyone who cared to listen!
    This comment however true or false people claim it to be is ridiculous. The day you suffer prejudice in the same or similar manner I hope and pray to God that you have someone to love and support you through those times and not a police force who went out of their way to jeopardise the case!

  15. The ‘KKK’… Oops, sorry UKIP strike again. Last week it was Mark Walker candidate for Redditch who said mixed race couples “are a plague”.

    The Bankers who run UKIP do t really care about what the foot soldiers do, it’s all a game to them.

  16. In addition and in answer to the UKIP supporter above, who said it has gone on long enough re Stephen Lawrence; well, it went on that long because the Metropolitan Police obstructed the law with competence and corruption. If, as in most cases, the usual procedures had occurred, The Lawrence Killers would have been behind bars in two years. The same could be said of the Ricky Reel case.

  17. Mark_Walker_UKIP says:

    I never said: ‘…mixed race couples “are a plague”.’ Because I did not, and they are not. That statement and was made in 1922 by Richard Nikolous Von Coudenhove-Kalergi. It was his distasteful plan and those words come from his plan.

    The media lied and twisted the original story to create sensationalised headlines of a plan which I do not agree with.

    The plan was also financially backed by the early throws of an ‘EU Federalist State Banking System’.

    Practically no-one has actually read the article or the plan in quesiton and sites like this one just keep regurgitating the sensationalised and factually incorrect headlines.


    It smells of divide and rule.

    It is ‘officially’ illegal to incite racial hatred in Britain. If I were Stephen, I
    would object to my name being used to incite hatred – and to help criminals
    control the police. Did Stephen consent to his name being used this way? Show
    the man some respect.

    The Gavin Hopley case had only a fraction of the media coverage of Stephen’s murder.
    Such one sided propaganda is useful for criminals as it enables them to control the
    police. It started in America – it has other uses too. Making crime attractive increases the crime rate. This makes the public want more laws and more prisons. America, the “land of the free” has the world’s highest incarceration rate.

    Media blackout of ethnic crimes, and media hype of ethnic suffering, has resulted in
    misleading media messages. Some politicians claim that such media is necessary
    for the well-being of minorities as it induces sympathy – but this claim is
    patronizing. There are many negative side effects of such media. It facilitates
    the reduction of police powers and makes crime more attractive. An increase in
    crime causes public support for more laws and more prisons – hence more power
    for politicians.

    Why would I think that politicians exploit race bias? Because of the one-sided and
    misleading propaganda which is broadcast via the media, displayed in public
    libraries and taught in public schools – and because of the blackout of
    opposing views -in Britain, the USA and many other places. That’s why. Maybe
    I’m un-PC in assuming that – but maybe I’d be stupid if I didn’t.

    E.g. While former London mayor Ken Livingstone maintained a facade of compassion for the disadvantaged, his policies increased violence on public transport, in homeless
    centers and in public areas which were not well policed. They increased
    violence towards the poor. This is not consistent with compassion for the
    disadvantaged, but it made the public more willing to accept and pay for more
    cameras in public, more laws – and more prisons.

    Hey, what if there was a racist attack in which the attackers had been widely supported? What if there had been a large demonstration in support of the gang who attacked Stephen? What if popular political figures had attended? What if large donations had been made to the gang’s legal defense fund? What if a British popstar had made a big donation? Well, it happened.

    There was a case, similar to Stephen’s case, in 2006 – the Jena 6 case. Only the roles were reversed. An unprovoked assault, in the wake of a rude incident, on a victim
    who had nothing to do with the rude incident. The victim was kicked on the
    ground until he was unconscious and appeared dead. On the date upon which Bell,
    one of the six, was scheduled for sentencing, an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 had
    a demonstration, including Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton. Two of the Jena 6,
    Jones and Purvis later attended the BET Hip Hop Awards in Atlanta – and were
    greeted by a standing ovation. British pop star David Bowie made a gift of
    $10,000 to the legal defense fund of the Jena 6 – and he’s still popular. The
    online advocacy group Color of Change raised more than $212,000 for their fund.
    The victim received no compensation. There was no memorial plate put on the
    site of the attack. Were any changes made to the law? None that I know of. See:
    Jena 6 in Wikipedia.

    “But that’s America! What’s it got to do with us?” You might ask. Because this
    attitude and behavior, which is common in Britain, comes from America. That’s
    why. And its having similar effects. While criminals and politicians gain from
    it – the poor suffer from it.

    The Public Order Act of 1986 prohibits saying anything, or displaying written material,
    which incites racial hatred. Not long after the law was passed, a British paper
    was done for mentioning the race of a rapist. However, this law does not appear
    to apply to hatred which is incited towards whites, as there is still a lot of
    that in the British media. Whites are made scapegoats for bad things which
    happen to non-whites, and their freedom to express opposing views is banned. So
    the public are now fed stories when the police are being heavy handed – but are
    not informed of the full reasons for this. It allows criminals to control the
    media. He who controls the media, controls the public, the votes – and the
    police. This is very useful for crime syndicates, gangs and even petty
    criminals. The claim that reporting black crime rates incites racial hatred is
    a very useful for criminals. The crimes could be reported without inciting
    hatred. One could simply point out that there are also good blacks, when
    reporting the crime. Hip-hop incites racial hatred, should it too be banned?
    The Public Order Act smells of divide and rule – disguised as PC-ness. The use
    of bogeymen to scare the public into obedience. It’s a scam.

    The claim that the disclosure of the black crime rate is likely to incite hatred towards
    blacks is not true. Many of the most popular black artists advertise themselves
    as being criminals. Tupac Shakur has sold over 75 million records worldwide,
    making him one of the best-selling music artists of all time. He boasted of his
    criminality – he even boasted of being in jail as a foetus – and he was.

    Once again:
    It is ‘officially’ illegal to incite racial hatred in Britain. If I were
    Stephen, I would object to my name being used to incite hatred – and to help
    criminals control the police. Did Stephen consent to his name being used this
    way? Show the man some respect.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.